Archeology and the bible???

I just had to highlight this for the people who don't read links in threads

From smalltlalk's (extra "L" there?!) link:
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/discoveries.htm
Also, Jesus' genetic composition._ Would one expect it to be different from you and me as He came of a virgin birth?_ Learn the startling facts! Click http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm
Click to expand...
Skimming through the link, I think the claim is that Jesus was crucified above the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant. Then ....
"It is likely that the earthquake that took place at Jesus Christ's death, " opened a route for the blood to reach the holy relic (of Raiders of the Lost Ark fame) when Jesus was stabbed by a Roman soldier.

Samples of the blood stains have been analyzed and.....







Wait for it.......







Jesus had 23 chromosomes from a woman (presumably Mary) and one Y-chromosome from a man (presumably God) instead of the usual 46 (23 from each parent) They say "This condition is extremely rare, if present at all in other than this blood." Then go on to give an account of a boy who had only X-Chromosomes in his white blood cells.

Please let this be a parody site.
I'm trying to look at it that way, really I am.
But they seem to be selling stuff that supports this guff.

Anyway, I've also read UnrepentantSinner's link on Ron Wyatt http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
At least that shows that there ARE Christians out there willing to do a bit of basic research.

Here are some points from a letter from Joe Zias, Curator of Anthropology-Archaeology in Israel http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Zias.html
- - - Ron Wyatt has never received a license from the IAA to excavate here in Jerusalem.
- - - Finding a coin at the so called Mt. Sinai. This shows the total ignorance of RW and his public who want to believe rather than to know! Coins were not around at the times of Moses, even an amauter archaeologist should know this simple fact!!!

(I didn't know that simple fact, but there you go! Where's Joshua when you need him?)
 
Here is an interesting excerpt from Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, outlining what in their view are the top 10 most important archaeological discoveries relating to the NT.

The problem sometimes - I suspect this might be the case with Peter's house (number 3) - is that archaeologists are, understandably, extremely ready to leap to the conclusion that what they've found is what they'd hoped to find, sometimes on less than conclusive evidence.

Incidentally, the list has an omission I was not expecting: the bones of St. Peter. I've got a book, cleverly entitled The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh, which describes the discovery of Peter's bones (suspiciously, somewhere within the Vatican, IIRC). It's been a long time since I read it, but I seem to remember it was actually rather convincing, if somewhat convenient. Quite an extraordinary story, and though I tend to read lots about this stuff I haven't seen it disconfirmed yet. But I would have thought it would have been number one on the list, had it been true, and throughout the whole recent debate thing around the fake James ossuary I haven't seen it mentioned either.

Anybody know anything about this?
 
Don't we get the word "Bible" from the Greek word for "book"?


Dancing David said:
The search for troy is a somewhat proselike discussion of the arcaeology of troy.



Remeber people, the ancients were no stupider than you, when they describe a city on a trade route or the good from there, this is economics and not fiction.

Other interesting thing,

It should be Jesus the Nazarene, not jesus of nazareth,

byblos the city from which we get the word bible was a city of sin

modern judaism is not ancient judaism, which is why the dead sea scrolls have remanied unpublished, they were not from the essenes and monthesits but from polytheists and saducees

Most of the hebrew laws were written at 500 bc , long after the time of Moshesh, who by the way was an egyptian, not a hebrew.
Click to expand...
 
There's a really interesting book called "The Texas/Israeli War 1999" that tells of a battle between Israeli mercenaries and Republic of Texas armies in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The geographic details are quite good, even down to which highways they came down (even if the Trinity Ship Canal never got built, though it was a good place to have the light cruiser Judge Roy Bean available to serve as a floating artillery battery).

Most of the geography matches, therefore it must be true.

Regards;
Beanbag
 
smalltlalk_2k said:
As for Troy. To me it seems shaky. They found a city that had been destroyed that was in the approximate place that the city of Troy was supposed to be as descriped by Homer. That doesn't mean that it was Troy, just accepted as being Troy. I don't think(but i could be wrong) they ever found some kind of tablet or writing that said this is Troy. Something like a buried tax record or other thing. I just like proof, not accepted views. But on a side note. I hope it is Troy. I like it when things work out.
Click to expand...

Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.

Two are the critical questions that their answers will judge which one is " the city".

1. Is " Iliad" based strickly on 8th ce BC sources or does it contain elements that date back to the Mycenean era?

2.Was Troy VI / VII an important center of political power and trade in the second half of the 2nd millenium BC or it was an unimportant small residence ?

As you understand if it turns out that Troy was just a village during the Mycenean Era, then a war against it wasn't justified also, it it's proven that Homen wasn't aware of the Mycenean tradition while composing his poem, then the Troy that corresponds to the Early Geometric period ( 800BC) wasn't destroyed by a fire. [ Troy VI and Troy VII have been destroyed by fire]

Last year I read that some scientists question the existence of Troy VI and if this is true the whole image changes significantly

In any case, Troy is an important archaeological excavation because its nearly continuous occupation for more than 3000 years makes it a solid reference for the chronology of the ancient world from the early Bronze Age through the Roman Empire.
 
Dancing David said:


Most likely, but it is also a babylonian city, but I could be way wrong!
Click to expand...

Bible in Greek means a collection of Books. It was the Phoenician city Byblos that gave its name to the books ( biblion in Greek) because it produced the papyrus on which books were scribed.
 
Cleopatra said:
Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention
 
Beanbag said:
There's a really interesting book called "The Texas/Israeli War 1999" that tells of a battle between Israeli mercenaries and Republic of Texas armies in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The geographic details are quite good, even down to which highways they came down (even if the Trinity Ship Canal never got built, though it was a good place to have the light cruiser Judge Roy Bean available to serve as a floating artillery battery).
Click to expand...

