Archeologly proves the Bible?

[ponderingturtle]

Possibly. Here's a National Geographic article from 2007.

To what extent are the artifacts of demonstrable jewish orrigion?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So then you believe the Roman Senator and historian Tacitus was wrong when he wrote Christ was executed during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and the rule of Pontius Pilate?

And do you believe these men died for a myth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

If being willing to die for your cause is so worthy, what do you think of suicide bombers? Do they through their actions prove the rightness of their cause? What about Kamekaze pilots?

 

[GreNME]

Lets have a look at a few things here from that article:

"Religious leaders do not allow archaeological excavations on Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites for Judaism and Islam. The site, known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, is now covered by Islam's Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque."

Why? Are they worried that the truth might be discovered, NO TEMPLE

No, it's because the people there would consider excavations disrespectful and possibly open to insult. There are two groups in particular who are bickering over claim to the land itself, so having groups come in and say that they just want to dig around for artifacts doesn't get much traction in the arguments that are, for the people involved, more important than having some excavators. Trying to turn the situation into something more than that requires a lot of projection on the part of the accuser.

The find "most certainly" indicates the presence of people in the temple during the late eighth century and seventh century B.C., he said.

People, YES; Temple. NO. THe assumption is that there are remains of a temple. Bad Science

"From an archaeological standpoint, this is the first time this has happened," Reich said.

"You can say that this was written in the Bible—but the Bible is a text and texts can be played around with. This is physical evidence."

Your accusation of "Bad Science" is a bit presumptuous. The people are working from limited data sets and with evidence that points toward something being present (just not exactly what). The sensible question isn't "yes or no" at this point, but instead "what and how" in terms of archaeological examination.

Crude Excavations

Gideon Avni is IAA's excavations and surveys department director.

"This is the first time we have found artifacts that have not been disturbed by later periods," Avni said.

But he doesn't believe this will help pinpoint the location of the First Temple on the mount.

Hebrew University archaeologist Ehud Netzer, who discovered King Herod's tomb earlier this year, was highly critical of the Temple Mount work. "

EXACTLY Very astute remark.

You see, eccles, you're making the same type of confirmation bias mistakes that Dorothy makes with this quoted comment. You completely misinterpret what Avni and Netzer are complaining about. The Temple Mount work that Netzer is criticizing is the Muslim Waqf construction taking place there, not any excavation or study. Avni doesn't hold much hope that small trinkets tossed to archaeologists will help provide a location because he instead wants a proper excavation team doing the work instead of some sifted remains of bulldozed diggings. Both are criticizing the Waqf project, not the projections that there was obviously something at the location. A further quote from Netzer in that same article (which you interestingly omit).

"In such a special place, [the Waqf] should have conducted an organized and proper excavation. But this was done with bulldozers and mechanical tools," Netzer said.

"Digging of this sort can cause damage."

 

[shadron]

"Digging of this sort can cause damage."

Not to speak of loss of province and context.

To what extent are the artifacts of demonstrable jewish orrigion?

THat is determined by both cultural studies (matching pot shards to known early Hebrew pots) and from the province - the totality of the clues available from the found context - is the pot shard associated with a datable item (such as charcoal, or stored seeds, or even pollen grains)? Are the at the same level as other artifacts? Is the ground around the items disturbed, ie, where they buried? Are there signs of disorder (fire, wreckage, etc)?

No doubt some master's theses research remains to be cadged from the remains, but a lot of the evidence has been destroyed by their uncareful excavation. Then they may be able to answer your question.

 

[shadron]

Are they worried that the truth might be discovered, NO TEMPLE

"This is the first time we have shards from the Temple Mount with a [uniform] date," Haifa University's Reich told National Geographic News.

The find "most certainly" indicates the presence of people in the temple during the late eighth century and seventh century B.C., he said.

People, YES; Temple. NO. THe assumption is that there are remains of a temple. Bad Science

As GreNME says, presumptuous. The second temple (constructed by the Jews after the exile and destroyed by the Roamns in 65CE), certainly, and even the Solomanaic temple (whether it was built by Solomon or not) are well established in Israel's archaeology. The evidence for both would be accepted as evidence of an equivalent structure in any other mideast milleau, so it is disingenuous to try to deny it's existance in Jerusalem on the temple mount, though certainly dating and significance can be debated. The reasons for not digging it up are purely political. Four religions (Christian, Orthodox, Jewish and Islam) all revere the site; to dig there without all four concurring is impossible, and all four cannot agree on anything. All four can muster international support and mobs of people in Jerusalem itself.

