|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua
Asked and answered. I've already linked Wikipedia once - the prevailing scholarly view isn't just that there is evidence to doubt the literal interpretation but that "Joshua is not a factual account of historical events". When you say "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you are not only making a statement that is starkly factually wrong, you are demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to spend thirty seconds investigating the subject.
Well it's very scholarly of you to rush to a conclusion before actually debating the evidence.
But I know what is likely to happen, because it has happened before in other discussions I have had concerning biblical evidence. The two sides maintain their entrenched positions, and the credibility of opposing scholars is constantly called into question. The trading of ad hominems generally obscures the consideration of evidence.
As a matter of fact, if you had actually researched this subject, you would know that there has been a debate about the dating of the conquest of Canaan, and the radiocarbon dating of items from Jericho (City IV). As with all academic disciplines, it is a matter of a work in progress, especially concerning a subject such as archaeology, in which evidence is understandably sparse, and in which so often the principle of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is invoked to draw definite conclusions.
I remember this when I debated on another site concerning the Lukan census, in which I presented copious evidence to support the biblical view, which was then dismissed without any proper refutation, simply because my conclusions were unwelcome to a bunch of atheists.
I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur. Certainly Gamaliel's settled conclusion is contrary to the processes of proper research and robust scholarly analysis. In other words, his approach is academically invalid, although I suppose it's the kind of view one would expect from those dependent on a diet of popular media 'scholarship'. If he is such an expert on the Ancient World, he ought to know that archaeological evidence is notoriously flimsy, and theories change as more evidence is unearthed.
To be honest, on this thread I was focusing on textual evidence, and the internal coherence of the Scriptures, since that was the line of attack taken against the literal view. Clearly there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation.
I will look at the archaeological evidence, and get back to you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you have killed innocents, due to dereliction of duty.
Your apportioning of guilt does not change the reality on the ground.
Which is why I say that I am a realist, not an idealist.
No, you are a utilitarian consequentialist. An ethical position which has generally been rejected by Christianity. (Apart from anything else, I am not convinced there is any possible answer to the problem of evil that will satisfy a utilitarian consequentialist.)
(Also in what sense were the Canaanites the aggressors? Didn't the Israelites invade their lands?)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Certainly Gamaliel's settled conclusion is contrary to the processes of proper research and robust scholarly analysis. In other words, his approach is academically invalid, although I suppose it's the kind of view one would expect from those dependent on a diet of popular media 'scholarship'. If he is such an expert on the Ancient World, he ought to know that archaeological evidence is notoriously flimsy, and theories change as more evidence is unearthed.
To be honest, on this thread I was focusing on textual evidence, and the internal coherence of the Scriptures, since that was the line of attack taken against the literal view. Clearly there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation.
I will look at the archaeological evidence, and get back to you.
At least looking at the archaeological evidence will give you the opportunity to use the shovel you're currently digging a hole with for a different purpose.
You had the opportunity to actually apologise, rather than deliver a fauxpology and get another dig in a Gamaliel. But you blew it. Oh, internets... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction?
I will let South Coast Kevin answer for me.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, the evidence that it is not fully accurate (at least in the sense that it does not accurately portray God's view on what the Israelites should have done) is that it seems utterly in contradiction to the character of God as revealed in Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus - 'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you' Jesus - ordering his followers to commit ethnic cleansing?
And I will add: What is your evidence to think it happened just as it happened? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your argument appears to be it must have happened exactly that way because the Bible says so. Even though you will admit that other things the Bible says aren't necessarily to be taken at face value.
quote:
EE said:
Also, you may like to present evidence to justify abusing (as in the hell thread - "lunatic ravings") someone who happens to believe that the book of Joshua is not fiction.
Distinguish an attack on words from an attack on a person. I did not say the ravings of a lunatic, which would be a personal attack.
quote:
So anyone who takes an ancient account of an event at face value is guilty of "lunatic ravings" is he? Perhaps we should regard the entire history of the Ancient World as fiction, just to pander to mousethief's delicate sensibilities?
I suggest not wildly extrapolating beyond what somebody has said and then insulting their sensibilities based on your extrapolation. People who do not do this generally seem more sensible and sensitive than people who do.
quote:
Hmmm... what were you saying about "being taken seriously", again?
I cannot expect to be taken seriously by everyone. That the majority of rational thinkers on the Ship take me seriously has to be good enough for me.
quote:
What I have noticed from certain contributors, is that they seem to regard the content of the Bible as a set of universal laws, pretexts or precedents, such that if we believe that God acted in a certain way at a certain point in time, then He is bound to act in a similar way in other contexts, or that we are justified in distilling principles from His actions and applying them in other contexts.
