This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

  • Archaeology and the Bible 5 1
Rating:  
Topic: Archaeology and the Bible  (Read 14321 times)

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #60 on: April 27, 2012, 02:00:54 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2012, 04:43:36 pm »
Quote
That is simply not true.  For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).

It is true.  Not every archaeologic find has been proven to be real (ie: "noah's ark", "true cross", etc.) but not all finds have been proven to be fake either. The last one hundred years alone have archaeology finding things that scholars have questioned or doubted for centuries, such as:  the Dead Sea Scrolls, the basalt stone containing the “House of David” inscription, a 7th century BC amulet scroll bearing the name of God, and a stone bearing the name and title of Pontius Pilate, the Judean governor who ordered the execution of Jesus Christ, etc.  In many instances, there are scientist's working to establish the "validity"of the archaeologic finds and they are saying that what science has said was impossible before...they now see scientific evidence that not only would have permitted such an event to happen but also is in line with the Biblical timing of the events. (Which was included in my former posts in this topic as I chose the sources that mentioned scientific evidence along with archaeologic evidence when possible.)

Quote
Ever see the bones of modern-day animals after predators and scavengers have had at them?  They get scattered and would require forensic archeologists to identify what critter the bones came from.  Same thing for dinosaur bones, (and if you're inherently implying that dinosaurs didn't exist by your comment regarding evolution and finding bones, that's a separate debate).

I never meant to imply that dinosaurs didn't exist (I'm not sure how that was 'implied'), I believe they surely did and they are also mentioned in the Bible (Job).  What I meant was evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory.  They believe they can find a fossil and it proves the existence of  the bent-over, primitive "half ape/half man caveman".  I believe God created Adam & Eve fully-formed, intelligent and upright.  I agree, that's a separate debate.

Quote
You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.

Time and again, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.  The Bible has never been proven to be in any conflict with any true, established historical facts.   "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical Reference"---Renowned Archaeologist Nelson Gluek
Quote
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 06:57:27 am
Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.
Quote
That is an incorrect contention.  There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).

That former quote of mine wasn't just my observation--- the same thing has been stated repeatedly in some of the sources I had listed from the "archaeologic finds". 


Quote
Again, your contention is strongly disputed in that your reference source, (biblical), does NOT contain "much incredible accurate historical information".  Your argument is circular because the assumed premise is inaccurate; the conclusion is therefore inaccurate, (false).

I guess it depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you.   When scientists are looking at archaeological finds and validating the dates and their place in history and that information is in line with what is written in the Bible...sure a person can still dispute it, but it doesn't mean they are correct.  It just means they have chosen what they are going to believe (or not) in spite of the evidence/and or facts.  “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” ---Pascal

Quote
Jdog addressed this point however, my point was that biblical references are an invalid, (inaccurate), source.
You have an 'invalid' point.  If you had started a thread "Archaeology and Grimms' Fairy Tales" then "Grimms' Fairy Tales" would have been the source regardless of how "invalid/inaccurate" one would deem them to be.  To keep bringing "tales of Mother Goose" to the table is an attempt to stray from the topic...no matter how much one loves Mother Goose.
   

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #62 on: April 27, 2012, 05:17:08 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"?  (for clarification purposes as I keep seeing it in various places in the FC forum).

What actual archaeologic evidence is there that contradicts "what a fundamentalist believes in"?

Hypothetically speaking, if I were a "fundamentalist" that believed in something false and that was contradicted by actual evidence...to stop searching for the real answers and focus on my own wants would be to go to one of the movies by James Cameron and believe every word said about the evidence of the Red Sea parting and the finding of Jesus' family tomb...and that would be my "sole source".  However, while I respect the mountains of evidence that archaeologists collect, at the same time I understand that their conclusions are only theory produced by their own inductive methods. 

Again, I think it depends on how one interprets the available evidences and how one views the world around them.  I look at all 'evidences' skeptically and more importantly Biblically.  I've never stopped searching for answers as to "how it all works" scientifically and historically.  My conclusion is God is beyond the reach of science.  God created the world (Genesis 1).  And, despite their existence, He didn’t need scientists to do it.


SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2012, 05:21:25 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2012, 07:35:36 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 

Let's not forget Mel Gibson's profit motive in the fictional Passion of Christ movie.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

techwreck8870

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13 (since 2012)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #65 on: April 28, 2012, 05:14:27 am »
topic sounds like someone triing to rationalize science and religion in the same thread

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #66 on: April 28, 2012, 08:46:24 am »
topic sounds like someone triing to rationalize science and religion in the same thread

That's essentially the basis of the debate however, the underlying motivation stems from a previous premise.  The proponent(s) being religious adherent(s) who want to justify the "bible" as an accurate reference source while opponents, (non-religious persons), maintain that the reference source is not a valid one.

So far, (which would be for the last few thousand years), the religious adherents have been grasping at rationalizing straws and been unable to support their claims that the "bible" is substantially either historical or, factually accurate. 
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3108 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #67 on: April 28, 2012, 01:22:55 pm »
Quote
What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"?  (for clarification purposes as I keep seeing it in various places in the FC forum).

Someone who takes the myths as truth-- believes the bible as a realistic interpretation of what happened in the past and tries to apply/spread the stories in the present as truth rather than focusing on current evidences and issues.

Quote
What actual archaeologic evidence is there that contradicts "what a fundamentalist believes in"?

I thought you said you'd watch the video. You've already brought up examples that Falcon9 has shown contradictions or biased results from xtians. And I recall in past threads you showing "evidences" of Noah's Ark, which were almost cartoonish in retrospect seeing how there was a bible-themepark built near the supposed site of the mythological boat. I remember posting a news report with archaeologist's getting frustrated with the religious attempting to align finds with what the bible says and how it's a waste of time when they have to step up and set the record straight.

Quote
Hypothetically speaking, if I were a "fundamentalist" that believed in something false and that was contradicted by actual evidence...to stop searching for the real answers and focus on my own wants would be to go to one of the movies by James Cameron and believe every word said about the evidence of the Red Sea parting and the finding of Jesus' family tomb...and that would be my "sole source".  However, while I respect the mountains of evidence that archaeologists collect, at the same time I understand that their conclusions are only theory produced by their own inductive methods.

Granted archaeology can be a guessing game at times, I'd rather have someone unbiased who says "This ancient trinket might have been a children's toy or a tool used in religious ceremonies." rather than a biased person going "This trinket is specifically talked about in Luke _:__ and therefore the bible is completely accurate!" which seems to be an example of what Falcon and I are stressing and what you're pretty much doing.

Quote
Again, I think it depends on how one interprets the available evidences and how one views the world around them.

I agree, though one who falls for magical thinking will be vastly different from people who interpret the world as...realistic.

Quote
I look at all 'evidences' skeptically and more importantly Biblically.

This is a completely contradictory statement though- putting biblical sources in front of skepticism immediately cancels out your ability to be skeptical. It's like saying "I'm a skeptic, but without a doubt fairies exist". You've already demonstrated your lack of skepticism towards this subject (as Falcon9 has pointed out), so you are not looking at evidences skeptically since you constantly lean towards mythology.

Quote
I've never stopped searching for answers as to "how it all works" scientifically and historically.  My conclusion is God is beyond the reach of science.  God created the world (Genesis 1).  And, despite their existence, He didn’t need scientists to do it

Another complete contradictory statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a creationist (or something fairly close to one), you lean towards mythology rather than actual science and history, and therefore you haven't searched for answers to how it 'all' works. The amount of bias here is ludicrous, so I feel reposting my previous post is important-

The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #68 on: April 28, 2012, 03:54:40 pm »
For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).


It is true.

I've previously mentioned that if you're going to snip the context of what you are replying to and then reply out of that context that I'll be reciprocating in kind.  With that said, the refutations which you'll be snipping should you choose to reply out of context again, follow:

Not every archaeologic find has been proven to be real (ie: "noah's ark", "true cross", etc.) but not all finds have been proven to be fake either.

The suspect evidence purported to be "ark wood" and "true cross wood" have not been validated as what they are claimed to be, (it is a logical fallacy to assert that "...not all finds have been proven to be fake either" since the burden of proof supporting the claims that these are evidence of the 'real things' claimed remains with the claimant).

...they now see scientific evidence that not only would have permitted such an event to happen ...

