Recent Biblical Archaeology

AV1611VET · Feb 18, 2023

Ophiolite said:
I would go further and say I would be thoroughly dismissive of them, considering them to be ignorant charlatans.

Just out of curiosity, is it important to you that you think this way, so you can remain an agnostic?

And for the record, do you realize that Jesus claimed He was the absolute Truth?

So, in your mind, does that make Him an "ignorant charlatan"?

JSRG · Feb 18, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
They are even questioning if the Hebrews even helped in building the pyramids or even if they existed at all.

What's odd about questioning Hebrews helping build the pyramids, even from a conservative Christian perspective? As far as I am aware, the Bible never claims they had anything to do with the pyramids. Adaptations of Exodus do sometimes show them as building pyramids, but I don't think it's ever stated in the Bible itself.

Tuur · Feb 18, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
I never said anything about the Great Pyramids; I just said pyramids and according to this timeline (and many others) the Egyptians were building pyramids close to when Moses was around (100 year difference only). I'm not familiar with what exact pyramids biblical authors said Moses was working on.

This is the Last Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Ever Built — Curiosmos

Around 2700 BC, the Egyptians began building pyramids and continued to do so for around 1,200 years. The last ancient Egyptian pyramid was that of Ahmose I.

curiosmos.com

I don't think Exodus mentions that at all. What Exodus states is that the Israelites built Pithom and Ramases, two cities. Depending on the translation, they were treasure cities, storage cities, or fortified cities.

Estrid · Feb 18, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
Well, you wanted me to respond to your post so for starters, I did make one mistake and that was to think I was talking to another friendly person who shared the excitement of great archeological finds. From your post though, I see we don't share the same views. As you are a skeptic of the Triune God of the Bible, I am a skeptic of people who claim their versions of historical events are the absolute truth even though it's a theory and everything else is some historical myth or nonsense. Wasn't the Big Bang Theory held as the main explanation of how the universe came about? Now since James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was setup in space, some scientists have questions about the theory and what JWST has found out there in the universe. Same with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, molecular biology has challenged parts of that theory.
Yes, the peer reviewed scientific explanations probably are the best solutions to many scientific questions but these explanations are only based on what scientists know about our world and let me tell you, there is still alot science doesn't know about the Earth and sea not alone, our solar system, the galaxy or the universe.

No one today lived during these historical periods so information about them is good deductible guessing and cannot be absolutely proven. So let others have their say about historical events.

And the reason I feel confident about God's Word is because I have had things in my life happen that I feel can only be explained by a supreme being so I pursued this Supreme Being logically to the Triune God of the Bible. I don't expect you to believe me but I believe and that is what is important. God bless.

You get a lot wrong. As elsewhere noted,
your notions about science are ill informed.
As for appreciating archaeology?
My Dad was a geologist. We had
archaeologists and their wonderful
stories for dinner guests. Ive been
on digs.
Guess why I am impatient with
woo woo "archaeology". I studied
geology and archaeology ay uni.
Guess why I'm impatient with someone
utterly unskilled in the art telling me all
about it and how I've no appreciation.
( it's not nice to make things up)

A person with some substance to their
"fascination" would not be watching cartoonish
vids or be so uninformed of archaeology that they'd think that anyone's jaw would drop at hearingof finds that further confirm whatever knows already. That parts of the bible refer to real things.
The only astonishment any " biblical archaeologist" cab deliver is how wacky they can get. See Ron Wyatt
Archaeology confirms lots of
Chinese history too. Jaw drop, any ?

In your " response" you go off on "big bang"
and don't bother to deal with the fact that
research disproves such as the flood, and
produces zero (0) evidence of anything
supernatural.
Are you confident there was a flood?

What does archaeology tell you about flood?
Is it-
" I believe and that's what is important"
Or does science prove it's just a story?

You are skeptical of people who claim they have
the absolute truth? Terrif. That's how a scientist
sees things.
Looking to "prove" what you want to find is
for phonies.

There are some good archaeological
journals. Try those, youtube vids are not
how you'd wa t your pumbdr trained.

Diamond7 · Feb 19, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
It's not called Palestine, that's a Roman name for their territory in the land. It was called Canaan.

The name "Palestine" is not native to the region and was imposed by outside powers. The region that is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip was inhabited by a variety of different peoples and cultures over the millennia, including Canaanites, Israelites, Philistines, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Ottoman Turks, among others. These different groups gave different names to the region, reflecting their own cultural, religious, and political perspectives.

Diamond7 · Feb 19, 2023

Estrid said:
What does archaeology tell you about flood?