Interesting you should notice this, as it doesn't exist. Nobody has said or hinted at this, at least on the three threads that this discussion has spawned. We aren't talking about how God should behave, but about God's character. We're saying God is not the sort of God to order the killing of babies. You're saying He is.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally, I have no problem believing that the genocidal event happened. Furthermore, I have no problem believing that the Israelites - including the writer of the Book of Joshua - believed that God had commanded them to do it. After all, we see such delusions even today (9/11 anyone?). The only bit I don't believe is that God actually commanded it.
This. Exactly and precisely this.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, Jesus who you claim is your example knew about these stories and said little to discount them.
Interesting defense. He also said exactly nothing about abortion. Game over on abortion, according to Beeswax Altar?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You're beginning to sound like a broken record, Gamaliel, trotting out your cliches and stock phrases.
Sputter. Kof. Sputter. Sputter.
quote:
The trouble with this is that this same Jesus made no attempt to disabuse us of the belief that the apparently historical events of the entry into the Promised Land were true. I would have thought that God would display his truthfulness and integrity through Jesus. Apparently not. <snip> Therefore I take the accounts to be true, as I perceive that Jesus does as well. That is my evidence.
You can't perceive something that isn't there. Argument from silence is no argument unless you have firm evidence that there absolutely could be no silence on this unless it were the case. Which you do not have. There are a billion things Jesus never spoke of (or at least weren't recorded - John says he said a lot of things that didn't get written down, but the things that did get written down are for our edification). Jesus didn't deny that pi=3 or the sun moves and the earth stands still, both firmly established in the Old Testament. I do not (and I hope to shout you do not) conclude from this that he believed them to be true, and I for God's sake wouldn't base a biblical hermeneutic on his silence about them. (I assume you refuse to eat pork or wear clothing made of two or more kinds of fibre? Jesus said nothing about this.)
quote:
So therefore are you saying that any ancient writing that takes the form of an historical account must be viewed as a story or parable if it contains elements we don't personally like? Is that it?
No. How many times do people have to say this? It's not that we personally do not like them. It's that they eviscerate the nature of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
You appear to think that any ancient writing that takes the form of what you think of as a historical account must be viewed as a historical account. Is that it?
quote:
You have arrived at a verdict from zero evidence,
Kind of like your verdict that Jesus affirms the historicity of the Jericho account.
quote:
There are historical accounts describing real events.
So you say. Assertion is not support. Maybe you could give an argument about why you think they are historical accounts? (As you have been asked repeatedly but have hitherto neglected to do, other than "that's what they look like to me.")
quote:
that having looked at various archaeological claims by sceptics, the conclusions about the Bible seem to be based on the spurious principle of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Exactly your argument for Jesus' belief in the the historicity of the Book of Joshua! OMG! You're killing me! Priceless, my precious! Priceless!
quote:
If they want to think it's fiction. Fine. But don't expect me to agree.
What we expect is for you to support your position with evidence and logic. We're still waiting.
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what's-his-name, whom I have decided to ignore on this thread.
That could be almost anyone.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Pysdeybare wins the internet.
quote:
EE said:
I studied theology (with a large philosophy elective element) in a so called 'liberal' faculty and came out with a 2:1. I debated not only with the other students but even some of the lecturers who respected me. You're an amateur and frankly I don't know why I condescend to respect your intelligence, given the nonsense you come out with at times.
Yeah yeah yeah. And I have a master's degree in philosophy from a prestigious philosophy department. That and $1.30 will get me an apple fritter from my favorite doughnut shop. But alas it doesn't increase the desultory length of my dick. How's that working for you?
quote:
I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.
It's a hell of a lot more than any evidence you've presented that they DID occur. Infinitely more if we're computing the ratio.
[ 27. February 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I may get 'called' by the Hosts on this one but I can't understand how the hell you got a 2:1 in Philosophy and Theology from one of our top universities by spouting the kind of crap you spout here.
That might just about get a Commandment 3 pass as critical comment on posts (i.e. a variation on "your post is stupid"), but
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I really think that you're a troll at times, just winding us all up for the sake of it.
In fact, it'd be easier to believe that you are a troll than that you are educated to the level you claim and come out with the tosh you spout.
Host Hat On
That gets you a formal warning for troll calling, which is as you well know a matter for Admin. Specifically, it is a breach of Commandment 3.
