Archeologly proves the Bible?

[eccles]

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.

You have the WRONG DUDE guys:

Sir William Ramsay
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1904

William Ramsay was born in Glasgow on October 2, 1852, the son of William Ramsay, C.E. and Catherine, née Robertson. He was a nephew of the geologist, Sir Andrew Ramsay.

Until 1870 he studied in his native town, following this with a period in Fittig's laboratory at Tübingen until 1872. While there his thesis on orthotoluic acid and its derivatives earned him the degree of doctor of philosophy.

On his return to Scotland in 1872 he became assistant in chemistry at the Anderson College in Glasgow and two years later secured a similar position at the University there. In 1880 he was appointed Principal and Professor of Chemistry at University College, Bristol, and moved on in 1887 to the Chair of Inorganic Chemistry at University College, London, a post which he held until his retirement in 1913.

Ramsay's earliest works were in the field of organic chemistry. Besides his doctor's dissertation, about this period he published work on picoline and, in conjunction with Dobbie, on the decomposition products of the quinine alkaloids (1878-1879). From the commencement of the eighties he was chiefly active in physical chemistry, his many contributions to this branch of chemistry being mostly on stoichiometry and thermodynamics. To these must be added his investigations carried on with Sidney Young on evaporation and dissociation (1886-1889) and his work on solutions of metals (1889).

Now go and say 5 Our Fathers and 6 Hail Marys for the Intentions of the First Church of Atheism.

em hotep

 

[paximperium]

Urgh? The Sir William Ramsay that DOC is talking about is an Oxford History professor from the 1880s...maybe this dude is his son.

 

[amb]

Whoever Ramsay it was that wrote that rubbish deserved a good flogging.

 

[paximperium]

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.

DOC is basing this claim off a quote mine that was shown to innacurate(it is buried in "Evidence" thread). Ramsay never specifically said that. He stated(paraphrase here) that Luke was a good historian when it comes to the SECULAR claims in the Bible. Ramsay was a well respected historian...for his time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

 

[eccles]

Well I got another Ramsey didn't I.
I see the one mentioned is:
W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L, Litt.D., LL.D.
Professor of Humanity in the University of Aberdeen

In what writings did he screw up. This one?

"The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia."

Well it is available on line if I want to read it.

 

[shadron]

Unlike Physics and Chemistry, where each individual step of progress is usually testable and verifiable individually, archaeology is very much dependent on the assumptions that occur in preceding research. That is why archaeologists both require multiple reasons for making statements about what is being studied, and are also quite vulnerable to biases in their analysis. A huge bias, for all scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries was religion. All of them had it, and it shaped their ways of thinking. Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Newton were all influenced by the pervasiveness of religion in their lives and culture, no less so than Winkelmann, Schliemann, Flinders Petrie and Arthur Evans - and Ramsay. They spent a good amount of their time trying, consciously and unconsciously, to counter religious bias.

To come down on Ramsey so hard for his assumptions and biases is just stupid. Yes, he made bad assumptions because of his religion, but so did everyone else, including physicists and chemists. A truly scientific attitude weighs all that and simply goes with the best evidence available, and trusts to later evidence for correction. In its mileau (say, from 800BCE to 1BCE) the Bible is as good as almost any other books written at the time in terms of historical accuracy and relevance. A little too boastful, sometimes overly critical, and obviously not written to be primarily a historical document, it nevertheless is valuable, easily as much so as many of the intentionally historical writings of the time.

Drawing the line between accuracy and hyperbole is difficult, and when burdened with religion, doubly so. Only time will ultimately tell.

 

[shadron]

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.

Amb, you see so clearly that that is so, not because you came to that conclusion about Luke doing your own research, but because someone who did the research told you it is so. Were you available to consult with Ramsay when he was working in the 1890s you likely would have found yourself in jail for blasphemy. When you can assert you've done the research he had (see William Mitchell Ramsay^WP for his bibliography), then you can remark, perhaps, on his personal habits.

In 1880 Ramsay received an Oxford studentship for travel and research in Greece. At Smyrna, he met Sir C. W. Wilson, then British consul-general in Anatolia, who advised him on inland areas suitable for exploration. Ramsay and Wilson made two long journeys during 1881-1882.

He traveled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. Greece and Turkey remained the focus of Ramsay's research for the remainder of his academic career. He was known for his expertise in the historic geography and topography of Asia Minor and of its political, social, cultural, and religious history. He was Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, in 1882.

 

[paximperium]

Amb, you see so clearly that that is so, not because you came to that conclusion about Luke doing your own research, but because someone who did the research told you it is so. Were you available to consult with Ramsay when he was working in the 1890s you likely would have found yourself in jail for blasphemy. When you can assert you've done the research he had (see William Mitchell Ramsay^WP for his bibliography), then you can remark, perhaps, on his personal habits.

Which is why I find DOC's misquote of Ramsay exceedingly insulting to the man's career.
DOC has reduced an entire man's career down to an idiotic statement.

 

[Elizabeth I]

...To come down on Ramsey so hard for his assumptions and biases is just stupid...

I don't think people are coming down hard on Ramsey so much as they are on doc for refusing to realize that something that seemed very learned and impressive more than a hundred years ago may now, as a result of new knowledge added since them, seem rather limited, naive and ignorant.

It's the quoter they're coming down on, not the quotee.

