Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Hope]

If I make any archaelogical claim, it does not automatically make my assertion right. I need to prove my assertion, and prove it to such an extent that it not only convinces me, and any average person that reads it, but also convince someone who is an expert in the field that I am discussing. For any person within a scientific or technical discipline, the way to have a concept peer-reviewed is to submit a paper detailing my claim, and my evidences, to a magazine that specialises in my field. These professional magazines are peer-reviewed by independent journalists within the field.

For achaeology, anyone can go and study old bones. But to make valid hypothesis about how the person with the bones lived, how they died, what they ate and so forth, I need evidence. To be sure that my hypothesis is viable from the evidence I found, I need to submit my paper to be peer-reviewed so that it is "certified" as a credible hypothesis.

I understand all that, rojse. And I agree with it.

My point was to show how grating it sounds for people to keep using the words "peer-reviewed" as if they are somehow a magic formula that makes everything unquestionably true, and to throw around other fancy wordage just to appear more intelligent than and above others. It comes across as very snooty, and provides an easy way to dismiss the opposition's claims without even investigating the claims.

I can appreciate anyone's opposing view so long as it is presented in a gracious manner. I like to think someone will give my view as much credit as I give theirs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are the one making qualifiers here to suit your own purposes.

See here and decide for yourself. Far more instructive is the fact that adherence to your theology drives you to divest archaeology of its scientific pedigree and content.

 

[anders]

^ Carbon dating can find rocks billions of years old, the joys of Science, reliable and accurate

Only that for rocks, there are other accurate methods, because C14 dating is by definition useless if there's no organic compounds present, and is anyway not working for specimens older than 60,000 years.

But I agree that science works and makes useful predictions, but books 1500 years and older never advanced our knowledge.

 

[Autodidact]

Why? If the dictionary, a supposedly reliable, objective souce of information, fails to qualify "archaeology" as only truly archaeology if it is "peer-reviewed," then why should I question it?

You are the one making qualifiers here to suit your own purposes. :cover:

It's included within the word "scientific." That's how science works. It's part of the apparatus for minimizing bias and error.

 

[joeboonda]

Joe... the ASA has no 'offical' position on Creationism... however

Creation and evolution
*emphasis mine

Belief in a creator doesn't prevent knowledge of science.
This group from what I've read of them is currently strongly against YEC.

wa:do

Yeah, I have been studying that site and others, so far, I really don't agree with them at all. What I am pointing out is that there are Christians (I don't name myself with them) who have no problem with an old earth and creation and what means God used to create life. But I am getting off topic with that.

 

[joeboonda]

You are prolific at peppering your posts with worthless "links and pics", but here we are talking about "Archeaological evidence for the Bible", and the term 'Archeaological' refers to peer-reviewed science.

Here is the quote in full:


"I put links and pics (I think most were deleted) of all kinds of artifacts and their links that show the historical reliabilty of the Bible. Artifacts with names of kings and cities and events, etc. You can go and walk through Hezekiah's Tunnel if you like. He had it built to bring water into Jerusalem from the spring of Gihon by cutting through 1700 feet of rock, when the Assyrians under King Sannacherib were moving toward Jerusalem to lay seige to it. (2 Chronicles 32:1-4) Tours are still available today."

You ignored Hezzekiah's Tunnel completely. It is there and it is in the Bible. Just like Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and other towns mentioned in the Bible are there.

 

[Sunstone]

Why? If the dictionary, a supposedly reliable, objective souce of information, fails to qualify "archaeology" as only truly archaeology if it is "peer-reviewed," then why should I question it?

You are the one making qualifiers here to suit your own purposes. :cover:

I don't think many people would insist that a dictionary is a complete and thorough source of information on science or the various scientific methods.

 

[Autodidact]

In my opinion, the Bible, especially the old testament, is the history of the Jewish people, as written by those people, to the best of their abilities, at the time. Some of it was written quite close to the events described, and is very accurate. Some of it was written thousands of years after, about events that never actually happened, but formed the background belief, the mythology of those people. Every culture has such a background myth system. Some of them were written a few generations after the events described, and have a core event that was true, greatly exaggerated by time and tradition. So some parts of the Bible are quite accurate, especially those talking about specific individuals and places, and other parts of it are way off. For example, we know for certain that there has never been a worldwide flood, that it is not possible to put two of each of the world's land animals on one boat, and that all of the world's languages did not originate in one place. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews did fight battles, and won some of them, but did not invade or conquer all of Canaan. Something may have happened involving a famine and conquest, but the entire Jewish nation was never enslaved nor escaped from Egypt. And so forth.