In addition.
Gamaliel and EE
I am referring you both to Admin for your continued parading of your personality conflict (Commandment 4 applies) outside of Hell, despite Louise's specific warning to all contributors re Commandment 4 in this post. earlier in the thread. Ignoring a Host's post can get you both into further hot water with Admin.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical and Gamaliel
I've lost count of how many times you've been warned about personal attacks on each other.
The next time either of you takes a pot shot at the other outside Hell and one of us will start handing out enforced shore.
Clear?
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Ok, fair call and fair warning. I shouldn't have taken the bait.
My rhetoric ran away with me but that's no excuse.
I will endeavour to resist temptation. Other people are giving EE a better run for his money than I can.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua
Asked and answered. I've already linked Wikipedia once - the prevailing scholarly view isn't just that there is evidence to doubt the literal interpretation but that "Joshua is not a factual account of historical events". When you say "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you are not only making a statement that is starkly factually wrong, you are demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to spend thirty seconds investigating the subject.
As a matter of fact, if you had actually researched this subject, you would know that there has been a debate about the dating of the conquest of Canaan, and the radiocarbon dating of items from Jericho (City IV).
Which means that when you said "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you were not only saying something that was factually wrong but something you knew to be factually wrong. That the evidence is disputed doesn't mean it isn't there.
Why were you saying something you knew to be factually wrong?
quote:
I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.
It's sufficient to conclude that if you "assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities" they did not occur. It's not sufficient to prove it beyond all doubt. Balance of probabilities is your standard, and consensus and balance of probabilities are against you.
Out of curiosity, did you not know where the historical consensus was or now it has been pointed out to you what the consensus is have you decided to stop assessing on the balance of probabilities because it no longer supports your argument?
quote:
If he is such an expert on the Ancient World, he ought to know that archaeological evidence is notoriously flimsy, and theories change as more evidence is unearthed.
I refer your own words to you again.
quote:
To be honest, on this thread I was focusing on textual evidence, and the internal coherence of the Scriptures, since that was the line of attack taken against the literal view. Clearly there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation.
Once again you are making false statements. There is a coherent internal attack in the bible against the book of Joshua. It revolves around the peoples supposedly wiped out cropping up later.
Now once more you can justify things saying "He only killed some of them and the book doesn't record the reverses." But you're into apologetics. Your statement that "there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation" is quite obviously false. There is evidence even if you can explain it away.
Why are you making false statements here? Is it because you want to show your initial statement to be justifiable even when it isn't?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Biblical Justification Gymnastics should be an Olympic event or a circus act. Not the best I've seen at Cirque du Soliel can contort so drastically.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Well, having had a look at some of the evidence it is by no means clear that the sceptics have a case. Of course, it all depends on our view of biblical chronology, but assuming the traditional view of the destruction of Jericho around 1406 BC, then we are essentially faced with the dispute between the interpretation of the archaeological evidence of John Garstang versus that of Kathleen Kenyon. The former dates the destruction of Jericho (City IV) to around 1400 BC, whereas the latter dates it to 1550 BC.
Certainly there is the evidence of the dating of pottery unearthed and catalogued by Garstang in the 1930s, which supports the biblical account, especially the scarabs which feature the names of Egyptian Pharaohs of the 15th century BC, whereas Kenyon's conclusion with regard to pottery is based on an argument from silence, namely, the absence of expensive imported Cypriot pottery. However, she acknowledged that she excavated an economically poor area of the city, where one would not expect to find such items.
The conflict between these two interpretations is well analysed in this article.
So I am not convinced that the literal view has been kicked into the long grass. Far from it.
I await the refutation of Wood's thesis, so we can take the debate further.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The conflict between these two interpretations is well analysed in this article.
Except the radiocarbon dating is handled in a very cavalier manner: the very best dates clock in 1500s BC.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
EtymologicalEvangelical and Gamaliel
I've lost count of how many times you've been warned about personal attacks on each other.
The next time either of you takes a pot shot at the other outside Hell and one of us will start handing out enforced shore.
Clear?
I am sorry about this.
I will stick to a discussion of the evidence relating to the topic, and I trust that we can have a fruitful debate.
I will do my utmost to chill out from now on.
[ 27. February 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Except the radiocarbon dating is handled in a very cavalier manner: the very best dates clock in 1500s BC.
Could you expand on that point please.
What do you mean by 'cavalier' in this context?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Except the radiocarbon dating is handled in a very cavalier manner: the very best dates clock in 1500s BC.
