Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Sunstone]

I understand. I'll see what I can dig up.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

Keep in mind, though, that if you are looking for verification by mainstream science/archaeology, you're probably not going to find any, because they are the ones who sweep this stuff aside.

But aren't there tens of thousands of scientists involved in evolutionary fields? It's difficult for me to imagine so many scientists all agreeing to sweep aside the same evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I say "probably" because of the inexact nature of Goliath's measurements. No one has found Goliath's actual bones and all we have to go on is Scripture which says he was 6 cubits and a span.

I would suggest that this is insufficient warrant to assert "probably". In fact, all that we know about anthropology (both physical and cultural) would suggest that it is far more "probable" that we are reading legend or embellished folk history. Certainly there are far more examples of exageration than giantism.

Interestingly enough, Goliath turns out to be a perfect case in point ...

1. The Philistines rallied their forces for battle at Socoh in Judah and camped between Socoh and Azekah at Ephes-dammim.
2. Saul and the Israelites also gathered and camped in the Vale of the Terebinth, drawing up their battle line to meet the Philistines.
3. The Philistines were stationed on one hill and the Israelites on an opposite hill, with a valley between them.
4. A champion named Goliath of Gath came out from the Philistine camp; he was six and a half feet tall. [emphasis added]

- from New American Bible of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

tc Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches. So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres&#8221. However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet&#8221. This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold. See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 286, 291.

- from -NET BIBLE: 1 Samuel 17; note 7

Textual variations

There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17. One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: 4QSam(a), the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits and a span," (about six feet six inches), and this is what the 4th century CE Septuagint texts and the 1st century CE historian Josephus also record. Later Septuagint manuscripts and the Masoretic texts read "six cubits and a span," about nine feet six inches.

The second major difference lies between the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of modern translations, and early Septuagint manuscripts such as the 3rd century CE Codex Vaticanus. Vaticanus does not contain the verses describing David coming each day with food for his brothers, nor 1 Samuel 17:55-58 in which Saul seems unaware of David's identity, referring to him as "this youth" and asking Abner to find out the name of his father. The narrative therefore reads that Goliath is challenging the Israelites to combat, the Israelites are afraid, and David, already with Saul, accepts the challenge. The shorter Septuagint version removes a number of ambiguities which have puzzled commentators: it removes 1 Samuel 17:55-58 in which Saul seems not to know David, despite having taken him as one of his shield-bearers and harpist; it removes 1 Samuel 17:50, the presence of which makes it seem as if David kills Goliath twice, once with his sling and then again with a sword; and it gives David a clear reason, as Saul's personal shield-bearer, for accepting Goliath's challenge.

Scholars drawing on studies of oral transmission and folklore have concluded that the non-Septuagint material "is a folktale grafted onto the initial text of the court history which comprises the bulk of 1 Samuel." [emphasis added]

- from Wikipedia

In other words - "probably" not. But you seem to me so quick to enthusiastically and uncritically embrace the improbable, that it appears to model a serious, if not irresponsible, lack of discernment.

 

[Hope]

I would suggest that this is insufficient warrant to assert "probably". In fact, all that we know about anthropology (both physical and cultural) would suggest that it is far more "probable" that we are reading legend or embellished folk history. Certainly there are far more examples of exageration than giantism.

Of course there are examples of exaggeration in legends. But you didn't respond to my point about the improbability of Goliath being merely a tall man within the context of the story in which he is placed. If he wasn't a real giant, the story makes no sense. Again, I ask for your opinion on this point.

I've read myths and legends, and see a distinct difference in how they are written and how the Bible is written. It's primarily because of presuppositions that dispose of any possibility of the miraculous that hinders one from seeing the realism and historicity of Biblical accounts.

Interestingly enough, Goliath turns out to be a perfect case in point ...
In other words - "probably" not. But you seem to me so quick to enthusiastically and uncritically embrace the improbable, that it appears to model a serious, if not irresponsible, lack of discernment.

I like to think outside the box, rather than confining my brain till it suffocates.

I have plenty of discernment. Do you? I'd venture to guess you haven't really looked into the possibility of giants.

Thank you for pointing out these variations of the Biblical text. I will look into this.