No, you are confusing hypothetical possibilities with "scientific evidence", (apparently when it suits your own argument and disregarding such when it counters your arguments); the two are not synonymous.
 
... in line with the Biblical timing of the events. (Which was included in my former posts in this topic as I chose the sources that mentioned scientific evidence along with archaeologic evidence when possible.)

No; once again, the time period _range_ is not equivalent to being "...in line with the Biblical timing of the events", nor does the example from a biased religious 'archeologist' support any purely religious claims about the find, (e.g., chariot wheel does NOT = Red Sea parted).

I never meant to imply that dinosaurs didn't exist (I'm not sure how that was 'implied'), I believe they surely did and they are also mentioned in the Bible (Job).  What I meant was evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory.

This is incorrect; secular forensic archeologists who study such bones attempt to reassemble them into whatever critter they once formed, (they aren't trying to make a T-Rex out of hominid bones and thus 'force-fit' them to a pre-concluded theory).  On the other hand,  we have you attempting to present a religious archeologist's force-fitting a chariot wheel to fit a religious hypothesis about the Red Sea parting.

They believe they can find a fossil and it proves the existence of  the bent-over, primitive "half ape/half man caveman".

No, they don't "believe" they can find such, they've found such bones which _do_ form early hominids, (the bones of more than 500 early hominins have been found, such as cro-magnon and australopithecines).  

I believe God created Adam & Eve fully-formed, intelligent and upright.

Unfortunately, your superstitious religious belief is contradicted by the solid evidence mentioned above.

Quote
You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.

Time and again, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.  

No, the historic authenticity of 'biblical accounts has not been confirmed by the scientific disciplines of biology, geology and astronomy and has in fact, been contradicted by those disciplines time and again.  Your simple declaration making these initial claims lacks specifics and evidence to support them.  If you'd care to wheel any out into the cross-fire, that can be obliged.

The Bible has never been proven to be in any conflict with any true, established historical facts.  

What?  That's a pretty outrageous claim, (and I suppose the intent was to get opponents to do the work of providing evidence contrary to such a claim however, the burden of proof remains with the claimant - you - even if the diversion of quoting someone else to palm-off that burden is attempted below).

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical Reference"---Renowned Archaeologist Nelson Gluek

"Nelson Glueck (1900–1971) was an American rabbi, academic and archaeologist. Dr Glueck served as president of Hebrew Union College from 1947 until his death, and his pioneering work in biblical archaeology ..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Glueck

No religiously-biased source is considered valid in this discussion due to inherent vested interest.

There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).
[/quote]

That former quote of mine wasn't just my observation--- the same thing has been stated repeatedly in some of the sources I had listed from the "archaeologic finds".  

Those biased religious sources are rejected under an inherent conflict of interest in 'justifying' a pre-existing religious belief.  Sorry.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you.  

An important distinction in the field of evidence is teh difference between some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference. Generally, hard evidence is not open to 'interpretation' in regards to what it directly is, scientifically, (as opposed to interpreting what it _may_ 'represent' - a far more subjective judgement).

When scientists are looking at archaeological finds and validating the dates and their place in history and that information is in line with what is written in the Bible...sure a person can still dispute it, but it doesn't mean they are correct.

The reason that such is disputed is because such finds _Do Not_validate biblical claims, (and in fact are contrary to such biblical claims made by religiously-biased archeologists' pre-existing religious beliefs).  The predisposition of those who dispute such religious claims is a perspective of skepticism and requiring reasonable evidence to support outrageous claims.  No such evidence having veracity has been presented without stretching credibility to the breaking point.

It just means they have chosen what they are going to believe (or not) in spite of the evidence/and or facts.   “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” ---Pascal

If you're talking about religious adherents/fundamentalists there, I fully agree.  If you're trying to shift such onto those who are still waiting for valid evidence to support religious adherents'/fundie claims to be presented, (which is not a matter of any pre-existing 'beliefs'), then you're off-base.

If you had started a thread "Archaeology and Grimms' Fairy Tales" then "Grimms' Fairy Tales" would have been the source regardless of how "invalid/inaccurate" one would deem them to be.