No one has done any serious research on the Persian Gulf. Only the Black sea has been studied and parallels drawn between that and the Persian Gulf. Noah's flood continues to be as controversial as ever. Just as there was great controversy in his day that there was going to be a flood.

Archaeological evidence has been used to support the theory, including the discovery of submerged settlements and artifacts in the Black Sea region. However, the interpretation of this evidence is still a matter of debate among scholars.

Overall, the theory of a Black Sea flood remains a subject of ongoing research and debate in the fields of geology, archaeology, and history. While some scholars find the evidence compelling, others remain skeptical and argue that more research is needed to fully understand the history of the region and the possible influence of catastrophic floods on cultural myths and legends.

Hvizsgyak · Feb 19, 2023

Ophiolite said:
You were replying to @Estrid , but a couple of points you made caught my eye.
I'll anticipate Estrid's response to your comment above - she'll correct me if I have her wrong. She and I and any reasonable, educated person would be sceptical of "people who claim their versions of historical events are the absolute truth" . I would go further and say I would be thoroughly dismissive of them, considering them to be ignorant charlatans. Consequently, I'm not sure in what way your comment is relevant. Perhaps you will clarify.

The Big Bang Theory has its origins almost a century ago, although it was not until the early 1960s that detection of the background radiation put the nail in the coffin of its main rival, Steady State Theory. Before and since the theory has undergone major developments as new data became available, or old data was reinterpreted. The JWST data is no different in that regard.

You also say "some scientists have questions about the theory". This suggests you have a distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates. Of course scientists have questions about the theory. If they didn't they wouldn't be scientists.

A theory represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It is the product of observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't, ever, get any better than a theory. But every theory can itself get better by the aforementioned efforts. That's all that's happening here.

I was always aesthetically attracted to Steady State theory and still harbour a faint and unjustified hope BBT theory may yet be overturned. Unfortunately for that wish there is no practical chance that the JWST data will bring that about. It will just lead to adjustments, clarification and refinement of the existing theory.

Yes, exactly the same. You seem to misunderstand this also. Current evolutionary theory itself evolved from Darwin's work. There have been many changes, exciting, intriguing, challenging, fascinating . . . the list goes on. That's what science does. It pushes the boundaries of understanding. It's almost as if you think challenges to current scientific indicate some sort of weakness, when those challenges are the inherent strength of the discipline.

Why do people like you respond to post like mine? If I were Albert Einstein and I wrote what I wrote would you have still step right in and try to tell me I don't know what's really going on? Probably not. I don't have a "distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates". Yes, I am educated too like you (maybe not as thorough but enough to hold my ground).

Ophiolite said:
The Big Bang Theory has its origins almost a century ago, although it was not until the early 1960s that detection of the background radiation put the nail in the coffin of its main rival, Steady State Theory. Before and since the theory has undergone major developments as new data became available, or old data was reinterpreted. The JWST data is no different in that regard.

Ophiolite said:
A theory represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It is the product of observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't, ever, get any better than a theory. But every theory can itself get better by the aforementioned efforts. That's all that's happening here.

Thank you for sharing to our fellow posters (who are very educated too) and myself (for probably the 1000th time) how a Theory is formulated and your input on the the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's Evolutionary Theory. I'm sorry if I sound upset a little. I just read and read and read so many posts like yours and Estrid's where they poster tries to show their intellectual authority by berating others who don't share their opinion (and believe in a higher power). I'll leave it at that for now. May God bless you always and in all ways.

Hvizsgyak · Feb 19, 2023

JSRG said:
What's odd about questioning Hebrews helping build the pyramids, even from a conservative Christian perspective? As far as I am aware, the Bible never claims they had anything to do with the pyramids. Adaptations of Exodus do sometimes show them as building pyramids, but I don't think it's ever stated in the Bible itself.

Sorry, I was just going with what was the first thing that pop in my head and it was pyramids. I remember Charleton Heston, I mean Moses, standing there saying "Let my people go" and I thought it looked like a pyramid. I guess it could have been outhouses they were building for the Egyptians instead of pyramids :doh:

.

Hvizsgyak · Feb 19, 2023

Estrid said:
You get a lot wrong. As elsewhere noted,
your notions about science are ill informed.
As for appreciating archaeology?
My Dad was a geologist. We had
archaeologists and their wonderful
stories for dinner guests. Ive been
on digs.
Guess why I am impatient with
woo woo "archaeology". I studied
geology and archaeology ay uni.
Guess why I'm impatient with someone
utterly unskilled in the art telling me all
about it and how I've no appreciation.
( it's not nice to make things up)

A person with some substance to their
"fascination" would not be watching cartoonish
vids or be so uninformed of archaeology that they'd think that anyone's jaw would drop at hearingof finds that further confirm whatever knows already. That parts of the bible refer to real things.
The only astonishment any " biblical archaeologist" cab deliver is how wacky they can get. See Ron Wyatt
Archaeology confirms lots of
Chinese history too. Jaw drop, any ?

