Consistency of archelogical record with bible

hawkwind · Post by **hawkwind** » 2006-06-11 01:15pm

Hello, I m having the debate with this guy.

He says is archeologist, he uses "rock solid" and

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

phrases.

He thinks that old testament is extremly consistent with archeological record and that is is great source to study history.
Anyway - is there anbody well versed in this, can you recomend me reading or decent books (something online would be fine).

Thanks

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2006-06-11 01:24pm

Give him a dose of the Invisble Pink Unicorn.

I seem to recall a History Channel (Yeah, I know) special using the OT as a War manuel (Nothing fanciful, just straight, realisitc interpretations of the events described) and used it for tacticle analysis of the battle tactics of the time.

Within a grain of salt, THAT could work, but not word for word.

How it meshes with the record, otoh, is highly variable, even from the special. (IE: no Hebrews in Egypt Proper).

Omega-185 · Post by **Omega-185** » 2006-06-11 01:29pm

Well I am by no means an expert on acheology but for "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I suggest you give him the good ol' smackdown by using burden of proof to demand that he prove his claim before you have to disprove it.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-06-11 01:41pm

He says is archeologist

He lies. Even if he has the degree he most definately doesn't have the mindset.

The bible played an important part in the history of archeology; the first expeditions set out to "prove" the existence of Biblical sites. Some even succeeded, because many cities mentioned in it existed in some form or another.

Today, using the bible as a guide or a direct historical source is laughable.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-06-11 02:05pm

Absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence ONLY WHEN we wouldn't expect to see evidence. Ask him does he think that aliens were in ancient egypt or not, then point out his sophistry.

The bible does not have "rock solid" proof supporting it, the guy is a flat out liar for Jesus. The whole young earth thing is a big issue, since it makes the old site of Jericho older than the Earth, for a start.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-06-11 02:31pm

I'm by no means an archeologist, but point out the fact that there aren't any archeological evidence for the Exodus, that there's no evidence for the Kingdom of David, that the OT is silent on the Egyptian influence in Canaan etc.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-06-11 02:53pm

Well, I actually did study archaeologu in Israel with an actual archaeologist and went on several digs as well. There is a sub-set of Archaeologists out there known as Biblical Archaeology and their whole raison d'etre is top set out to "prove the Bible". They do this by loudly pointing out the parts that agree while ignoring or downplaying the parts that don't match.

For example:
The ancient Hebrews continued to practic many pagan rituals even after returning to the land of Canaan.

There is abolsutely no evidence whatsoever of any large-scale migration of thousands of people into the Sinai that would explain the Hebrews leaving Egypt.

Egyptian digs support the theory that, rather than being slaves, pyramid-builders were a highly respected and skilled artisan caste.

The destruction level at Jericho marks the first conquest of the Hebrews in their return to Canaan; however, their next great vicxtory at Hazor has a destruction layer that dates... 240 years later.

THe guy sees what he wants to see, and nothing more.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-11 06:36pm

Actually, when it comes to the existence of an otherwise unnecessary phenomenon, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not absolute proof of absence, but anyone who doesn't understand the distinction between proof and evidence is clearly not a real archaeologist.