Could you expand on that point please.
What do you mean by 'cavalier' in this context?
In that an article dated 2008, he's still using radiocarbon data that was discredited in 1995. In the addendum, Wood - despite using C14 to originally bolster his case - says that using C14 dating is wrong when it doesn't agree with the 'historical' date.
That's what I mean by cavalier. Either Wood agrees with C14, and has to accept what it says, or he doesn't. He doesn't get to choose which C14 dates he likes. (Clearly, he can do, but his credibility takes a massive hit.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, even if there were hard-fast and irrefutable evidence for the Israelite capture of Jericho, then there'd still be the issue of whether it happened in exactly the way the Book of Joshua describes ... with the Israelites blowing trumpets and the walls come tumbling down ...
'Joshua fit de battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho ...'
It would be very difficult to 'prove' or demonstrate that the walls collapsed by supernatural means - unless they happened to fall in a way that was commensurate with that and not through an earthquake or by being levelled by a victorious army etc etc.
One might just as well go looking for archaelogical evidence for the Transfiguration, say ... 'Hey, these rocks here look rather bleached, just as if a bright light has been shining on them ...'
Or looking for 2,000 pig skeletons at the point where the herd is said to have tumbled down the cliff in the Gospel accounts.
I do believe that God is perfectly capable of doing supernatural things ... in our space/time here and now world.
But the point of these stories is theological ... there are some strange and 'unexplained' stories in the scriptures but by and large the miraculous, supernatural happenings tend to have a theological purpose.
That's not to say they didn't happen, but it is to provide some context and reason for their inclusion in the narratives.
The theological point is surely more important than whether Jericho was taken in exactly the way the Bible describes. If we can handle the 6-Day Creation in figurative terms than surely we can handle this story in a similar way?
And yes, I know, I know, it could lead us to relegating the accounts of the resurrection appearances of Christ to a symbolic or figurative level. Yes, I accept there is a danger of that.
But it doesn't necessarily follow. That doesn't mean that we are picking and choosing ... I don't see it as a case of all or nothing. Either you believe in the Book of Joshua literally or else the whole thing falls apart.
To this extent, I don't believe that a purely literal interpretation has ever been out of the woods ...
We are clearly dealing with a pre-modern historiographical account which - like all of these things - contains mythic elements. I'm not sure it even helps to try to suss out where the myth ends and the history begins ... the two things are fused together. That's how these things work, it seems to me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
In that an article dated 2008, he's still using radiocarbon data that was discredited in 1995. In the addendum, Wood - despite using C14 to originally bolster his case - says that using C14 dating is wrong when it doesn't agree with the 'historical' date.
That's what I mean by cavalier. Either Wood agrees with C14, and has to accept what it says, or he doesn't. He doesn't get to choose which C14 dates he likes. (Clearly, he can do, but his credibility takes a massive hit.)
Well, I agree that there is some controversy about the use of C14 dating (not least the question of distortion produced by the volcanic effect), and I also agree that he would be wise to clarify the issue, although he has attempted to do this in the addendum. But his main evidence is based on the dating of pottery, and from what I have seen of his arguments, they appear to be sound. The evidence of the scarab amulets, discovered by John Garstang, suggests a date for the destruction of Jericho well after Kenyon's date - or at least it suggests that the cemetery just outside the city was still in use well after Kenyon's date of 1550 BC for its destruction. Why would people continue to use a cemetery for 150 years after the destruction of the city to which it was attached?
I will try and find out how Wood substantiates the dating of the pottery, because that is key to his thesis.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Presumably we don't know long after the destruction of Jericho that people began to resettle the city. Isn't it one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world?
Presumably, even if Jericho fell in exactly the way the Book of Joshua describes, people soon started to settle there again.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Presumably we don't know long after the destruction of Jericho that people began to resettle the city. Isn't it one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world?
Presumably, even if Jericho fell in exactly the way the Book of Joshua describes, people soon started to settle there again.
Well, according to Wood: "In his excavation of the cemetery northwest of the city, Garstang recovered a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs extending from the 18th century B.C.E. (the XIIIth Dynasty) to the early 14th century B.C.E. (the XVIIIth Dynasty)."
He admits that there is an amulet with the name of Amenhotep III, who was Pharaoh from 1386-1349 BC, a reign beginning shortly after his date for the destruction of Jericho. Dates in the ancient world cannot always be pinned down precisely, and there is some debate about when Amenhotep III's reign began - as noted by one of the comments by an Egyptologist after Wood's article (Douglas Petrovich from the University of Toronto).