 

[joeboonda]

In my opinion, the Bible, especially the old testament, is the history of the Jewish people, as written by those people, to the best of their abilities, at the time. Some of it was written quite close to the events described, and is very accurate. Some of it was written thousands of years after, about events that never actually happened, but formed the background belief, the mythology of those people. Every culture has such a background myth system. Some of them were written a few generations after the events described, and have a core event that was true, greatly exaggerated by time and tradition. So some parts of the Bible are quite accurate, especially those talking about specific individuals and places, and other parts of it are way off. For example, we know for certain that there has never been a worldwide flood, that it is not possible to put two of each of the world's land animals on one boat, and that all of the world's languages did not originate in one place. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews did fight battles, and won some of them, but did not invade or conquer all of Canaan. Something may have happened involving a famine and conquest, but the entire Jewish nation was never enslaved nor escaped from Egypt. And so forth.

You absolutely sure about all that, huh? I agree to completely disagree and leave it be, I gotta go get my kids from school.

 

[Autodidact]

You absolutely sure about all that, huh? I agree to completely disagree and leave it be, I gotta go get my kids from school.

No, I think I made it clear it was just my opinion. The clue is where I said, "In my opinion..."

The part about no flood, and so forth, though, yes, quite sure.
As sure as we are how electricity works, or that the earth revolves around the sun, and for similar reasons--that's what the evidence shows.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You ignored Hezzekiah's Tunnel completely.

Actually, I've walked/waded through the tunnel - it's a remarkable piece of archaeology. What it indicates, however, is merely that the Bible conflates myth, folklore, and history. But, as I've noted on more than one occasion, evidence of tornadic activity in Kansas does not constitute evidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz, and to suggest that Hezekiah's Tunnel Tunnel constitutes archaeological "evidence for the Bible" is either misguided or dishonest.

 

[Hope]

Actually, I've walked/waded through the tunnel - it's a remarkable piece of archaeology. What it indicates, however, is merely that the Bible conflates myth, folklore, and history. But, as I've noted on more than one occasion, evidence of tornadic activity in Kansas does not constitute evidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz, and to suggest that Hezekiah's Tunnel Tunnel constitutes archaeological "evidence for the Bible" is either misguided or dishonest.

Let me ask you this, then, Jay----in your mind, what would constitute evidence for the Bible?

Apparently everything we've provided so far hasn't met your overly-stringent criteria. Maybe you could help us out.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

in your mind, what would constitute evidence for the Bible?

Hope,

Evidence must match conclusions. That a city exists is not evidence that anything that the Bible says that happened there is true. Jericho, for example, exists - but there is no evidence that it was inhabited during the Conquest or anything else happened there that is in the Bible.

 

[Hope]

Hope,

Evidence must match conclusions. That a city exists is not evidence that anything that the Bible says that happened there is true. Jericho, for example, exists - but there is no evidence that it was inhabited during the Conquest or anything else happened there that is in the Bible.

Ok, fair enough.

I guess what I'm asking then, is there any evidence at all that could be considered to argue for the accuracy and validity of the Bible? Or is this thread a complete waste of time?

Because I and others such as Joeboonda (well, we seem to be the only ones) have provided many examples of supportive evidence. There's no sense in continuing the debate/discussion if we disagree on what that evidence is supposed to look like.

 

[joeboonda]

2 Kings 20:20
And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Chronicles 32:30
This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
The Siloam Inscription
"[...when] (the tunnel) was driven through. And this was the way in which it was cut through: While [...] (were) still [...] axe(s), each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellows, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed (the rock), each man toward his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the head(s) of the quarrymen was 100 cubits."