There's no reasoning at at behind your assertion; it is completely illogical. If the reference source  is fictional/disputed as such, then it is immaterial what you choose to entitle the thread and can/will be disputed despite your objections, (since the disputed source is NOT being taken for granted as accurate).  If you want to concede that your source is inaccurate/fictional then the contention about that point would cease.  If not, it'll continue regardless of your attempts to characterize your own inherent premise/thread title as "straying from the topic", (especially when the content of the discussion clearly shows that that aspect is directly on-topic). Everytime you quoted the disputed source, it'll be contended.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 04:04:16 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2012, 04:03:14 pm »
Granted archaeology can be a guessing game at times, I'd rather have someone unbiased who says "This ancient trinket might have been a children's toy or a tool used in religious ceremonies." rather than a biased person going "This trinket is specifically talked about in Luke _:__ and therefore the bible is completely accurate!" which seems to be an example of what Falcon and I are stressing and what you're pretty much doing.

Quote


In support of your point, (excerpt follows):

"In 1936, while excavating ruins of a 2000-year-old village near Baghdad, workers discovered mysterious small vase. A 6-inch-high pot of bright yellow clay dating back two millennia contained a cylinder of sheet-copper 5 inches by 1.5 inches. The edge of the copper cylinder was soldered with a 60-40 lead-tin alloy comparable to today's solder. The bottom of the cylinder was capped with a crimped-in copper disk and sealed with bitumen or asphalt. Another insulating layer of asphalt sealed the top and also held in place an iron rod suspended into the center of the copper cylinder. The rod showed evidence of having been corroded with an acidic agent.

Although the find was originally classified as "misc. religious artifact" when it was cataloged at the Baghdad Museum, a German archaeologist , Wilhelm König, examined the object and came to a surprising conclusion that the clay pot was nothing less than an ancient electric battery."
-- http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 12:25:29 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #70 on: April 30, 2012, 05:09:45 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 

Let's not forget Mel Gibson's profit motive in the fictional Passion of Christ movie.

Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #71 on: April 30, 2012, 05:12:23 pm »
Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...

I'm aware of that.  It did however, concern a character mentioned on 'the bible', (which means it's in context within this thread). Did you have a good weekend?
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #72 on: April 30, 2012, 05:39:18 pm »
Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...

I'm aware of that.  It did however, concern a character mentioned on 'the bible', (which means it's in context within this thread). Did you have a good weekend?

What?  :dontknow: James Cameron was a director for "The Titanic" and then he decided to direct a movie about the parting of the Red Sea and finding the tomb of Jesus.  His efforts have the scholars laughing, his "facts" don't add up.  They don't add up historically or Biblically.  Mel might have made a movie about a Bible character...it doesn't add anything of any particular interest to this thread as there have been many movies made on various Bible characters including one about Jezebel played by Betty Davis...

How was your weekend?  You having nice, sunny, warm weather yet?  All we have is cold, gloomy and rainy days.  I've noticed you have another FC thread devoted just to you and some new admirers fans...lucky you!! ;D  My weekend wasn't that exciting.  Have had a BAD sinus infection since Friday, (I think my immune system is entirely shot) but had to go to work anyway.  Had my promotion made official finally (will be 'in training' until June) but it was 'bittersweet' because my friend was "let go" due to "company b.s."  We're all mad, sad and miss her.

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2012, 05:44:22 pm »
coughgotothedoctorcoughcough

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2012, 05:50:25 pm »
coughgotothedoctorcoughcough

I know...I'm a procrastinator...   I was told there's a 2 month wait and that was a few weeks ago, still haven't made an appointment.   :-   I worry that the doctor is going to run some tests, slap me with an outrageous bill and tell me that I died three years ago...lol

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
190 Replies
24876 Views
Last post September 06, 2011, 07:48:02 pm
by mardukblood2009
0 Replies
519 Views
Last post August 21, 2010, 05:46:04 pm
by marieelissa
2 Replies
838 Views
Last post August 23, 2010, 07:50:53 pm
by amyrouse
16 Replies
2162 Views
Last post October 14, 2010, 02:27:01 pm
by shernajwine
bible

Started by nicchargers « 1 2 ... 5 6 » in Off-Topic

82 Replies
7703 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 04:27:52 pm
by ten7der