It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism without historical basis?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Creationism-belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I've read a countless number of books and studies being written about archaeological digs in the "Holy Land", in which even Biblical Archaeologists are finding hard to prove any validity to the historical basis of the Bible.

If archaeology proves even a sliver of the Bible to be false, where does that leave Creationism? If even the story of Noah's Ark turns out to be the stolen account of the Epic of Gilgamesh, would that not destroy the idea of Creationism?

I find it very interesting the people can turn a blind eye to concrete evidence of error in the Bible and continue to believe in something that has proven to be false.

Any comments?




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by nichole

I find it very interesting the people can turn a blind eye to concrete evidence of error in the Bible and continue to believe in something that has proven to be false.

Any comments?


Religion as a whole in history has rarely placed that much emphasis on evidence. Thats why it's called 'faith'. It's unfortunate when your faith opposes the available evidence and infringes on the way you percieve the universe to work.
I believe children should be allowed to make their own choices as to which (if any) religion they decide to follow, without it being forced upon them from a young age. This is the key.

To quote Richard Dawkins:

External:
Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one.
link



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This may provide some reason why people act as they do - if it don't fit with your pre-existing beliefs, ignore it...




Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."




www.livescience.com...

It's a bit like a neurological "fingers in ears, go 'lalalala'"



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nichole
I've read a countless number of books and studies being written about archaeological digs in the "Holy Land", in which even Biblical Archaeologists are finding hard to prove any validity to the historical basis of the Bible.


WHAT?! What studies are those? Personally, I dig deeply into these kinds of issues, trying to get as much information as I possibly can before making my mind up about anything (example). Evolution and archaeological evidence are two areas I really focus on, as I find the areas of study fascinating. I've never heard that theory recently put forward.

There were many books written discrediting the Bible as false due to the lack of archaeological evidence, but then the pool of Bethesda was discovered exactly as described in John, a very possible site for Jericho was discovered (including sunken walls), and archaeologists decided it was probably better to keep their mouths shut rather than make fools of themselves. The reason being, and we're seeing an example of this right now in Egypt, if you claim everything has been discovered, and someone discovers something new, you lose a lot of credibility. In Egypt, folks were saying all the tombs have been discovered. Just a few months ago, a new tomb was uncovered. Whoops.

What are these sources you have used to make your assessment?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by nichole
I've read a countless number of books and studies being written about archaeological digs in the "Holy Land", in which even Biblical Archaeologists are finding hard to prove any validity to the historical basis of the Bible.


WHAT?! What studies are those? Personally, I dig deeply into these kinds of issues, trying to get as much information as I possibly can before making my mind up about anything (example). Evolution and archaeological evidence are two areas I really focus on, as I find the areas of study fascinating. I've never heard that theory recently put forward.

There were many books written discrediting the Bible as false due to the lack of archaeological evidence, but then the pool of Bethesda was discovered exactly as described in John, a very possible site for Jericho was discovered (including sunken walls), and archaeologists decided it was probably better to keep their mouths shut rather than make fools of themselves. The reason being, and we're seeing an example of this right now in Egypt, if you claim everything has been discovered, and someone discovers something new, you lose a lot of credibility. In Egypt, folks were saying all the tombs have been discovered. Just a few months ago, a new tomb was uncovered. Whoops.

What are these sources you have used to make your assessment?


Who Were The Early Isralites and Where Did They Come From? By William G Dever (Professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He has served as director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem, as director of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, and as a visiting professor at universities around the world. He's spent 30 years conducting archaeological excavations in the Near East, resulting in a large body of award winning fieldwork and author of 25 books, majority being on Biblical Archaeology. )

Biblical Archaeology Review ( A magazine dedicated to Biblical Archaeology)

The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Reality By Baruch Halpern

An archaeological dig conducted by Kent Weeks ( A prominent Anthropologist/Archaeologist working in Egypt) proving no evidence of slave labor of the hebrew people.

etc, etc, etc...



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Archeological research is riddled with people trying to make their name and push their own theories.

It doesn't mean that what they write is true, or even accurate. For example there is a wonderful book reassessing the time frame for Ancinet Egypt that says its out by 100's of years.

So what?

By reworking the accepted time periods whole sections of biblical history fit exactly, and other parts that don't have a place, such as the tablets in the British museum that talk of the israelistes, and david, written by an egyptian commander to his leader fit exactly.

I'll find the link, and you will see not to take at face value books that so easily dismiss evidence.

Here we go, the archeologist en.wikipedia.org...

Don't forget that for the last few 100 years archeology in the Biblical lands used the bible to find signifigent sites, and those sites were where the bibical narrative said they were. The bible has been proved accurate by
history.

Even to today there are new discoveries that substantiate the bible.
www.leaderu.com...


"For decades," says Leon, "and despite much effort by scholars and archaeologists, the location of King David 's palace has remained a mystery."

But recent discoveries and research by Hebrew University archaeologist, Dr. Eilat Mazar, the granddaughter of the renowned archaeologist, the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar, has unveiled convincing evidence that pinpoints the exact location of this most important biblical structure.

"The discovery of the location of the palace of King David is of extreme importance to our understanding of ancient Jerusalem," says Dr. Mazar, in an exclusive interview with the Jerusalem Christian Review. "We now have tangible remains of the place where the most famous king in history once lived."

"In fact," says Leon, "we know quite a bit about this palace from the Bible." It was "a house of cedars" (1Chronicles 17:1), built by Phoenician builders (2Samuel 5:11 & 1Chronicles 14:1) who used the cedars of Lebanon and developed a distinct style of stone masonry.