Here we have the Bible saying this tunnel was built. We have the Biblical account in many manuscripts and scrolls, etc.,the tunnel and the pool and even the inscription as archeological evidence. I had pics of the Pool of Siloam before, but they were deleted by the Mods because I pasted too much info and we are limited. The fact is that there is so much archeological evidence that shows the history in the Bible is accurate and true that it cannot be questioned by anyone with a brain in their head. If the historical statements of cities, kings, governors, etc. are shown to be accurate and true as they have been time and again, you can bet the rest of it is true, too. It is God's Word to us, his revelation of himself and how we may be reconciled to him through Christ. This is the underlying theme throughout the Bible. Compare this to say, the Book of Mormon. The land and cities and places of importance in that book are basically nonexistent, yet the Bible describes the mountains, seas, rivers, cities, kings, governors, structures, etc. in detail and you can go SEE them. I cannot imagine one who has walked through Hezekiah's Tunnel and still discards the BIble. This is folly and foolishness and eternal damnation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the historical statements of cities, kings, governors, etc. are shown to be accurate and true as they have been time and again, you can bet the rest of it is true, too. It is God's Word to us, his revelation of himself and how we may be reconciled to him through Christ.

By that logic, the movies "Casablanca", "Ben Hur" and "300" are also completely true and accurate, as is Shakespeare's "Richard III" and the Mark Twain story "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court".

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, fair enough.

I guess what I'm asking then, is there any evidence at all that could be considered to argue for the accuracy and validity of the Bible? Or is this thread a complete waste of time?

Because I and others such as Joeboonda (well, we seem to be the only ones) have provided many examples of supportive evidence. There's no sense in continuing the debate/discussion if we disagree on what that evidence is supposed to look like.

Well for me I think here's the problem. I believe that parts of the Bible are (relatively) accurate and other parts are not. So evidence of ordinary things that we know to be true, such as kings and cities, do nothing to provide evidence for extraordinary things, such as dead people reviving or towers that reach to heaven. So, if you want to show, independently of the Bible, that there was once a worldwide flood, then you need some evidence that supports that, such as a global sedimentary layer (there isn't one) an explanation for where the water came from, a working model of an ark that floats, an explanation of where the water went to, a fossil record that is consistent with that, which obviously would be a layer of extremely rich fossil beds all from the same time period (there isn't any) and so forth. For me, the simple fact that the Babylonian, Indian, Egyptian and Chinese civilizations thrived before, during and after the alleged flood without ever taking notice of the fact that they were under water for part of this time conclusively proves that there was never any such worldwide flood.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, I've walked/waded through the tunnel - it's a remarkable piece of archaeology. What it indicates, however, is merely that the Bible conflates myth, folklore, and history. But, as I've noted on more than one occasion, evidence of tornadic activity in Kansas does not constitute evidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz, and to suggest that Hezekiah's Tunnel Tunnel constitutes archaeological "evidence for the Bible" is either misguided or dishonest.

In all fairness, Jay, The Oz books were not intended as histories. What do you think the authors of the OT intended? I think they were writing the history of their people to the best of their abilities. What do you think they were doing?
For me the limitation is that in a relatively pre-literate time, their knowledge was extremely limited. They were recording oral traditions, a mishmash of facts, myths, beliefs, poetry and exaggerations. That's certainly what it reads like. What I don't understand is why anyone would take it as anything else. Maybe someone who thinks it's literally true can tell us why they think so?

 

[painted wolf]

The places in the Mayan Codexes (thier holy books) are real enough, does that make thier religion true as well.
Mount Olympus is real, as was Troy... did Hera and Posiden really muck about with Odysseus? Did he really meet a woman who turned men into swine, find a gloden fleece and escape a giant cyclops?

People tell stories about the places they know. Its no different for the ancheint Isrialites as it was for the Greeks, Mayans, Austrailians, Japanese and so on.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

The places in the Mayan Codexes (thier holy books) are real enough, does that make thier religion true as well.
Mount Olympus is real, as was Troy... did Hera and Posiden really muck about with Odysseus? Did he really meet a woman who turned men into swine, find a gloden fleece and escape a giant cyclops?

People tell stories about the places they know. Its no different for the ancheint Isrialites as it was for the Greeks, Mayans, Austrailians, Japanese and so on.

wa:do

Exactly. These are very good parallel examples to the Bible. The Bible belongs in the same category as the Vedas, Popol Vuh, etc.