But it's interesting that the scarab sequence ends at Amenhotep III and yet stretches back to the 18th century BC. This strongly suggests - though doesn't prove (as if anything can be conclusively proven in the ancient world) - that the cemetery was not used after the destruction of the city, but was in continuous use for many centuries while Jericho was standing.
This appears to, at least, crudely support the biblical account and the traditional date of Jericho's destruction.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, it could support a date for the fall of the city but as you say, it doesn't 'prove' it - and things of that kind of antiquity are always going to be difficult to prove ...
Which is why I'd rather focus on the theological issues - which are also problematic - rather than the 'where did Cain and Abel's wives come from' type of questions.
At the very least, it seems that historians are agreed that there may have been strife between the ancient Semites and the Canaanite peoples - who were also Semites I've heard it suggested ...
The current popular theory, of course, is that there were groups of Semites in the land of Canaan all along - but that it is perfectly possible that some went down to Egypt and later returned.
I don't see why we have to plump for any one theory or solution over another - we can acknowledge that there's an historical background and context without having to wed ourselves to a modernist view of ancient history which treats it as literal 'fact' ...
I suspect that there's a lot of leeway between:
The whole thing is a fable and all made up ...
And:
The whole thing happened exactly as we read in the scriptures.
I don't see why we have to diametrically oppose these issues. I still don't see how it undermines the value and purpose of books like Joshua if we don't take them as literal objective fact but treat them as inspired, certainly, but ancient histiographies that combine both historical and mythological elements and where each is fused together without the kind of distinctions that we moderns tend to make in such instances ...
My brother-in-law's Pentecostal brother went ape with me recently for drawing an analogy between Shakespeare's Henry V and the OT histories. I wasn't making a direct comparison or suggesting that the OT histories aren't inspired by God or are on the same 'level' as 'secular literature' as it were - but he went ballistic ...
I was denigrating the scriptures, I was doing all sorts of despicable things ...
I can see what he was getting at as I've been involved with charismatic evangelical churches and know how the mindset and thinking works ... but I find it increasingly difficult to understand the vehemence and passion of his reaction ... it's not as if I was saying we need to tear these books out of Bibles or take no notice of them.
Nor do I see a view of these books as containing both history and mythology as somehow incompatible with a 'high' view of the authority and inspiration of scripture.
Others may disagree but that's my take these days.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I agree that there is some controversy about the use of C14 dating (not least the question of distortion produced by the volcanic effect), and I also agree that he would be wise to clarify the issue, although he has attempted to do this in the addendum.
Yes, there is some controversy about C14 dating. But that is external to its use here. Wood is initially arguing that the C14 date from the charcoal fragment backs up his preferred date - then (and only then) when it's pointed out in the comments that the C14 date he's using has been re-evaluated in a peer-reviewed journal some 13 years previously to be 150 years earlier, it's all "C14 dates are unreliable".
That's an indefensible piece of hypocrisy.
Wood wants his date to be c.1450BC, because that fits with his Biblically-inspired model, and ignores evidence to the contrary. That is not good archaeology.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, having had a look at some of the evidence it is by no means clear that the sceptics have a case.
Once more you are strictly factually wrong. It might not be clear that the sceptics are right. But given the way the academic consensus lies it's trivial that the sceptics have a case.
quote:
So I am not convinced that the literal view has been kicked into the long grass. Far from it.
A very different statement from your earlier one.
quote:
I await the refutation of Wood's thesis, so we can take the debate further.
Creosus has done this by pointing out how he's been found torturing his facts to fit his ideas.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Yes, there is some controversy about C14 dating. But that is external to its use here. Wood is initially arguing that the C14 date from the charcoal fragment backs up his preferred date - then (and only then) when it's pointed out in the comments that the C14 date he's using has been re-evaluated in a peer-reviewed journal some 13 years previously to be 150 years earlier, it's all "C14 dates are unreliable".
That's an indefensible piece of hypocrisy.
Well, he acknowledged the error, and, with all due respect, I don't think the charge of hypocrisy is fair. It is very common in the academic world for scholars to be wedded to their hypotheses to the point of being reluctant to concede easily to challenging evidence. Theists do it; atheists do it (and it seems that Kathleen Kenyon did it by ignoring pottery dating evidence, and relied on an argument from silence, i.e. the absence of expensive imported Cypriot pottery). It's unfortunate, but it's human nature. If we condemned all scholars who acted in this way, then there would be very few left with any credibility, if any!
