CT-that's something different entirely. Science and Religion probably came to be as partners. Today, using the two together is unacceptable. The main thrust of my question is that, if christian references are suspect, and biblical references are suspect, then how can acceptable evidence in favor of christianity be brought?
evidence...
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
So is their science any less because of their beliefs?
It's evolution, H. We went from answering questions with superstition and myth to answering questions with experimentation and observation.
You are free to never stop questioning the results of science, either.
So would the findings of a biblical archaeologist be acceptable?
Biblical Archaeology is not peer-reviewed.
Sure. I have empirical evidence of their existence as human constructs. I also believe that religion exists.
I don't, however, believe that the claims of religion are necessarily true, simply because people believe them to be any more than I believe the claims of "love, compassion and empathy" are necessarily true simply because people believe their motivations to be attributed to these.
Many people claim to "love" yet behave in hurtful ways. They claim to have empathy, but often only as far as it suits their own agenda. They claim to be compassionate, but demonstrate selfishness in nearly the same breath.
I this same way, people claim to be "religious," yet use their religious beliefs to further their own agendas, seek personal gains, or justify their amoral behavior.
Define biblical archaeologist.
If you mean someone who pretends to do archaeology who hasn't an education in archaeological and anthropological methods, then, no, they wouldn't be acceptable.
If you mean someone who is educated in archaeological and anthropological methods who has a converging interest in the archaeological study of Near Eastern and Levantian cultures, then their findings must be met with the same skepticism and inquiry as any other archaeologist.
Being a trained archaeologist doesn't imply your opinions are valid. But it does offer some authority to them. Still, many archaeologists (and biologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, etc.) have arrived at conclusions that were later revised, improved upon or simply shown to be wrong.
What "biblical" archaeologist did you have in mind?
Here we go:
"How does one become a Biblical Archaeologist?
First of all, to do serious work in the field of archaeology, you must have a Ph.D. (doctor of philosophy) degree, which means many years of school. If you are serious about archaeology, then you should take a college preparatory program in high school, with as much Bible, language (French, German, Hebrew, Greek), and history as possible.
The problem with secular schools is that a lot of their teaching is negative toward the Bible, and you may find that discouraging. I would recommend a Christian school."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a025.html
“In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc.—not with the Bible.”
—Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist
How about this guy?
—Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist
How about this guy?
*************
M*W: to be authentic relics or not. The archeologist should remain unbiased as to its confirmation of biblical history. Biblical scholars can interpret the evidence in anyway they see fit, except for the professional archeologists who remain unbiased.
MW-so the professional archaeologist remains unbiased? They make no judgment about what they find? Who judges it, then?
He's a good example. Wood didn't start out in archaeology, but another field altogether. He went into archaeology in order to support his conclusions regarding biblical scriptures (namely that Judeo-Christian mythology is inerrant), which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is, once he began his education in archaeological methods, he appears not to have appropriately applied them to his studies.
He's, perhaps, most famous for his conclusions on Jericho. In spite of very scientific approaches to the study of Tell es-Sultan (Jericho). In the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon excavated the tell not with a set of conclusions to which she sought supporting data, but because she saw data that needed conclusions. That data being the existence of a small hill on an otherwise flat region. Her data showed that a destruction layer (Jericho IV) existed which could be dated to 1550 BCE. The biblical chronology of the mythical story in Joshua of the destruction of Jericho is alleged by biblical scholars to be 1400 BCE.
Wood ignored the scientific data and used several lines of data of his own, which have each been refuted by other archaeologists. A recent refutation comes in the form of Bruins and Van der Plicht (1995) which dated charred cereal grains found at Jericho to a date consistent with Kenyon's.
"Biblical archaeologists" begin with conclusions to which they seek to vindicate. Data that contradicts these conclusions are ignored and only data which are supportive are accepted.
Archaeologists, however, begin with research questions to which they seek falsify. Should the data contradict their hypotheses, they ask new questions. They seek data which contradict first and, when these data aren't present or are overshadowed by supportive data, only then are conclusions drawn.
I'm confused. Is this the method by which Troy was found?
*************
M*W: Skinwalker can answer this better than I can. I have read that archeologists' findings are dated to the period relics are from, but they don't make judgments that these relics prove the existence of a religion. That would be biased. However, some archeologists who are less than professional and say funded by particular religious groups will make biased claims in favor of whomever is funding their digs. It happens all the time. I recommend reading Biblical Archeology Review for the real stuff.
Again, Skinwalker can explain this better than I can.
It's hard to date something without suggesting it gives evidence to a certain group of people known for that style of whatever. Aren't the Viking houses on the east coast of the US evidence that they may have ventured this far?
*************
M*W: Yes, that's evidence that has been confirmed as far as I know, but what was your point?