In any case, remains of buildings associated with the temple have been found around the edges. Ailat Mazar has excavated 3-5 meter wide walls in the temple district. She estimates she is only able to excavate 20% of the walls, and thinks it is David's palace at the foot of the temple mount. Associated pottery styles date the walls to 10th century (King David's time) using Albright's cronology (derived from both Biblical and other sources), somewhat modified. Radio carbon dating on olive seeds at the same levels sets it to 925BCE, in the time of Omri and Ahab.

 

[DOC]

And it's not unusual for people to die for any sort of myth, does anyone recall Heaven's Gate? They certainly believed their myth and commited suicide. True, they weren't murdered, but it's still killing yourself for some divine myth.

Yes, but they didn't have a sudden change of course like the scared apostles (only one of whom even attended the Crucifixion to give support to their leader). And I don't know of any instance where Heaven's Gaters denied their leader like Peter denied Christ 3 times or seriously doubted their leader like Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected. This sudden change of course is unique.

Also the Heaven Gaters and Jonestown charismatic leaders were still alive around the time of the followers suicides which added pressure to go ahead with it. On the other hand Jesus was long gone when the apostles were martyred. They could have walked away when their leader was killed and gone back being fisherman.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, but they didn't have a sudden change of course like the scared apostles (only one of whom even attended the Crucifixion to give support to their leader). And I don't know of any instance where Heaven's Gaters denied their leader like Peter denied Christ 3 times or seriously doubted their leader like Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected. This sudden change of course is unique.

Also the Heaven Gaters and Jonestown charismatic leaders were still alive around the time of the followers suicides which added pressure to go ahead with it. On the other hand Jesus was long gone when the apostles were martyred. They could have walked away when their leader was killed and gone back being fisherman.

And this has what to do with archeology?

 

[Ladewig]

And I don't know of any instance where Heaven's Gaters denied their leader like Peter denied Christ 3 times

Well, why didn't you point this out earlier?! Denying one's leader in three distinct instances makes Christianity three times more likely to be true. If only Peter had denied Christ 17 times, then the truthiness of Christianity would be seventeen times as powerful as it is now. Go, Jesus!

 

[paximperium]

Well, why didn't you point this out earlier?! Denying one's leader in three distinct instances makes Christianity three times more likely to be true. If only Peter had denied Christ 17 times, then the truthiness of Christianity would be seventeen times as powerful as it is now. Go, Jesus!

And these events occurred and is proven by Archeology...oh wait, it doesn't. I do so love DOC's attempt to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible which shows he doesn't learn from all of his multiple failures to do the same in the past.

What was that popular saying about people who keeps using the same failed thing again and again and again?

 

[boloboffin]

And these events occurred and is proven by Archeology...oh wait, it doesn't. I do so love DOC's attempt to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible which shows he doesn't learn from all of his multiple failures to do the same in the past.

What was that popular saying about people who keeps using the same failed thing again and again and again?

"Preaching to the choir?"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, but they didn't have a sudden change of course like the scared apostles (only one of whom even attended the Crucifixion to give support to their leader). And I don't know of any instance where Heaven's Gaters denied their leader like Peter denied Christ 3 times or seriously doubted their leader like Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected. This sudden change of course is unique.

Well, I doubted my imaginary cat a whole five times so far, so obviously that makes it more true than your God

 

[Ausmerican]

What was that popular saying about people who keeps using the same failed thing again and again and again?

Definition of insanity for $500 please Alex.

 

[supercorgi]

Yes, but they didn't have a sudden change of course like the scared apostles (only one of whom even attended the Crucifixion to give support to their leader). And I don't know of any instance where Heaven's Gaters denied their leader like Peter denied Christ 3 times or seriously doubted their leader like Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected. This sudden change of course is unique.