But even if we accept that Wood made a gross error of judgment, it doesn't invalidate the compelling evidence of the pottery find.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Creosus has done this by pointing out how he's been found torturing his facts to fit his ideas.
Presumably you mean Doc Tor?
To refute a thesis, we have to look at all the data and claims presented and not just focus on one error or weak argument, unless that error is presuppositional, which it is not in this case.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To refute a thesis, we have to look at all the data and claims presented and not just focus on one error or weak argument, unless that error is presuppositional, which it is not in this case.
The only part I'm qualified to comment on is the C14 dating.
There is, however, the "holed below the waterline" argument. Wood's acceptance and then rejection of the C14 date when he's called out on it leads me to understand he's willing to skew other data to fit his thesis.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
We are clearly dealing with a pre-modern historiographical account which - like all of these things - contains mythic elements. I'm not sure it even helps to try to suss out where the myth ends and the history begins ... the two things are fused together. That's how these things work, it seems to me.
Given that the author of Joshua was working with oral tradition, fused with a certain amount of Second Temple theology, rather than the War Memoirs of Field Marshal Joshua Bar Nun it's not outwith the grounds of possibility that people were aware that there had been a certain amount of burning of cities at the end of the bronze age and were also aware that there was a stonking great ruin at Jericho and conflated the two.
People who oppose the idea that the Old Testament contains mythic history often underestimate how badly yer common or garden factual history gets out of date. I have a number of books on my shelf that I cannot bear to get rid of that are basically obsolete as history. The Book of Joshua, for all it's faults, like the History of the Kings of Britain or the Niebelunglied belongs to the ages. That is vastly preferable to a work which bears the same relationship to modern scholarship as one of those worthy Victorian volumes you can get for nothing on Kindle and which history professors solemnly warn their undergraduates not to cite in their bibliographies if they are aiming for something higher than a 'D'.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
history professors solemnly warn their undergraduates not to cite in their bibliographies if they are aiming for something higher than a 'D'.
Does that really happen?
I didn't study history, but have sourced pretty old things in written work and did not get D grades. Surely the point is that whilst these might indicate understanding at a given point in time since then there has been more discussion and more evidence has been found on the subject.
Citing old sources in itself is not a problem - the problem is when you only cite old sources and imagine that they're the last word on the subject.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, yes, that's fair enough. I imagine that no-one lost points in a Classics exam by quoting Gibbon. But I would not advise an undergraduate to stint on buying or otherwise laying hands on contemporary scholarship on the grounds that they could get Victorian scholarship for nothing.
And, of course, this does not invalidate the point that I was making that history, like many other scholarly endeavours, dates horribly and perhaps, it was better for Holy Writ to present itself in the form of timeless myth than of a historical account that would be out of date in a couple of decades.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
And, of course, this does not invalidate the point that I was making that history, like many other scholarly endeavours, dates horribly and perhaps, it was better for Holy Writ to present itself in the form of timeless myth than of a historical account that would be out of date in a couple of decades.
Which is pretty much my take on the Creation accounts. If Genesis 1 went into the Standard Model, inflation, the creation of amino acids and sex-selected genetic traits, it wouldn't have been comprehensible until now, and may well be superseded in fifty years.
Myth is a brilliant vehicle for conveying information.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The only part I'm qualified to comment on is the C14 dating.
There is, however, the "holed below the waterline" argument. Wood's acceptance and then rejection of the C14 date when he's called out on it leads me to understand he's willing to skew other data to fit his thesis.
Unfortunately, that argument can be levelled against Kathleen Kenyon also, given that she refused to follow through on the implications of the pottery find at Jericho, and instead relied on an argument from silence - an absence of certain expected evidence which can even be explained, even by quoting her own work.
So I am not convinced by your argument.
If we are going to talk about evidence, then we should look at all the evidence dispassionately, and without relying on the ad hominem argument.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we are going to talk about evidence, then we should look at all the evidence dispassionately, and without relying on the ad hominem argument.
We should also attempt to look favourable at the evidence outwith of our own preconceptions. This comes down to whether this guy is actually an expert on ancient pottery and whether other experts agree with him.
It is not an ad hominem to argue that he seems unreliable either, because he has admitted as much. Part of the work of understanding and seiving evidence is an assessment of the reliability of sources. Given that this guy has made a simple error in part of his argument (in fact the part that at least one of us here is actually an expert in), it is reasonable to ask questions about the way he handles other data.