In your " response" you go off on "big bang"
and don't bother to deal with the fact that
research disproves such as the flood, and
produces zero (0) evidence of anything
supernatural.
Are you confident there was a flood?

What does archaeology tell you about flood?
Is it-
" I believe and that's what is important"
Or does science prove it's just a story?

You are skeptical of people who claim they have
the absolute truth? Terrif. That's how a scientist
sees things.
Looking to "prove" what you want to find is
for phonies.

There are some good archaeological
journals. Try those, youtube vids are not
how you'd wa t your pumbdr trained.

God bless you; hopefully I will get a chance to go on an archeological dig someday soon. To some it may appear boring but not for me. Finding our past helps us understand the people back then and possibly our own future. Anyway, I'm still sticking to my beliefs. They have not let me down so far. You wouldn't believe what I believe and I wouldn't expect you to but know I do have faith to a certain extent in our scientific theories but I always take them a step further until I see it's the wrong direction. And of course, I never stop dreaming

.

AV1611VET · Feb 19, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
God bless you; hopefully I will get a chance to go on an archeological dig someday soon.

Have you ever seen this video?

Ophiolite · Feb 20, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
Why do people like you respond to post like mine?

I've made no judgement of what kind of person you are. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to fit me into one of your stereotypes. It's not conducive to discussion.

Hvizsgyak said:
I don't have a "distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates".

Perhaps not, but the statements I was responding to showed a "distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates". And that also provides the answer to your earlier question - People like me respond to posts like yours because we wish to engage in discussion, to share our views and - most importantly - to enlighten the reader. Perhaps you find that patronising. That's not its intention.

You expressed a view of science that was an inaccurate expression of science. If I made inaccurate statements about your religion I would expect you to correct me and I would welcome that correction. I regret you do not feel the same way.

Hvizsgyak said:
Thank you for sharing to our fellow posters (who are very educated too) and myself (for probably the 1000th time) how a Theory is formulated and your input on the the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's Evolutionary Theory.

See my remarks above. One question, if you had this explained to you a 1000 times, why are you still misrepresenting it. I must be missing something.

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm sorry if I sound upset a little. I just read and read and read so many posts like yours and Estrid's where they poster tries to show their intellectual authority by berating others who don't share their opinion (and believe in a higher power).

That's OK. You've upset me a lot. First I was "one of those people" and now, apparently I am someone who relishes showing my "intellectual authority in berating others". I've made no judgement of you as a person, or of your motives. I have addressed specifically factual errors in what you wrote and I have done it because in my private and professional life communicating facts and removing misunderstandings has been vitally important to me.

Hvizsgyak said:
May God bless you always and in all ways.

Yout blessing is appreciated, but it would have been more powerful without the character judgements and assignment of motive.

J_B_ · Feb 21, 2023

Tuur said:
Like Caligula essentially making a Roman temple his front porch? Some dismissed that this was written by his detractor. Then it was discovered that he actually had done it. Just because histories can and have been subject to revision does not mean that all historical accounts have been revised.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The example you gave is one of historical revision, but you quote it as if it is the opposite. Further, you seem to conflate historical revision with doctoring primary sources. One is commonplace among professional historians and the other is gross misconduct.

J_B_ · Feb 25, 2023

I thought it might be interesting to compare Edom and it's place in Jewish history to Erlitou and it's importance to Chinese history. For those unfamiliar, Erlitou is a site discovered in 1959 that has seen more than 60 excavations through the 1990s. It was proposed as possible evidence for the Xia Dynasty, China's first dynasty purportedly ruled by Yu the Great, dating to roughly the same time as Edom.

In contrast to this is the Sanxingdui site, which though found in 1927, was not excavated until 1986. This site showed that the Shu culture was much older than traditional Chinese history has stated. It reveals a stable Chinese state with a distinct culture that was completely unknown to Chinese historians until the site was excavated. As such, it presents a possible rival narrative to that of Xia.

AV1611VET · Feb 25, 2023

J_B_ said:
I thought it might be interesting to compare Edom and it's place in Jewish history to Erlitou and it's importance to Chinese history.

China came from Noah's great grandson.

Noah → Ham → Canaan → Sinites

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

For the fullest comparison, the founder of the Erlitou would have to be the nephew of the Chinese (Sinites), since Edom (Esau) was Jacob's brother, and uncle to Jacob's son Judah.

This is an example of what I mean, when I say we can go much further than any archaeologist can with our knowledge.