 

[Sunstone]

I've read myths and legends, and see a distinct difference in how they are written and how the Bible is written.

Have you read Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, or Micea Eliade?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've read myths and legends, and see a distinct difference in how they are written and how the Bible is written.

Perhaps you could explain that difference with reference to 1 Samuel.

I like to think outside the box, rather than confining my brain till it suffocates.

I'll agree that your brain appears more than sufficiently 'aired' ...

 

[gnostic]

I've read myths and legends, and see a distinct difference in how they are written and how the Bible is written.

Then you really don't have any idea how the bible, myths, and legends are written.

Follow the history of biblical writings and extra-biblical writings closely, and you will see there are no difference with bible from literature of mythology and legends.

 

[Autodidact]

Comparative mythology can actually be quite compelling and tell us a lot. But if you want to dismiss it, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat. ( No pun intended.) You are dismissing things just as airily as I supposedly am.

It's very compelling, very interesting stuff. Psychological truths, common human themes all over the world, all great. But as direct evidence for actual occurrences in the real world, very weak. Also extremely prone to subjective interpretation. To count it as any kind of objective evidence, you would have to do a random, statistical analysis, not cherry pick the ones that seem most similar to you. For example, the reason that listing of stories is included in that evolution site is that the author finds the dissimilarities to be evidence against any global flood.

We've covered all of this already in this thread. Our arguments are merely going in circles....which is why I'm getting tired of rehashing this whole flood thing over and over. *sigh*

I've always found this simple fact to be the most powerful evidence against the flood. Honestly I find the whole idea so silly it's hard to even talk about evidence with someone who takes it seriously, but the very basic fact that there simply isn't enough water should be enough to dissuade any reasonable person who has been conned by the YEC liars.

But once more: saying there isn't enough water is presupposing that the topography of the earth was the same before the Flood as it is today.

Yes, pretty much. You see, geologists actually know when and how the mountain ranges were formed. They were formed primarily by huge continental plates very slowly and gradually moving up against each other, so the land is pushed up with massive upheavals and earthquakes. This same process continues today, and can be observed and quantified. Even this slow, slow process triggers massive, destructive earthquakes.

Those who adhere to the Flood theory look at the world's topography today and see it as being the result of the Flood.

It's not a theory. It's a myth, or at best a hypothesis which has been amply disproven. They may think they see that, but they couldn't be more wrong. It's physically impossible, among other things. The earthquakes alone would have been more destructive than the flood. Any mention of those earthquakes in the Bible or the world's myths?

I know you and many others hate AiG, and while I don't subscribe to everything they put out, I do find their theories regarding what happened geologically during the Flood to be quite interesting. Especially because they refer to a geophysicist who comes up with many of these theories. And I would assume a geophysicist knows his stuff.

It's not that I hate them; it's not about my personal emotional attitude. It's just that they're so inaccurate. There are plain old falsehoods on every page.

And this brings us to: You assume a geophysicist knows his stuff, unless he disagrees with you. This inconsistency does not reflect well on you.

According to these theories, there were no really high mountains before the flood, and most of the earth's water was underground. So when the Bible refers to the water coming from the "fountains of the deep," it's referring to a massive volcanic upheaval, in which most of that water underground came bursting out. Our present-day water table is merely a remnant of those "fountains of the deep." So, going by this theory, we know where the water came from, and we also know where it went. It now forms our deep oceans.

Again, it's hard to take this stuff seriously--mountains popping up out of nowhere overnight, with no known mechanism to explain it, and no one noticing it. Again, Hope, we know the total amount of water, including underground and in the oceans. It isn't enough. Unless, as you say, the earth was once flat. The problem is that this is the kind of ridiculous, ad hoc smoke blowing that the creationists have to do. They have no explanation for how or why the mountains suddenly popped up, why this is never mentioned or noticed, how anyone could possibly have survived the enormous earthquakes and daily tsunamis that would have to result, why no one seems to have noticed them, etc. etc. Also, not to get too biblical, but the Bible explicitly says that the waters covered the high mountains, so they would have to be there to have been covered.