Now - a) are you actually an expert on ancient pottery or b) have you put together a portfolio of other experts and their opinions on this issue?
You introduced it as evidence, now prove to us why it should be considered reliable, because so far you've not done so.
Other than that this small fact superficially supports your assertion, I'm not sure where you think bringing this academic paper to this argument gets us.
And before you ask, no I'm not going to waste my time checking your sources.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Dr Wood did his Ph.D. dissertation on Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age. Therefore he is an expert in the subject.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
wow, that was difficult:
quote:
The first group includes the fundamentalists, who believe in the reliability of the biblical text in all its details, and that the text forms the basis and guide for their archaeological work. I can mention, for example, Bryant Wood and his work on Jericho (e.g. Wood 1990), and Adam Zertal, who restored an imaginary altar on Mount Ebal on the basis of the biblical text (e.g. Zertal 1986–87). Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.
Ussishkin, D. (2007). Questions of methodology. In Proceedings of the British Academy (Vol. 143, pp. 131-141).
[ 28. February 2014, 13:19: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Assertions do not count as evidence.
Sorry.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we are going to talk about evidence, then we should look at all the evidence dispassionately, and without relying on the ad hominem argument.
You're abusing the term ad hominem. His conclusions are in doubt because he's been caught with his fingers in the scientific till - a perfectly reasonable inference.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
John Garstang catalogued items of Cypriot pottery found in a wealthier part of Jericho, which Kathleen Kenyon did not excavate. At the time (the 1930's) Garstang did not appreciate the significance of the find, and yet the presence of this Cypriot bichrome ware - dated to the Late Bronze Age - blows Kenyon's theory out of the water, since she relied on the absence of such pottery to arrive at her earlier date for the destruction of the city. In his article Wood provides photographic evidence of these items, and this can be substantiated. Are you disputing this evidence?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
John Garstang catalogued items of Cypriot pottery found in a wealthier part of Jericho, which Kathleen Kenyon did not excavate. At the time (the 1930's) Garstang did not appreciate the significance of the find, and yet the presence of this Cypriot bichrome ware - dated to the Late Bronze Age - blows Kenyon's theory out of the water, since she relied on the absence of such pottery to arrive at her earlier date for the destruction of the city. In his article Wood provides photographic evidence of these items, and this can be substantiated. Are you disputing this evidence?
None of us are experts in Late Bronze Age pottery, so let's not pretend that we are.
The C14 dates from the proposed layer is for a date c.1550BC. On that basis, and that the paper appeared in a peer-reviewed journal where it was exposed to at least some scrutiny before publication, I'd say that it puts Wood's preferred date into question, whether or not Wood is a good archaeologist or not.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.
Actually this is a very incoherent appraisal. On the one hand, Wood and Zertal are affirmed as good, professional archaeologists, but they are accused of bias, simply because, like all scientists, they hold to a hypothesis, which they are seeking to confirm by investigation of the evidence. Either the evidence supports the hypothesis or it does not. Wood has shown that the evidence of the pottery found at Jericho supports his hypothesis, whatever the controversy about C-14 dating. The evidence of the pottery will not just go away.
This is not bias, but science.
Also, are we seriously to believe that those who hold to the philosophy of naturalism can never be biased thereby?
One could just as easily say that those who wish to prove the Bible to be historically inaccurate are biased.
It works both ways.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Then google: Bryant Wood photos fake (or some similar wording).
It shouldn't take you long, as I am sure his alleged fraud would have been exposed by now. After all, there are apparently enough people with the motive to rubbish his work.
You may like to do the same for the moon landings, and then report your findings on Alex Jones' or David Icke's websites.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Wood has shown that the evidence of the pottery found at Jericho supports his hypothesis, whatever the controversy about C-14 dating. The evidence of the pottery will not just go away.
The only controversy about the C14 dating is that Wood wants to use it when it supports his date, and doesn't when it disagrees with him.
The C14 evidence won't go away either.
So, to conclude: there is more than sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the historical exactness of the Book of Joshua.
[ 28. February 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, I did.
I got this link and this link.
You really should think about doing things before suggesting on public bulletin boards that others should do it.
Firstly, you are the one disputing Dr Wood's findings. Therefore it is incumbent on you to substantiate your misgivings.
Secondly, I note that only one small piece of evidence is presented in the first article to question Wood's thesis (with copious evidence that supports it conveniently ignored), hence the comment from Bienkowski:
quote:
Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.
No evidence provided to support the claim that "Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny". That is not science or scholarship, I'm afraid, but bare assertion, a point Wood made in his reply to Bienkowski.