Hvizsgyak · Mar 20, 2023

Ophiolite said:
That's OK. You've upset me a lot. First I was "one of those people" and now, apparently I am someone who relishes showing my "intellectual authority in berating others". I've made no judgement of you as a person, or of your motives. I have addressed specifically factual errors in what you wrote and I have done it because in my private and professional life communicating facts and removing misunderstandings has been vitally important to me.

If you would, please point out the errors in what I wrote. Would this be one of them?

Hvizsgyak said:
As you are a skeptic of the Triune God of the Bible, I am a skeptic of people who claim their versions of historical events are the absolute truth even though it's a theory and everything else is some historical myth or nonsense. Wasn't the Big Bang Theory held as the main explanation of how the universe came about? Now since James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was setup in space, some scientists have questions about the theory and what JWST has found out there in the universe. Same with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, molecular biology has challenged parts of that theory.
Yes, the peer reviewed scientific explanations probably are the best solutions to many scientific questions but these explanations are only based on what scientists know about our world and let me tell you, there is still alot science doesn't know about the Earth and sea not alone, our solar system, the galaxy or the universe.

James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…

Webb was expected to merely confirm the Standard Model of the universe but its images are “surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.”

mindmatters.ai

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.

Researchers confirmed that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

www.space.com

Standard Model of Cosmology Survives JWST’s Surprising Finds | Quanta Magazine

Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated. But astronomers still have much to learn from distant galaxies glimpsed by Webb.

www.quantamagazine.org

My whole point about what I said above was that even though the most solid scientific theory is recognized and taught to the public, it is still just a theory.

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

A humble "as a collective of scientists, this is what we believe is happening or has happened (then present the theory). The scientific community should be open to other less popular theories too. Have the debates, present the evidences, argue for the theory. The Big Bang Theory continues to live, yes, but it's still just a theory that could be knocked out of the limelight by another discovery.

We are the common people and when we hear news about scientific theories, we are lead to believe the scientist all agree (so the media leads you to believe). We don't have time to study the subject in depth so we take sciences word on it but that is starting to change. In the 60's the young were taught to question authority. Well, we are questioning authority and science doesn't like it self being questioned. We were taught to question authority but the teachers never said which authorities we should question. Hauntingly ironic.

USincognito · Mar 21, 2023

Estrid said:

I went to see Ron back in the mid-90s. His claims were out there then. These days they're just embarrassing.

USincognito · Mar 21, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
My whole point about what I said above was that even though the most solid scientific theory is recognized and taught to the public, it is still just a theory.

It's often observed that people who use the phrase "just a theory" don't understand or are murky on what constitutes a theory in science. It doesn't mean guess or hunch. A scientific theory is a robust explanation for a set of related observations. Germ theory of disease explains how communicable diseases work. Plate tectonic theory explains they position and movement of continents as well as earthquakes and volcanoes. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life now and in the fossil record.

Hvizsgyak said:
The scientific community should be open to other less popular theories too.

It is. All the alternative theory has to do is be supported be evidence that withstands scrutiny.

Hvizsgyak said:
Have the debates, present the evidences, argue for the theory. The Big Bang Theory continues to live, yes, but it's still just a theory that could be knocked out of the limelight by another discovery.

That's exactly what every science advocate says about every scientific proposition. Every single one is always provisional and subject to future modification or falsification. That includes things as seemingly set in stone as the earth revolving around the sun or gravity making objects attract.

Hvizsgyak said:
We are the common people and when we hear news about scientific theories, we are lead to believe the scientist all agree (so the media leads you to believe). We don't have time to study the subject in depth so we take sciences word on it but that is starting to change. In the 60's the young were taught to question authority. Well, we are questioning authority and science doesn't like it self being questioned. We were taught to question authority but the teachers never said which authorities we should question. Hauntingly ironic.

We are all welcome to question scientific conclusions, but not all questions are of equal weight, validity or worth.

Diamond7 · Mar 25, 2023

JSRG said:
Bible never claims they had anything to do with the pyramids.

We are told they were making bricks.

Diamond7 · Mar 25, 2023

Hvizsgyak said:
My whole point about what I said above was that even though the most solid scientific theory is recognized and taught to the public, it is still just a theory.

Newtonian physics continues to be applied in every area of science and technology where force, motion, and gravitation must be reckoned with. However, today's physicists, unlike Newton, know that his laws do not work in all circumstances.

Diamond7 · Mar 25, 2023

AV1611VET said:
Jesus claimed He was the absolute Truth?

The truth sets people free. Maybe people reject the truth because they like their bondage.

Recent Biblical Archaeology

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.

Similar threads