I like to watch the occasional TV program featuring archaeologists looking for Biblical artifacts, such as the arc of the covenant and the holy grail. I wonder about these folks sometimes though. I think it's admirable if they are doing this out of pure scientific curiosity, but if they are looking for physical evidence to provide support for their faith - then how much faith do they have to begin with? It was Jesus himself that showed Thomas the marks on his hands and feet after the resurrection and said: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29. So to you folks out there who enjoy archaeology for its own sake, I applaud your efforts to expand our knowledge of history, but if you are looking for physical evidence to provide support for your faith, I think you're looking in the wrong place. 🙂
@mchill saidCheck out the book by Israel Finklestein called Unearthing the Bible. He's an atheist Jew who wrote the definitive archeological book on the topic that was consumed by regular people until like 2009...
I like to watch the occasional TV program featuring archaeologists looking for Biblical artifacts, such as the arc of the covenant and the holy grail. I wonder about these folks sometimes though. I think it's admirable if they are doing this out of pure scientific curiosity, but if they are looking for physical evidence to provide support for their faith - then how much faith ...[text shortened]... r physical evidence to provide support for your faith, I think you're looking in the wrong place. 🙂
Everything in it is painfully accurate, yet the surprising takeaway is that there is proof of nearly everything the Bible claims except that he says Jerusalem was not an important city and thus the whole timeline of Moses and David does not make sense, and places events as happening in the early Iron Age instead of the late Bronze Age
Yet, in around 2009 they found evidence of a very large wall that had existed all around Jerusalem in the 11th century, which knocked the timelines for all of this further back into history and corresponding more closely to the conservative Biblical timelines. In essence, making Finklestein's book an excellent read for Christians who want a long document that is basically just an atheist saying "everything generally happened as it was stated in the Bible."
The sticking points left for Christians involve alternative theories as to why some of these cities were destroyed or the extents of their destruction. But generally speaking, it's a pretty big affirmation.
...
As far as the Arc and the Grail... IDK, man.
@philokalia saidBut generally speaking, it's a pretty big affirmation.
Check out the book by Israel Finklestein called Unearthing the Bible. He's an atheist Jew who wrote the definitive archeological book on the topic that was consumed by regular people until like 2009...
Everything in it is painfully accurate, yet the surprising takeaway is that there is proof of nearly everything the Bible claims [i]except that he says Jerusalem ...[text shortened]... ly speaking, it's a pretty big affirmation.
...
As far as the Arc and the Grail... IDK, man.
This is interesting from a scientific standpoint, but why do folks feel the need for physical evidence or affirmations to support their faith? It doesn't make much sense to me.
@mchill saidWhat is it Christians, Jews and Muslims think the archaeological evidence "affirms"?
But generally speaking, it's a pretty big affirmation.
This is interesting from a scientific standpoint, but why do folks feel the need for physical evidence or affirmations to support their faith? It doesn't make much sense to me.
@mchill saidRight, the faith can't be a purely empirical or even rational thing. It has to be based on faith.
But generally speaking, it's a pretty big affirmation.
This is interesting from a scientific standpoint, but why do folks feel the need for physical evidence or affirmations to support their faith? It doesn't make much sense to me.
However, it is proper to say that if it could not be proven that King David's city city and Solomons a temple existed at all as described, it would certainly be problematic.
The fact that the timeline matches well does not prove anything, but it sustains our narrative, and that is a positive and good thing, yes?
@whodey saidIf what you say is true, then no one would be a Christian.
People need evidence to place their faith in something, unless you are just plum crazy.
Tell us, Enlightened One, what "evidence" convinced you? Are you "plum crazy" or do you also like non-drupe fruits?
Obviously... One does not need definitive evidence that absolutely proves a thing is true, but let's say that there was actually extensive amounts of physical evidence that totally countered the narrative that religion Y has -- and not in some way where "Well, it was 3,000 years ago and they didn't know better," but it featured stuff like original bas-reliefs and found texts that clearly contradict the very basics of the content and imply that the initial religion had an entirely different basis and ideas...
I am sure some people might still cling on to it, right, but, if anything, whole new religions based off of what the origin was like might come into being, and a whole lot of other people would just be too generally cynical to continue in the religion.
Whodey really does have a point here.
@suzianne saidAs was pointed out, there is archaeological evidence to back up some of the Bible stories. Then there is the existence of the Bible itself. It is a culmination of books covering centuries and many different authors as witnesses as to the power and existence of God. Last I checked, eye witness accounts were good for our court rooms, yet not for biblical commentary? In fact, I like the way Jesus had others write about him instead of him writing about himself. It brings authenticity to the story. Or I could tell you about prophecy that has come true, or how about the simple evidence of Creation itself? Or I could tell you about how I've seen God change people.
If what you say is true, then no one would be a Christian.
Tell us, Enlightened One, what "evidence" convinced you? Are you "plum crazy" or do you also like non-drupe fruits?
But alas, this is no evidence for you, is it Suzy? Yes, your faith in the God of the Bible makes about as much sense to you as the flying spaghetti Monster.
I guess this is not too surprising really.
@mchill saidArchaeological evidence shows that 600,000 people did NOT wander the desert for 40 years. Moses was a story, a mythological character. Definitely not a flesh and blood human being. Kind of casts a shadow over things like Ark of the Covenant, Ten Commandments and other things. And it is clear that Jesus guy spoke of Moses as if he was a real human being who once existed. If Jesus guy was actually a god he would surely have known Moses never existed, but he didn't know. He only knew what his contemporaries knew. Hardly godlike.
I like to watch the occasional TV program featuring archaeologists looking for Biblical artifacts, such as the arc of the covenant and the holy grail. I wonder about these folks sometimes though. I think it's admirable if they are doing this out of pure scientific curiosity, but if they are looking for physical evidence to provide support for their faith - then how much faith ...[text shortened]... r physical evidence to provide support for your faith, I think you're looking in the wrong place. 🙂
Exodus is an interesting story, but archaeology says it never happened.
So much for a "god inspired" book.