Archaeologist Unearths Bibical Controversy

Globe And Mail ^ | 1-25-2005 | Michael Valpy

[SunkenCiv]

"unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later."

No surprise there. :')

[timestax]

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Blam. Slow week, eh? ;')

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[thoughtomator]

... Numbers 12 through 15 were illegible, but #11 said, oddly enough, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Youngblood]

Interesting. I don't think that most people doubt that much of the Old Testament is based on actual historical events. For example, there's Pitman and Ryan's hypothesis that the Flood story originated in the breaching of the Bosphorus by the Mediterranean Sea to form the Black Sea. I also recently saw a very interesting programme that correlated the flight from Egypt with events surrounding the explosion and collapse of the volcanic island of Santorini (falling ash, a tsunami causing an ebbing of the sea and subsequent drowning the Egyptian army - they accounted for all the plagues with natural explanations). All very plausible in my opinion, unlike a global flood or literal one-week creation within the last ten thousand years.

[ValerieUSA]

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.
Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.

I don't like this kind of writing. It is not the correct way to present a new discovery.

[windchime]

Thanks!

[NJ Neocon]

Uh oh, the creationists can't use this as a win since they employ RCD to date the findings. Well, they will, but then they will say how horrible RCD is anyway.

Beat me to it.

I believe the dating, and the accuracy of the bible here - but then again I seek truth and am consistent.

[NJ Neocon]

I don't like this kind of writing. It is not the corect way to present a new discovery.Agreed. Horrible. Worthy of the NY Slimes or WaPO in its slant. I had to look at the source to try and fiqure out wht the angle was.

[Just mythoughts]

Interesting find.

[Just mythoughts]

"Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well."



"I don't like this kind of writing. It is not the correct way to present a new discovery."


What??? This is a complete accurate description of what is.

[ValerieUSA]

That is not the scientific objective way to present the information.
It reveals an agenda that is easily noted and disdained by the very people who would benefit from taking a close look at the evidence. They are turned off immediately and justified in ignoring the report because it clearly is deliberately antagonistic and smug instead of matter-of-fact.
Biblical history must be shown to be matter-of-fact first. Then the other conclusions may be reached by the people who have been blind and resistant to the possibility that Biblical truth exists and can be proven.

[Just mythoughts]

"That is not the scientific objective way to present the information. "

Most people of the "science" have done just about everything they can to disprove the BIBLE. So I won't be shedding any tears over their supposed hurt feelings.

All my life in science nothing about the Bible was relevant, and 99% of anything religious has always ignored Esau. This is very curious considering that Jacob/Israel's and Esau's mother was told that in her womb were two nations. So I ask you where is Esau?

[ValerieUSA]

My point has nothing to do with hurt feelings.
It has to do with revealing the truth to eyes that have previously been blind.
It has to do with revising the wrong standards already in place and gaining acceptance of a new standard that, incidentally, does not contradict the Biblical accounts.
That's the purpose of the research and reports, isn't it? To discover and teach the truth about history and renew interest in reliable records that have been falsely discredited.
Let the students reach their own conclusions without insulting them before they sit down in class. Draw them in with fascinating evidence, don't push them away with a personal, political or religious vendetta.

[hershey]

Hmmm. Frustrated archaeologist ping.

[Boot Hill]

Very interesting...

[djf]

I don't believe that science has tried to disprove the bible. As a matter of fact, the Bible has been found to be extremely accurate, historically speaking.

The rulers and tribes, the places and names, have in most cases been confirmed.

[Junior]

They applied high-precision radiocarbon-dating methods to some of their finds, and as they say in the British journal Antiquities, "The results were spectacular."

But everyone knows Radiocarbon dating is flawed!

/sarcasm