"Biblical" Archaeology
I am not sure that it is humanly possible to not have bias. Archaeology is a field in which there are obvious highly emotional and intense feelings about the past. I know that at one time Ambassador College was involved in a Archaeology dig in the Middle East. Ambassador College or perhaps the Worldwide Church of God spent a considerable amount of money to shovel dirt according to "The Painful Truth, Ambassador Report, Ambassador College's Participation in Jerusalem Dig Ends."
I seriously doubt that "evidence" unearthed really validates much of the "Old" Testament as many proclaim. Naturally there is a vested interest in archaeology and it not only applies to the Middle East, but other areas around the world as well. Everyone with a vested interest is naturally going to "validate" their cherished beliefs through ancient writings, archaeology or by whatever means. On the other hand there is always that other point of view, such as that of Thomas L. Thompson and his book "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel." In "World Ages Archive.com", Daniel Lazare (Harper's Magazine, March 2002) penned "False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History."
Those who write articles or books and make claims such as Thomas L. Thompson and Daniel Lazare (and there are many more), are always ripped to shreds. Voices on both sides of an issue have their reasons for
what they believe is "truth." On the other side of the coin are people like William F. Albright who is supposedly an "expert" on Biblical archaeology. William F. Albright is also taken to task by those who oppose his conclusions found in dirt and his methods by which he comes to his conclusions. I have the personal sense that some people find "evidence" for "Old" (cobwebs and all) Testament validation in every shovel full of dirt they turn over.
It is said that FAKE "Biblical" relics have been produced and have found their way into museums around the world and of course at great $expense to the "history" museums. So a court says the relics are "valid", but does that make them really valid? What if the court also has a vested interest? Then what? Should we believe just because someone says something is "true?" I think those of us who have learned the hard way that voices who say something is "true" according to what they say is "true", have learned from experience, that there is valid reason to doubt and to question and never assume something is "true" just because someone says it is.
When we read that "archaeology proves Old Testament history is true", does that then make it so? In regard to the flood of Noah, there are voices that make the assertion that the worldwide flood is "true" and on the other hand there are voices, which to my thinking are much more believable, that say the worldwide flood never happened and the "ark" of Noah is pure myth. In our modern world there are innumerable authors who write FICTION and their books are found in book stores the world over. There are also movie producers who manufacture fictional moves such as "Star Wars" and so what makes ancient writers all authors of "true history" as opposed to fictional stories?
Are we really to believe that a young man with a sling and a stone, killed a giant called "Goliath", while all the highly trained military men cowered in fear? Who would really believe that in the modern world, a non-military man could possibly come to the forefront of the military and be a champion? It would not be possible. Who would believe that because a man called Sampson had long hair, that was the source of his strength and when he was seduced by a woman who cut his hair, his supernatural strength vanished? Of course the "Old" Testament is overrun with such stories, that are more like "Little Red Riding Hood" and "The Three Little Pigs" that we all know are fairy tales. Why do millions believe these stories as if God was the author? Is the reality that men have created God in their own fictional stories?
Some people never learn. Even in the courts of "law" there have many who were innocent and yet suffered, because the courts said they were "guilty." We all lean toward what we want to believe and we may or may not be right. Yet still, it is better to question and never take for granted that something is true, just because someone or voices say something is true. All ex-Worldwide Church of God people know beyond doubt that they were deceived and so from that experience. why should anyone believe that "archaeology proves the O.T. is true?" Anyone with a vested interest will always make assertions that may have fatal flaws. Personally I doubt that anyone knows where the tomb of Jesus was or is. I doubt that anyone really knows the absolute truth about the many questions regarding the pyramids. Tourism brings a great deal of $money into the pockets of those who promote "sacred" places.
Van Robison
11 comments:
I understand what you're saying. Where did all those excursions to Israel get them? It was just a vacation for A.C. students. I'm sure there were many "romances" that sprang from it though.There's nothing more exciting than watching an A.C. co-ed digging dirt with a pair of shorts and tee shirt on, bending over, sweating, whew! Anyhow, back to the subject. Is there then NOTHING true in the book called "holy"? Was every bit of it made up? Yes, we were all burned by the con man's religion, but should we throw EVERYTHING out?
Unfortunately, due to dueling agendas, the whole topic of Biblical Archaeology has become unnavigable. There is literally no objectivity, simply because the idea of following an evidentiary trail has largely been lost. In this field, it would be very rare to find a true scientist with enough respect to avoid "spiking" his evidence to suit one of the agendas.
