Biblical Archaeology Review

[pupdog]

Is "Biblical Archaeology Review" a serious, science-based journal reporting on legitimate archaeological work, or does it resemble Creationist literature, generally lacking in critical thought? Some folks I know "rely" on it, but I've never seen it and don't know how credible a source it is.

 

[zakur]

I don't read it, but I know the editor (Shanks?) still believes the "James' Ossuary" is authentic despite the preponderance of evidence indicating it is a hoax.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

From what I've seen it's about half legit and half woo woo.

One of the biggest problems with the issue of Biblical Archaeology is that evidence for the mundane is not evidence for the supernatural. A lot of apologists don't seem to understand this and cite mundane a mundane discovery as evidence of a supernatural occurance. It ain't necessarily so.

 

[T'ai Chi]

From what I've seen it's about half legit and half woo woo.

One of the biggest problems with the issue of Biblical Archaeology is that evidence for the mundane is not evidence for the supernatural. A lot of apologists don't seem to understand this and cite mundane a mundane discovery as evidence of a supernatural occurance. It ain't necessarily so.

Speaking of the ossuary, here is an interesting link:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f2.html

Oh pray tell, US, tell us what 'supernatural evidence' looks like. How is it different from mundane evidence.