 

[amb]

Amb, you see so clearly that that is so, not because you came to that conclusion about Luke doing your own research, but because someone who did the research told you it is so. Were you available to consult with Ramsay when he was working in the 1890s you likely would have found yourself in jail for blasphemy. When you can assert you've done the research he had (see William Mitchell Ramsay^WP for his bibliography), then you can remark, perhaps, on his personal habits.

I should have used the word ''IF'' he wrote that drivel. My apologies.

 

[Damien Evans]

If there was no temple, where did the wailing wall come from?

Of course I don't believe in religion, but I'm still certain that the temple existed at least..

And you cite D.M. Murdoch a lot which is nice but a lot of folks here probably don't like her since she's so prominent in one of the messages of 'Zeitgeist'

And its also true that the Jews were not slaves and the number is overestimated. I prefer the theory that Hebrews were actually a mercenary army hired by Egypt. They eventually lost respect in the community and were downgraded to that of an average citizen. Not liking this, they basically ransacked Egypt and left with a bunch of valuables. Saw it on the history channel and even if its BS it fits in more with human nature.

God's chosen people= thugs.

The wailing wall is part of the remains of Herods temple, IIRC.

 

[Akhenaten]

The wailing wall is part of the remains of Herods temple, IIRC.

Well, to be fair, it was some time ago, but your memory seems pretty good nevertheless

Bible Walks

Herod the Great, King of Israel under the Romans (37BC - 4BC), enlarged and rebuilt the second temple, and made it a magnificent temple. After its destruction in 70 AD during the Jewish revolt against the Romans, only a few layers of the grand temple were left, and the Jews were not allowed to rebuild their temple.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How dare you all talk smack about famous archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who I had never heard of before. DOC said he's a famous archaeologist so that means he's famous, even if none of us had heard of him or were familiar with his work.

And don't bother with his Wiki entry. You need to try a less biased site.

 

[Geezer]

Damned Hittites! I've been warning you people about the Hittites, but will anyone listen?

<snip>
Those Horusists are another bunch I can't stand. I'm sure their priesthood has been infiltrated by Hittite spies.


Nepherkheperure

Egyptian Dog!Get over it, Kadesh is ours, we won that battle fair and square!

btw Ramesses QQ like the big baby he was!

Muwatalli>Ramesses

 

[Geezer]

I believe that Tacitus was writing about the beliefs that Christians held while describing them in Annals in the same way I believe Herodotus was writing about the beliefs that Zoroastrians held while describing them in The Histories.

What does someone writing about the beliefs of a particular culture have to do with the veracity of those beliefs?

*GASP* So you mean that the fact that people are writting about Harry Potter fans doesn't mean that Harry Potter is real....NOOOOOooooooo!

 

[Akhenaten]

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

A pomegranate?

 

[Maia]

*GASP* So you mean that the fact that people are writting about Harry Potter fans doesn't mean that Harry Potter is real....NOOOOOooooooo!
[/quote]

Well, after the travesty that is Deathly Hallows, that scenario is actually rather attractive in my little corner of the fanfic world, what with Harry being a passive jerk in our collective opinions. We will have to add it to our personal rejection of The Epilogue of Doom (TM) as part of canon scripture. (This does seem to be how religions get started, doesn't it...)

Anyway, it's amazing how Wikipedia can actually start to look like a reliable source when compared to some things, but let's be honest-- it's nothing to write home about. So how much research do we do on our own rather than relying on secondary sources? It depends on the subject we're talking about. When it comes to some subjects, I go all the way back to primary sources for everything (original research and studies published in peer-reviewed journals, maybe interviews) and I don't accept anything else (psychopharmacology is the biggest one for me in this category). But it clearly isn't realistic to do this for everything. I tend to go with John Shelby Spong's findings in Biblical scholarship because I know that he does good work, sometimes Karen Armstrong, sometimes sources which the above two authors may have drawn from. In the case of trying to figure out the original author of Luke, who knows? We can talk about the placement in time of this gospel (after Thomas, Pauline material, Mark, Q, and Matthew, but before John), the audience Luke wrote for (Gentiles as well as Jews), the fact that the author of Luke was probably the author of Acts of the Apostles, the material contained in Luke, the differences between Luke and other gospels, the reasons why we see these differences, and so on, and on. The question of who wrote Luke can't be definitively answered and isn't a very interesting question anyway. Whatever Ramsay did and whoever he was, there's more recent work on the subject, and that's more interesting too.

 

[shadron]

How dare you all talk smack about famous archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who I had never heard of before. DOC said he's a famous archaeologist so that means he's famous, even if none of us had heard of him or were familiar with his work.

And don't bother with his Wiki entry. You need to try a less biased site.

Jesus (just a convention)! They didn't even bother with addressing any of his academic or field distinctions; just that medal from the pope. I'm sure he'd be personally pissed about that entry.

 

[Phase Inverter]

...Gospel writer Luke who Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called one of the world's great historians...

Why is the author of "Luke" is referred to as a historian?

Why not journalist, storyteller, letter writer, evangelist?

He claims to have followed closely the accounts of eyewitnesses that have been handed down to him from the beginning, yet what follows contains no commentary or supporting evidence. His reason that Jesus was from Nazareth but born in Bethlehem is inconsistent with that of "Matthew," another supposed eyewitness account. Where is the historical analysis that supports one account over the other?

 

[paximperium]

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.”
(1915, p. 89)
Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).

Here is the actual quote that apologists love to misuse. Notice the "does not go beyond the limit of science and justice" part?