 

[Autodidact]

I confess that the one thing I still don't have too much knowledge about is the whole dating process. This is the only thing right now that throws me off a bit. I don't know enough about the accuracy of dating methods to make a judgment one way or another. I've read arguments from both sides. I just try to look at as much evidence as possible with an open mind, and so far I can't agree there's absolutely no evidence of a massive, worldwide flood. Because there is.

Let's come back to the dating stuff later. It's not that hard, and completely demolishes any possibility for the flood or a young earth, but we don't have to deal with it now. Not only is there almost no evidence for a global flood--there is tons and tons of evidence against it. Here's just a few of the obvious objections:

--Such a flood would have utterly destroyed all plant life, on land. Thus, when the waters receded, there would have been nothing but a barren, empty, lifeless surface.
--All the animals on earth and in the water would have been killed at the same time. (ocean dwellers: water not salty enough. freshwater: too salty) So we would expect to see a single layer of fossils all over the earth, all the same age, with a massive extinction event represented by a single equally massive layer of fossils. There isn't one.
--There is a kind of geological layer called a paleosol. This is a kind of rock formed by a thick layer of earth when the earth is not under water, which is later compacted and turned to rock. These paleosols appear all over the earth at all different periods, demonstrating that at the point they were laid down, that part of the earth could not possibly have been under water.
--Had there been a flood, you would expect to see three basic layers: the pre-flood base layer, the flood deposits, representing violent sudden erosion, scouring of underlying rocks, and layers of mixed mud, gravel and organic debris, and absolutely filled with fossils of everything then in existence. From the frequent actual local floods on earth, we know what these layers look like (think Katrina) everything jumbled up together, not neatly sorted. Then a layer of silt on top of everything. Finally we would have layers comparable to what is forming today. This is not in fact what the earth looks like. In fact we have millions of layers in many complex formations--too complex to go into detail without th equivalent of several geology courses.
--For example, there are many places in the world where a layer of conglomerate rock, with large rocks and even boulders stuck in it like raisins in cake, rest on top of thousands of layers of sedimentary rock formed from silting layers of sand. Obviously in a flood the heavier boulders would sink to the bottom, so again--not possible to form from a flood. The bottom layers were already hardened into rock when the heavier layer on top formed.
--Often there are clean, sharp boundaries between geological layers. Sometimes one layer has fossil barnacles on it, with another layer of rock on top. These barnacles and limpets only attach to surface rocks, not under water, so obviously the bottom layer was not under water, and then much later another layer was laid down on top of it. Not possible during a flood.
--The biggest problem, IMO, is the order of fossil succession. It's always the same, all over the world. The older, more primitive creatures are on the bottom, regardless of weight or density. Then more recent creatures, such as dinosaurs. Mammals only on top, and humans on the very top. The sorting is never by weight or buoyancy, always by order of development. Couple examples: extinct flying creatures, like pteranodon, is always in older, lower layers than more modern heavy creatures like say a hippo, while birds and hippos are in the same layer. Do flood believers think that pteranodons somehow got drowned, while hippos flew above them? Similarly, extinct plants like giant ferns are in older, lower layers than more recent plants, along with their characteristic pollen. How would a flood possibly do this? A dramatic example are sea turtles. Because they are recent species, they are found in the highest, newest rock layers, above frogs, above dinosaurs. How would a flood do this? This isn't a sea turtle fossil--it's all of them. This pattern is found over and over again, thousands upon thousands of times.
--All kinds of fossilized remnants like termite nests, was cocoons, dinosaur nests and eggs, bird nests and eggs, fossilized worm holes, rodent burrows, animal tracks, even animal dung in its original piles as it dried and cracked on solid ground--all things that could not have been preserved under water. At various different layers in the rock. No way those layers could have been formed by a flood.
--As you probably know, Australia is populated mainly by marsupials, no placental mammals, and most found nowhere else on earth. So, after say the koala bears get off the ark, they race across Asia, always ahead of the tigers etc, swim across the Indonesian archipelego, etc., leaving all the placental mammals behind, and along with their cousins the wombats and kangaroos, populate Australia, filling all the available ecological niches, while all of the world's placental mammals just happened to stay behind in Europe and Asia. Um hmm.
--Varves. This gets into dating a tiny bit. A varve is a layer of sediment that forms at the bottom of a calm lake and eventually hardens into rock. Actually two layers, because there is a lighter summer layer and a darker winter layer. So scientists can count them (tedious) and determine how many annual layers of rock were laid down. In one of the most famous examples, the Green River formation, they have counted about 20 million varves. No sudden thick layer of sediment crammed with fossils, just varve after varve after varve, with fossils sprinkled throughout, and throughout always obeying the law of fossil succession, with older, extinct fossils lower, and more modern mammals etc. higher up. The only thing you need to know about radiometric dating is that when they do it to the varves, they get the same results.
--ice cores. Same thing. Layers of ice in Greenland. Two layers per year. 40,000 in a single core. No sudden difference 6000 years ago. Slight fluctuations related to how much it snowed that year--that's all. And, again, matches up with the radiometric dating method, which matches up with the varves.
--tree rings. Same thing. There's a plant called King's Holly in Tasmania that reproduces by cloning, so in a way they're all one big ring of the same plant. It's been growing there for 40,000 years. Also creosote bushes in the Mojave desert 12,000 and 15,000 years. Growing in that desert right through the flood.