Didn't Richard Ray do a special for Channel 4 on this over the summer? I swear I saw it as a segment on Good Day Dallas back in June...
 
Cleopatra said:

Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.
Click to expand...
Well duh, it's the one with the giant wooden horse.
 
Nucular said:
Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention
Click to expand...

Uh huh. I wasn't clear and this proves for one more time that it is not a good idea for me not to talk seriously in passed midnight hours...

What so ever, they were seven or six cities that predated the Homeric one. The total sum of the cities they were succeeded one by the other is nine. Troy VIII for example exists and it is the Archaic "Ilion. "--the Greek colony of the people of the island of Lesbos that was founded around 700BC

The question whether the literary Troy was fictional or not is known as the "Homeric Problem" .

The prevailing opinion among archaeologists, linguists and scholars is that Homer was aware of the Mycenaean tradition ( Late Bronze Age) when he composed both his poems ( Iliad and Odyssey -- we believe that it was the Odyssey that he composed first) in the Geometric Period-800BC.

The expansion of the Mycenean Greeks to the North-East started at the Late Bronze Age and they might have attempted to cross Pontus Euxinus ( that interstingly back then they called Pontus Axenos: unhospitable sea) and during one of those attempts the might have conquered the city of Troy but back then they didn't proceed further to the Black Sea.

A later myth,of the 8th ce, the Myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece marks the successful passage of Axenos Pontus and the colonization of the Black Sea. From the 8th ce BC Greeks stopped calling the sea Axenos Pontus and they renamed it to Euxeinus, meaning hospitable :)

Let me take the example of the horse, Arctic Penguin mentions. Well, this is one of the chapters that causes headache to the scientists that deal with the Homeric problem.

Homer describes the Troyans as "horse-tamers" or as owners of " fine foals" a unique description among all the cultures Homer describes. So how does he know? Did he have access to info we ignore or he just reflected beliefs about the Troyans that they were widely held in his days?

Only one example of what we call "The Homeric Problem" :)
 
Nucular said:
Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention
Click to expand...

The numbers refer to the levels assigned by the arcaeologists to the city of troy, which does exist exactly where homer said it did. The fact that the city is troy is not in dispute by archaeologist, what happened there is. I tale it that you don't believe that the city of Rome exists either?
 
I'd love to participate here, but it seems I've been beaten to the punch...by Cleopatra. She really seems to know her stuff....I'm all impressed like... :eek:

...but I don't really see anything else to add.
 
smalltlalk_2k said:
A while back I saw a show on some station about the Ark of the Covenant and how it has been found in ethiopia. It was being held by some natives in a building, the only thing was that their high priest was the only one that is allowed in the building. (very convenient).
Click to expand...

Hah! What bunk. We know that the Ark is crated, stored and forgotten in the back of some American wharehouse, saw it at the end of Raiders.
 
lol

Letter to the government...

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I am demanding that the government turn over any and all information pertaining to the Ark of the Covenant. It has been proven via videological documentation in the Raders of the Lost Ark documentary that you(government) have this ever precious artifact. It is well known that you market government documentaries as Hollywood fictional movies to cause doubt in the truth of these facts. I will be writing you about other documentaries that are being passed as Hollywood movies also... JFK, Roswell, Outbreak. The Day the Earth Stood Still.
 
Well, we have to admit though that it was the quest of such legendary treasures --like The Ark-- that expanded our knowledge about Archaeology.
 
I read a book ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-1453330-6623860?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

From the 80's, Graham Hancock decided to investigate reports of the Ark of the Covenant being in Ethiopia ... story was that it was taken there by one of Solomon's decendents. What Hancock found was that *every* church he went to had an Ark of the Covenant(!!) which turned out to be some pieces of wood with Hebrew written on it sometimes in wooden boxes, sometimes just the pieces of wood and nothing else. The churches decided they were the *true* children of Israel. One church, in one town, was supposed to have the really real Ark of the Covenant, but Hancock was denied entrance. Spent the rest of the book trying to convince himself that it was real ... but kept providing evidence that it probably was just more pieces of wood and the whole Ark thing was figurative or something.

He seems to be a bit more rational than all the other guys who try to convince people that they found the *real* Mt. Ararat, or that the events of the Bible all took place in some other area of the middle East and so on. I guess, as long as books like that sell ...
 
Here's the problem with saying, "we found the site of Troy, or Sodom & Gomorrah:" Since we don't know if those were ever real places or not, how can we say that the ruined city we found is or isn't it?

I saw an hilarious programme on UK TV which purported to investigate the historicity of the Bible using "scientific" methods. The guy leading the investigation was a mindless fanatic, but his team were skeptical.

They found a salty rock (I really mean, it was nothing more than a shapeless, salt-encrusted protuberance) on a flat, sandy ocean bed. The Christian bloke says to one of his team:

"Could it be a wall? I mean, is there any possibility?"

"Well, it...it's a rock. I don't know"

"But COULD it have been a wall?"

(silence, unwilling to commit)

"COULD IT CONCIEVABLY HAVE BEEN A WALL?"

(sighs) "I suppose, maybe, yes. Perhaps"

That was enough for the Christian guy. He nodded his head triumphantly, as though his work here was done. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A WALL FROM A BIBLICAL CITY, AND AN EXPERT AGREED!

Paul.
 
There is significant evidence that most of the historical events described in the bible--i.e., what kind ruled where and when, etc.--are (substantially) true, if of course recorded with religious and national bias. This, of course, does not mean that the miracle stories or patriarch stories are true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom