I'm a little skeptical about biblical archealogy. I don't think man will ever find any conclusive biblical archealogy. this is because God would never prove himself. that would destroy faith. so biblical archealogists are just wasting there time looking for desisive proof.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Would God prove himself?
- Thread starter IrishGuy070890
- Start date
CovenantRay
Well-Known Member
IrishGuy070890 said:
One point you raise is valid in my view -- Science will NEVER authenticate a message as written by G-d.
However, the evidence of the historical accuracy of the historic events described in the bible only affirm the biblical account, not contradict. This can and has convinced [former] skeptics to become believers. Read "Who Moved The Stone" by Morrison, or writings by Simon Greenleaf. Another sourcebook for this kind of information is "Evidence That Demands A Verdict"
by Josh McDowell.
Archaeologists have their job to do, the fruits of their labor are more to demonstrate how people lived in the past. If the evidence provides extra biblical evidence that agrees with the bible, then praise the lord!
That's my 2 cents,
CovenantRay
Upvote
0
Biblical archaeology in its truest sense is not about proving the bible. It's simply about doing archaeology in the biblical lands.
There have been many finds which contradict what scripture seems to say. What do we do about Kenyon's conclusions at Jericho? I recently wrote a paper which indicated a high probability that "asherah" was worshipped throughout much of israelite history. It also suggested a strong possibility that she was Yahweh's consort. But you would never know that from the biblical text.
my point is that BibArch is about finding truth, regardless.
There have been many finds which contradict what scripture seems to say. What do we do about Kenyon's conclusions at Jericho? I recently wrote a paper which indicated a high probability that "asherah" was worshipped throughout much of israelite history. It also suggested a strong possibility that she was Yahweh's consort. But you would never know that from the biblical text.
my point is that BibArch is about finding truth, regardless.
Upvote
0
Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 49
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
of course you are going to find that asherah was worshipped throughout much of Isrealite history.... if you read the bible, it states as much. In fact, after the split, only the house of Judah had any kings that were good, (kept to God's law) and it was very few of them. Studying the Kings in the bible, the 10 tribes (Isreal) had none.justified said:
Beyond that, in response to the OP, finding anything will not change faith. We could stumble on the Ark itself, and we still have to believe it. People didn't believe when Christ walked with them. Some centuries old artifacts won't convince them either, no matter how compelling.
Upvote
0
The issue is far more complicated than you have made it. Probably because you ignored the last line of my post.
Upvote
0
DailyBlessings
O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
- Oct 21, 2004
- 17,775
- 983
- 40
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And that is why "proving" the faith is not the goal of Biblical archaeology. Or shouldn't be, at least, and usually isn't.Uphill Battle said:
Upvote
0
jones_of_pbf
Mine Own.
I agree.IrishGuy070890 said:
It would not only destroy faith, but it would give the devil something to use for deciete.
***
Imagining someone finds the Ark of the Covenant.
They would have the world enthralled, and could lead the world in a direction away from Christ.
That's a pretty exteme example, but proves my point (I hope).
Upvote
0
jones_of_pbf
Mine Own.
I'm guessing you missed this part...justified said:
That part meant "if you don't get my meaning, then I can't help you understand it."jones_of_pbf said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