Actually there's a lot more, but I'll stop there for now.

A thought about science. All of this is out in the open. Everything has to be subject to replication. That means that other scientists get to try it and see if they get the same results. You can go to Green River and count the varves yourself. No secrets, no conspiracy, just a lot of hard work and hard thinking.

Also, geologists don't have an atheist agenda to prove there was no flood. Most of them are Christian. They would have been just as happy to find there was a flood. It just so happened that there wasn't.

I think I gave you this link before: Glenn Morton's story. I wish you would click on it. Glenn Morton was a YEC and physicist who went to work doing geology for an oil company. What made him realize that YEC, and flood theory, is just plain wrong, was going out into the field and seeing the rocks. In this article he tries to convey what he saw, and why he came to realize it was not compatible with YEC flood theory. Give it a click and let me know what you think.

 

[Autodidact]

Methinks you haven't delved into the subject thoroughly. There are too many findings around the world for all of them to be hoaxes. But if you can debunk any evidence I've provided so far, go for it.

Actually, I have.
There are no documented, observable instances. Not a single skeleton in existence that you or I can go see. Just try to find one. (note: none of this has anything to do with the flood, but is relevant to the thread.)

The fact that there are human remains where geologically there shouldn't be any, at least according to a non-Flood, evolutionary timeframe, seems like supportive evidence for a Flood to me.

Could you be more specific about what you are referring to? What remains, where, and why do you think this finding is inconsistent with an "evolutionary time-frame?" In fact, what do you mean by an evolutionary timeframe?

You can think I'm crazy if you want, ridicule me if you want.....doesn't matter. This weird stuff is out there, and shouldn't be dismissed.

I don't think you're crazy--what makes you think that? And I don't think I've ever ridiculed you, have I? If anything, I find you prone to accept some things with very weak evidence, and overly suspicious toward others that are well supported by evidence, but that is something we are all prone to, is it not, to accept what fits our worldview and be suspicious to what contradicts it?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't think you got my point.

Nor you mine. But hey, it's your preconcieved notion...run with it.

I just think it's a really weird belief system, weird theology...[/quote]
I haven't offered a belief system or a theology. I asked a question which you haven't answered. How old was Adam when he was created?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious. How tall does one have to be in order to be a giant?

Also here is a photo of a whole team of giants:

 

[Autodidact]

Nor you mine. But hey, it's your preconcieved notion...run with it.

I just think it's a really weird belief system, weird theology...

I haven't offered a belief system or a theology. I asked a question which you haven't answered. How old was Adam when he was created?[/quote] There was never any such person and he was not created.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I haven't offered a belief system or a theology. I asked a question which you haven't answered. How old was Adam when he was created?

There was never any such person and he was not created.[/quote]
Wow, just flat out refusal to accept a premise. Just dismiss the point out of hand. Now there's a debate technique I haven't considered.

I don't believe in you so you must not exist either.