About the best one can do, is to read history texts still extant, which were written during the Biblical era. Some evidence which existed back then, has since passed to antiquity. Caveat Emptor certainly is a good rule to follow, but I must say that I found some elusive answers in reading Josephus. Years earlier, I had read some of the contemporary offerings of Dr. James Tabor, who seems quite legit. Personally, I'd recommend staying away from questionable showmen and authors such as Michael Rood, as he really doesn't meet my personal criteria as a source of bonifide information.
BB
Steve, sometimes you do have to throw everything out, just so that you can adequately sort it. You may end up reproving or reembracing some of your discards, but when we're exiting a totally bogus system such as Armstrongism, we can't assume that anything the man taught was true. That's why in one of my more inspired moments of years past, I came up with the term "HWAcaca"
BB
"should we throw EVERYTHING out?"
Absolutely. The con man and his religion has nothing to do with it either.
Actually, archaeology is messy. Either it debunks the biblical account or else it confirms every detail--depending on who you talk to.
I think that archaeology can only really establish general details such as the existence of Pontius Pilate or ancient Jericho, etc. But just because Jericho exists it does not prove the infallibility of the biblical story in which it appears. Depending on how you date the 20 different levels of ancient remains, you either believe when the Israelites would have arrived, it would have been merely a mound of rubble, or else you believe the city was sacked while full of food (by the Israelites). If you believe that the the Israelites shouted and then the walls supernaturally fell down, within your mind, no one will ever find any evidence that refutes that dogma.
Everyone thought that Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid were just mythological stories. However, the city of Troy was found in Turkey in the 19th century, establishing that there was some truth to these stories. But just because Troy exists, no one thinks that this archaeological data ALSO means a woman named Thetis must have actually dipped her son Achilles in the river Styx, thus bestowing supernatural defenses upon him. No, everyone still figures those stories are mythological accounts, even if the locations are established to be true. Nobody believed that dogma anymore in the first place.
Archaeology rarely changes anyone's mind about dogma. It just provides data that is used to support everyone's preconceived notions.
"...we were all burned by the con man's religion, but should we throw EVERYTHING out?"
If you're smart, you'll throw everything out but carefully chosen moral and ethical concepts like "love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Jefferson tried to do something like that by carefully chosing what he felt were actual words of Jesus.
Much of the book of Proverbs is A-OK, but a great deal of those proverbs have been found verbatim in ancient Egyptian writings. There's a whole lot of cut, plagiarize, edit and paste involved in the Bible.
" we can't assume that anything the man taught was true."
That's right Bob, the best approach then (for you, evidently) is to go back to assuming that everything you believed before armstrongism was true.
Quite the scientific approach eh?
I don't know, Jace. I was only 8 years old when my parents dragged me into Armstrongism. What does that leave me with as far as prior beliefs go? "Jesus loves the little Children?" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" I remember those two blasts from the past from Sunday school.
I think we also used to recite the short version of the ten commandments.
BB
"What does that leave me with as far as prior beliefs go?"
That's the problem with childhood indoctrination. You never can tell exactly when those insidious ideas took root in the first place.
Oh well.
Reading your article Van made me realize just now the confronting reality that maybe we don't have the complete Bible as "God" wrote it. I mean isn't it intriguing that the ACOGs all tell you to believe the Bible as infallible and yet I recall HWA said that 1 John 5:7 was spurious. A little bit inconsistent isn't it? So if 1 John 5:7 is false what else is false in the supposedly inerrant and infallible "Word of God" as we have it in the hundreds of different English versions? And how accurate a translation are they? And are there any books or letters that are missing or have been suppressed? It makes one wonder...
When man translated the bible from the masoretic texts they put some things in to fit their beliefs instead of copying it word for word. Like a pale horse should read a green horse. because a green horse makes no sense to us they used the word pale. Green is the sickly colour of some dying and dead people with some diseases. One of the four horsemen prophecies. Like wise 1 john 5.7 was added and the word Pascha translated to easter instead of Passover. This in no way means that the bible is all myth. I myself would rather believe in a God that gives us laws like don't murder steal and lie and commit adultery. than the lie of evolution. And other false religions. Israel rejecting God was punished time and time again and now we are reaping the prophesied curses for rejecting God too. debt terrorism wasting diseases. You all can think what you like But unlike most christian organisations Armstrong never said give me a love gift of x amount etc. to make himself rich. You get their stuff free. because Jesus said freely you were given so freely you shall give. And it seems you don't want to believe your own eyes when anything is dug up that proves the bible. And Paul said many will follow a false Jesus and gospel. there are not many people in the churches of God. even the ones that went back to pagan days.
Post a Comment