Has Archaeology Called Into Serious Question- The Patriarchal History Contained Within The Bible?

[lotfinia]

I would appreciate, if after your vote you would take a minute and give your reason as to why you believe as you do. :rolleyes: Like any scientist I tend to be careful so your participation in this poll will be a great help to me- a newbie here. Thank you all for your consideration.

 

Thank you again Eclogite for all your help! Now you can vote! Please do!

[Eclogite]

I found the poll questions and the options impossible to answer as stated, for two reasons.

 

Firstly, the patriarchal history has been called into question by archaeologists, not scientists. There is, I understand, some debate as to whether we should grant archaeology the status of a science. Undoubtedly, today, it employees many techniques borrowed from science, but I have some reservations as to whether we can call the whole discipline a science.

 

Secondly, again from my limited understanding, archaeology has called the patriarchal history into serious question. That is rather different from saying it has disproved it. These may seem to be nitpicking points, but to vote in the poll could give you a misleading view, because of these reservations. Personally, I rather liked the bullrushes story and am disappointed to learn it is probably another kind of bull.

[lotfinia]

I found the poll questions and the options impossible to answer as stated, for two reasons.

 

Firstly, the patriarchal history has been called into question by archaeologists, not scientists. There is, I understand, some debate as to whether we should grant archaeology the status of a science. Undoubtedly, today, it employees many techniques borrowed from science, but I have some reservations as to whether we can call the whole discipline a science.

 

Secondly, again from my limited understanding, archaeology has called the patriarchal history into serious question. That is rather different from saying it has disproved it. These may seem to be nitpicking points, but to vote in the poll could give you a misleading view, because of these reservations. Personally, I rather liked the bullrushes story and am disappointed to learn it is probably another kind of bull.

 

 

Due to the extensive nature of today’s archaeological digs, archaeology does for me qualify as a science. It isn't treasure hunting today. However, I can and do thank you for your opinion and comment.

 

A good many of the science loving amateurs; I find around the web when discussing their science heroes i.e., Dr. Richard Dawkins seem to feel their heroes have discredited the entire history of the Bible. Then there is Dr. Israel Finkelstein and other supporters who are rather firm in dismissing a historical base for the Bible certainly when compared to Albrightism POV.

 

As for the bulrush story, it is very similar to the story the real historical person Sargon the Great ca.2334 tells about his infancy. Therefore, whether or not it happened to Moses, it did happen to Sargon and is based upon history.

[Eclogite]

Due to the extensive nature of today’s archaeological digs, archaeology does for me qualify as a science.

I don't see how the extent of the digs is relevant. A modern marketing campaign is extensive, employing sophisticated techniques of psychology, statistics, behavioural analysis, sociology, cognition, etc, but we would be unlikely to call it science.

 

A good many of the science loving amateurs; I find around the web when discussing their science heroes i.e., Dr. Richard Dawkins seem to feel their heroes have discredited the entire history of the Bible.

Did you mean i.e., or e.g. ? It makes a world of difference to the entire meaning of your sentence.

 

I hardly think Dawkin's views on Bible history have any relevance. I wouldn't ask the Archbishop of Canterbury about the validity of Cope's rule. Dawkin's is merely reflecting the conclusions of a body of researchers who have established, certainly to my satisfaction, the historical inaccuracy of many of the Biblical stories. My own view is that stories do not generally grow out of thin air. There will typically be a basis of some kind for them. You illustrate this with the story of Sargon.In that instance the validity of the biblical story as history is pretty well destroyed.

[lotfinia]

I don't see how the extent of the digs is relevant. A modern marketing campaign is extensive, employing sophisticated techniques of psychology, statistics, behavioural analysis, sociology, cognition, etc, but we would be unlikely to call it science.

 

 

Did you mean i.e., or e.g. ? It makes a world of difference to the entire meaning of your sentence.

 

I hardly think Dawkin's views on Bible history have any relevance. I wouldn't ask the Archbishop of Canterbury about the validity of Cope's rule. Dawkin's is merely reflecting the conclusions of a body of researchers who have established, certainly to my satisfaction, the historical inaccuracy of many of the Biblical stories. My own view is that stories do not generally grow out of thin air. There will typically be a basis of some kind for them. You illustrate this with the story of Sargon.In that instance the validity of the biblical story as history is pretty well destroyed.

 

 

I appreciate you POV, but remain unchanged in my own.

 

“Did you mean i.e., or e.g. ?” Thank you for helping me to become an even better communicator.

 

You are a rare one for in my experience many consider Dr. Dawkin’s views as pertinent. I wrote my questions based upon my knowledge. I wish I had had yours at the time, I would have rephased science into archaeology. I will not make that mistake again, I assure you.

 

As for your opinion about stories any cultural anthropologist, and some folklorists will tell you, you are not alone!

 

I am sorry that new knowledge has destroyed the validity of a bible story, as history for you. Simply, because mother Moses; may have had knowledge of life surviving beyond a marsh-boat existence, thanks to the famous story of Sargon.

 

As we say in the USA south, you take care now. B)

 

2118