[edit on 18-2-2006 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Netchicken,

Even with the reworking of the Biblical time frame, things still do not add up. According to many books written on the subject of Biblical sites, the time line for specific places being in occupation does not work. Many of the places written in the Bible were occupied anywhere between the 15th century-7th century, none of which fits even close to what the Bible implies. Also, if the places had been occupied by Israelites at one time, most were extremely small communities with peaceful living amoung other groups and still do not follow the Bible in any way. If you want to prove your point I suggest you do more research before replying with your apparent need to prove the Bible correct. Sorry just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
William G Dever in his book proposes a theory that the Israelis actually came from a peasant revolt in Canaan. To his credit, he talks about some of the flaws in his theory, including the introduction of 5 new technologies to the land of Canaan when the Israelis appeared. He does spend about 14 pages talking about the difficulties in synchronizing the timeframe put forward in the Torah and that which the archeological evidence to date shows, and through the book he includes mention of the theological ramifications that would be true if his theories prove correct, which is fairly unusual in archaeology books. The fact that he deals with theological elements in his book impresses me, but worries me at the same time, because it could lead one to wonder if there was an agenda working in his mind to find exactly what he was looking for. I, however, don't know his mind, so I can't say that that was the case.

In the case of Baruch Halpern, his intentions are more open. He has made a concerted effort to discredit all things Biblical, and like the theologians of the Jesus Seminar, doesn't hold a lot of water with the majority of scholars. In his case, we can clearly see that he had answered the Myth or Reality question before he even began his investigation.

Unfortunately, I was unable to discover anything about the specific dig you're talking about in Weeks' case, probably because of the enormity of his recent discovery of a skull suspected to be Ramses II's son, actually the Pharaoh spoken of in Exodus, Amun-her-khepeshef. Currently, the skull is being analyzed to see if cause of death can be determined, which will be interesting.

As to slavery in Egypt, archaeological evidence suggests it didn't play the prominent role in society that it did in Rome, the Middle East, several African countries or the US. There's also evidence suggesting that the slave laborers may have been more akin to indentured servants, paid for their services, but not permitted to leave. Not knowing Weeks' case, it is difficult to agree or disagree with what he has to say.

Those questions aside, I do stand corrected, archaeologists are still writing books "proving" the Bible false through what hasn't been found yet. My question to you would be, have you read both sides of the argument, archaeologists supporting the Biblical account as well as those discrediting it, or did you just read one side before making your decision of who is right? The truth fears no questions, and if what you believe is the truth, reading the other side’s argument shouldn’t impact that.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'd like to add to this, so as to not just be a naysayer refuting your sources without adding any real content. Sorry if you already replied, Nichole, it took a while to compile this reply.

William F. Albright, a respected archaeologist, said,


The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. (pp. 127-128)


(The Archaeology of Palestine. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960.)

Nelson Glueck, a Reformed Jewish scholar, is quoted as saying in John Mongomery's Christianity for the Tough Minded, that there has been no archaeological discovery that has ever "controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement" (P. 6) Granted, that was in 1973, but Dever's argument is pretty much a rehash of Baruch Halpern's The Emergence of Israel in Canaan published in 1983, and you accept that argument.

There are many others, but instead of quoting folks, let's look at the supporting evidence.

One example of archaeologists stating that the Biblical tradition that Moses wrote the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch) is that writing did not exist in Moses' time, or at least very sparsely used. As a result, it was assumed the author of the Torah had to be someone later than Moses. Then the Black Stele was discovered, a pre-Mosaic stone with wedge shaped writing on it detailing the laws of Hammurabi, 3 centuries before Moses! This led archaeologists to believe that there was a chance Moses was literate. Considering Hammurabi had his laws written on stone and placed prominently, his people must have been capable of reading them.

Another example of archaeology making assumptions based on what they had not discovered is in the case of the Hittites. For a long while, there was no record of the Hittites besides the mention of them in the Old Testament. However, later archaeological finds have shown that the Hittites not only existed, but were a civilization for more than 1,200 years! A civilization that existed for 1,200 years was completely forgotten except for the account in the Old Testament for thousands of years, and archaeologists assumed they were a myth because of this lack of discovery.

Yet another example that's also mentioned in the link I provided for the Black Stele is David's conquest of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that site takes its text for that section directly from S.H. Horn’s “Recent Illumination of the Old Testament” from Christianity Today, published in 1968, without any reference to it
I wrote to them letting them know, though, so hopefully that will be taken care of. The gutters or water spouts Joab climbed did not exist at that time on city walls, so how could that have happened? It was only later that archaeology discovered what this account was talking about. Jerusalem at the time was a smaller city in a great defensive position. However, the only water source was outside of the city. In order to bring water into the city and still be able to withstand a siege, a series of tunnels were created to transport water from the spring into the city.

A problem still remained, though. The waterspout appeared to end before the actual walls. That didn’t make any sense, as it defeated the whole purpose of transporting the water. Further archaeological digs revealed that the discovered walls were actually from the Hellenistic period (approx. 323 BC – 31 BC), while the walls mentioned in Second Samuel and First Chronicles mention come are suspected to be from the Jebusite period, and a tower discovered from Davidic origin.

There are several other examples I could go into detail on, such as the legitimacy of the book of Daniel, Elba, the Mari and Nuzi tablets, extra-biblical references to Abraham, the heavy doors in Sodom, Joseph’s story, the use of camels mentioned in the Bible, Ostraca, the Gedaliah, and more.

As Dr. Albright said, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
As an update to the plagiarism issue, I did get a response back from the website letting me know it was a subscriber's submission and they were going to look into it and properly cite the information. I figured that, since I drew attention to this here on this thread, I should provide a conclusion to the story. Go them!



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Final update on that plagiarism issue, the website added its source to the page.


* Information for this page is taken largely from: Josh McDowell, The Best Of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), pp. 94-96, 98.


Source

[edit on 2/28/06/28 by junglejake]




top topics



 
0

log in

join