semyaza

The rank and file apologist tends to operate under different "rules of evidence". They seem to think that if they can show one Biblical fact that is supported by external scholarship, then every other word must be true. I think it stems in part from a misunderstanding of the critics argument. They seem to think that we critics aver that the the Bible is completely false, every word. If they can show that one supportable fact exists, they think they have demolished the critic's argument.

CX

There's actually an outstanding interview with Israel Finkelstein in the current issue of BAR where he discusses what archaeology can and cannot do with regard to the biblical narratives. His basic conclusion given archaeological findings is that some of the stuff in th OT is true, some is exagerated and some is not true. Precisely what we would expect from a book written by men.

The Admiral

I have heard or read at some time that central and south american calendars go back ten thousand years. Comments?

The Admiral

lugotorix

You can point out that San Francisco and Malta exist, and Charles V of Spain was a historical figure, but that doesn't prove that all the events in The Maltese Falcon actually happened. Not that this will deter the most committed (or is that commitable?) of them, but it might get through to the more reasonable ones (or at least the ones that like film noir )


lugotorix

Hex

Thanks for all the info/observations! I actually got some good stuff to help out with arguements ...

- Hex

lpetrich

I don't know anything about that subject. I suggest that you do some research on the subject -- Internet search engines will make that research very easy, but one has to be careful of secondary sources -- try to find primary sources or secondaries that are as close to the primaries as possible.

Sandslice

I forget where I saw it, but the Maya calendar (which was based on a mod-20 numbering system used in cycles of 13) started around 3100 BCE. This certainly invites checking for yourself, though.

Marduk

The Mayan's had hundreds of calendars, they were afraid if the calendars all converged time would end, so they kept making up more and more. (read "The History of Zero")
The one that dates back to 3100 BCE is "The Long Count" a simple numbering of days from the beginning. I think it's from the time the 'gods' came down, not the beginning of creation.

semyaza

This is correct. However, simply becuase the calendar starts at 3100 BCE doesn't mean that it was in use for that long. After all, our present system starts at the year 1, but the calendar itself was only instituted several hundred years after that point.

IIRC, the Mayan calendar is thought to date from the pre-Classic period, sometime about 250 BCE.

Anti-Creedance Front

Ha ha!!!! Just the opposite, archaeology will utterly destroy the Bible. I am dead set on the view that one day they'll dig up something proving Zoroaster, Mithra, or El's connection to Christianity. However, like good sheep, most will go into a state of denial despite its truth.