Or could it be that if you answered the question you might have to consider a point outside of your accepted precondition?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is perversely nonfalsifiable and thereby affords maximum cover. As I've noted in the past, theism is the ultimate anti-epistemology.

Proves my point then. People can't create a universe so any assumptions about what a newly created universe should look like are just assumptions.

 

[Autodidact]

Some photos.
The first is of a 12-foot tall mummy found in Ireland.

I Googled this giant quite a lot. Here's all I could find:

This photo of a ‘fossilized Irish giant’ was taken at a London rail depot, and appeared in the December 1895 issue of Strand Magazine. The giant was allegedly dug up by a Mr Dyer while prospecting for iron ore in County Antrim (Ireland). It was 12 ft 2 in (3.71 m) tall, weighed 2 tonnes, and had 6 toes on its right foot. After being exhibited in Dublin, it was brought to England and exhibited in Liverpool and Manchester at sixpence a head, ‘attracting scientific men as well as gaping sightseers’.10 After a legal dispute over ownership, nothing more appears to have been heard or seen of the exhibit.

So what you have basically is an allegation that there was once an article, in 1895--you can't see the article itself, that said that there was a skeleton which had been exhibited, but has since been lost, so you can't actually see it or examine it. That's it. People mention the Cardiff giant because it was a fake. In science, you have to make the material available, including your data, so everyone can examine it and argue about it. This kind of thing is so unsubstantiated, just a rumor, really. Why are you so suspicious of scientific methods, which subject everything to testing and open examination, and so credulous of unsubstantiated claims like this?

 

[Autodidact]

Proves my point then. People can't create a universe so any assumptions about what a newly created universe should look like are just assumptions.

Exactly. That's why these ideas are not scientific and cannot be included or considered science. Meanwhile, back at the actual universe, if it was created recently, Whoever did it did an awfully good job at making it look 13.7 billion years old.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious. How tall does one have to be in order to be a giant?

Does 8"11" count?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Exactly. That's why these ideas are not scientific and cannot be included or considered science. Meanwhile, back at the actual universe, if it was created recently, Whoever did it did an awfully good job at making it look 13.7 billion years old.

Wow, you are in an debate forum called "Science vs. Religion" and your whole debate tactic is to dismiss the opposing view as irrelevant. Again a marvelous technique. Vapid, but marvelous nontheless.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious. How tall does one have to be in order to be a giant?

Does anyone 8' or over count?

272 cm (8 ft 11-11/12 in)

• Robert Wadlow — tallest human recorded in modern times (1918 – 1940) [4]

268 cm (8 ft 9 in)

• John Rogan — tallest African American (1868–1905)[5]

258 cm (8 ft 5 ½ in)

• Leonid Stadnyk — tallest living person recognized Guinness, since August 7, 2007

253 cm (8 ft 4 in)

• Ajaz Ahmed — tallest Pakistani claimant[6]

251 cm (8 ft 3 in)

• Vikas Uppal — tallest Indian claimant[7] (1986–2007)

249 cm (8 ft 2 in)

• Edouard Beaupré — "The Willowbunch Giant" (1881–1904)[8]
• Bernard Coyne — Eunuchoidal (Long-legged) Giant (1897-1921)[9]
• Don Koehler — tallest person 1969 to 1981. Recognized by Guinness Book of Records (1925–1981)[10]

248 cm (8 ft 1 ¾ in)

• Väinö Myllyrinne — tallest recorded European-born person (1909–1963)[11]

246 cm (8 ft 0 ¾ in)

• Gabriel Estavao Monjane — Mozambican who was the tallest man in 1988–1989 according to the Guinness book[12]
• Patrick Cotter O'Brien — tallest recorded Irishman. (1760-1806)[13][14]

245 cm (8 ft 0½ in)

• Suleiman Ali Nashnush — He is believed to be both the tallest Libyan and the tallest basketball player yet recorded.[15] (1943 - 1991)

244 cm (8 ft)

• Mounir Fourar — tallest living man claimant (from Algeria), born in 1972[16][17][18]
• Aurangzeb Khan — tallest living man claimant (from Pakistan)[19]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious. How tall does one have to be in order to be a giant?

Does 7'1' 325lbs count?