Presumably if Bienkowski had any evidence, this article would have presented it.
The only evidence presented is the C-14 reading of several charred grains. That appears to support Kenyon's dating of the destruction of Jericho.
However, I notice that the article has failed to address the 'problem' of the pottery, which supports Wood's thesis.
Therefore the evidence is inconclusive, and to rubbish an expert's work on the basis of one piece of evidence is very poor scholarship. On the basis of this article (and, assuming I can find the time, I will look into the problems of C-14 dating), the jury is still out on the question of the historical accuracy of the biblical account. This is what is to be expected, given that archaeology, as with all scientific disciplines, is a work in progress.
So the statements that I have read on this thread, that dogmatically claim that the evidence undermines the biblical record are unfounded and misguided.
As for the other article, well this statement just about sums it up:
quote:
In that time, Dr. Wood’s pottery evidence, scarab evidence, radiocarbon dating and mudslide story–all of which were mentioned in Wood’s original 1990 BAR article and championed by Mr. Holding in his Jericho article as well as in BHI-- have all been shown to be false. I’m not a professional archaeologist or Bible historian, but even I found all the relevant data relatively easily to show why the larger community of scholars reject Dr. Wood’s “findings” and have done so for nearly two decades now.
No evidence presented against the pottery and scarab claims, and plenty of speculation concerning the other claims.
And then the last paragraph is particularly telling:
quote:
The bottom line here is Provan, Long, and Longman’s admission in one of the notes attached to this section of their textbook. They admit, “[W]e have noted already Bienkowski’s challenge and Wood’s response, and in our opinion Wood makes the better case” [344, n200]. Opinion hardly matters here, but it is important to point out that Provan, Long, and Longman are basing their opinion only on the original “dialogue” between Wood and Bienkowski in the 1990 BAR articles. Obviously, they were not “on the lookout” for any “adequate” refutations of the data presented by Wood post-1990. But, unlike Mr. Holding, they didn’t claim to be looking out for such material, either. Yet, I must confess that I find it somewhat refreshing to read these authors admit to their bias in accepting Wood’s dated conclusions on little more than their own personal feelings for the data rather than a detailed study of the contrary evidence, even if that admission is buried in a footnote.
So let's get this straight. No evidence is presented, and yet Wood's view is rubbished by someone (who earlier in the article admits to not being an archaeologist) who finds it refreshing that other scholars admit to their 'bias' in supporting Wood's view on little more than their personal feelings, rather than on a detailed study of the contrary evidence, which he refuses to divulge to us! So apparently he is not opposing Wood on the basis of personal feelings or bias, even though he gives us absolutely no reason to think otherwise! (Furthermore, in the text there is no evidence that these scholars "admitted to their bias" - that is something the author of the article is reading into their position. Maybe they did admit to it, but you couldn't be convinced of it from reading this article! The 'admission' that is quoted is not an admission at all. So this doesn't look very honest to me).
I'm glad I am not a psychologist. Try wading through that acrobatic evidence-free logic!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, I did.
I got this link and this link.
You really should think about doing things before suggesting on public bulletin boards that others should do it.
Firstly, you are the one disputing Dr Wood's findings. Therefore it is incumbent on you to substantiate your misgivings.
Bzzt.
Showing that other reputable scholars dispute Wood's findings does not require us to substantiate our misgivings. It is merely sufficient to show that others, working on the same problem with the same data, come to different conclusions.
I don't have a dog in this fight (as a geologist, the idea of someone arguing over a 150 year difference is... interesting). I don't actually mind whether Jericho IV was sacked in 1400BC, 1550BC, or 2600BC as suggested by another scholar, because I'm not a inerrantist.
What I do mind is people doing bad science.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
It's interesting that there is actually a blatant contradiction between pydsey's two articles.
The first one (Biblical Chronologist) quotes the debate between Bienkowsi and Wood, as a way of criticising Wood, and yet the other one (The Skeptical Review) admits that the authors of Biblical History of Israel (Provan, Long and Longman) agreed that Wood's case was stronger than Bienkowski's: "[W]e have noted already Bienkowski’s challenge and Wood’s response, and in our opinion Wood makes the better case”.
The attempt to make Provan, Long and Longman say the opposite of what they actually said is sheer dishonesty. Talk about tampering with evidence. Presumably, Doc Tor, I can apply your "water line method" to this case, yes? (Or do different rules apply, when the case is against the Bible?)
I think pydsey should take more time to read through the evidence he is presenting, in order to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