Also the Heaven Gaters and Jonestown charismatic leaders were still alive around the time of the followers suicides which added pressure to go ahead with it. On the other hand Jesus was long gone when the apostles were martyred. They could have walked away when their leader was killed and gone back being fisherman.

And this proves exactly what? All it proves is that people can be manipulated and deluded into doing the worse atrocities in history - either to themselves or others. Get it through your head, death does not equal validity.

 

[Simon39759]

Also the Heaven Gaters and Jonestown charismatic leaders were still alive around the time of the followers suicides which added pressure to go ahead with it. On the other hand Jesus was long gone when the apostles were martyred. They could have walked away when their leader was killed and gone back being fisherman.

Except for the ones that are still alive today and still professing faith in Jim Jones or David Koresh or the Heaven's gate survivor that did kill themselves even after the death of Applegate.

 

[fromdownunder]

Also the Heaven Gaters and Jonestown charismatic leaders were still alive around the time of the followers suicides which added pressure to go ahead with it. On the other hand Jesus was long gone when the apostles were martyred. They could have walked away when their leader was killed and gone back being fisherman.

Not to mention followers of Islam. Because there are certainly no people who believe and become martyrs for Islam and die for the greatness of Allah any more, because Muhammad is long dead.

Oh, wait - there are more martyrs for Islam now than there are for Christianity, so it must be true. Allah is the one true God.

(And before others find a need to comment, yes, I realise that we are talking about the same Judian/Christian/Islam myth)

Norm

 

[Akhenaten]

Possibly. Here's a National Geographic article from 2007.

To what extent are the artifacts of demonstrable jewish origin?

I don't have the subject knowledge to express an opinion, so I'll quote from the article again:

The findings include animal bones; ceramic bowl rims, bases, and body sherds; the base of a juglet used to pour oil; the handle of a small juglet; and the rim of a storage jar, according to the IAA.

The bowl sherds were decorated with wheel burnishing lines characteristic of the First Temple Period.

"This is the first time we have shards from the Temple Mount with a [uniform] date," Haifa University's Reich told National Geographic News.

"You can say that this was written in the Bible—but the Bible is a text and texts can be played around with. This is physical evidence."

The article also presents a dissenting opinion, and I dare say there are others.


Cheers,

Dave


ETA: I see that shadron, who (unlike me) actually knows about these things has given a much better answer.

 

[amb]

If the statements it [the babble] contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrababblical records, by ancient documents recovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the babblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested.
-Archer Gleason- [ A quote in Victor Stengers book ''God the Failed Hypothesis''.]

 

[DOC]

And these events occurred and is proven by Archeology...oh wait, it doesn't. I do so love DOC's attempt to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible which shows he doesn't learn from all of his multiple failures to do the same in the past.

At least I brought some info in this thread about a famous Archaeologist (Sir William Mitchell Ramsay) who praised the Bible and Luke for their accuracy. What have you brought in about the topic? Zero

And if you would have followed the flow of the discourse (which I doubt you did) you would have seen I was trying to show how the circumstances in the apostles martyrdom (from the Bible's account) differed from those of other martyrs. If you don't want to believe the biblical story from someone like Gospel writer Luke who Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called one of the world's great historians that is your right.

 

[paximperium]

At least I brought some info in this thread about a famous Archaeologist (Sir William Mitchell Ramsay) who praised the Bible and Luke for their accuracy

Sir William Ramsay? The guy who lived in the early 19th century who does not have over 150years of modern archeological or historical data available to him when he made that statement?

What have you brought in about the topic? Zero

Pointing out your logical fallacies is an educational experience to the readers of your farcical posts.

And if you would have followed the flow of the discourse (which I doubt you did) you would have seen I was trying to show how the circumstances in the apostles martyrdom (from the Bible's account) differed from those of other martyrs.

Which still relates to Archeology how?

If you don't want to believe the biblical story from someone like Gospel writer Luke who Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called one of the world's great historians that is your right.

Why should I believe an opinion from someone from the 19th century or should I believe the opinion of "scientists" and "doctors" from that time period?

 

[amb]

Sir William Ramsay
was either very deluded, or very drunk when he wrote that drivel.
We don't even know who the author/s of Luke were let alone a great historian.