B.A.
I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.
Have you ever read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman? These are two eminent archaeologists who have, in my opinion, done a great job in sifting fable from fact in the Hebrew scriptures. As far as I know, their findings have never been disproved with any worthwhile contrary evidence. The book certainly puts the scriptures in a whole new light and clearly shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts.
I'd just be interested to know your thoughts on the book.
Sincerely,
Ian
Yes, I have read The Bible Unearthed. There are always at least two sides to every story, so for a balanced view of their claims, I also read differing archaeologist's and apologetic replies to the points Finkelstein and Silberman make. Have you?
Their findings (opinions) can't be disproved, because they are opinions. However, there are numerous rebuttals to their opinions on apologetic websites, as well as differing interpretations by other prominent archaeologists (Cathey, Deven, Dothan, Ussishkin, Herzog, Ben-Tor, Mazar, etc) all over the internet. Archaeological evidence is interpreted by both minimalists and maximilists. If you don't read both sides, you come away with a skewed viewpoint. The book does provide a different perspective on the scriptures, but as far as the conclusions reached, these have been rebutted, and continue to be rebutted.
Finkelstein and Silberman's opinions shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts? They are their opinions, with many dissenting viewpoints on how archaological evidence is best interpreted.
In other words, you'll find among archaeologists a contuum of belief from minimalist to maximilist, and all points in between. There is black and white, and there are shades of grey all along the continuum of these extremes.I am absolutely convinced that most who left the jws never get this point. You must learn at some point in your life that what you readily accept as "fact" is in reality nothing more than an interpretation, an opinion, and these always change with time. Finkelstein and Silberman have crossed the line in their book numerous times where they state as fact what is only opinion, and they have many, or even most, who currently (or will in time) disagree with their "findings".
Here is a sampling of viewpoints on Finkelstein and Silberman :
Quote: "As a working archaeologist ... I can attest that Finklestein et al. have based their conclusions upon "selected" data. You can’t hold "one" archaeologist [Finkelstein] up as the paragon of the field and expect the scholars to bow to him. I would direct your readers to Mazar’s recent articles (over fifteen) that dispute the findings in this work. Likewise I would also direct your readers to articles and monographs by Ben-Tor, and even Dothan and Dever. They all will agree on one thing - the data does not support a lowering of the chronology nor the dates he adduces". -Joe Cathey
Quote: "I was one of the student volunteer diggers for Yadin on the 1971 excavation that found the Solomonic Gate at Gezer. Four of us Dug like crazy for four weeks just shoveling dirt as fast as we could to get down to the Gate. Trust me no one dug it up and rolled rocks down the hill before we got there as some have suggested. We had to dig down though twenty feet of dirt, often having to USE A PICK AXE TO LOOSEN THE ROCKS AND SOIL just to get to it. In the adjoining area burned debris was present above the floor. Assuming this was Shishak's destruction of 930 BC then that pretty much clinches the story, without even getting into the casemate wall issue or the pottery...Finkelstein's argument however, is absurd. You have three identical Heavy Gates all below the Shishak destruction. Call him Solomon or Call him Jerry, the same leader was obviously responsible and the timing is right, so objectively speaking.... whats the problem? ...
The instant attraction of the minimalist argument/low chronology has less to do with archaeology than with theology and politics I suspect. ...But to let that blind you to the wonders of the text is to poke your own eye out because what you see offends you. The Gates are Solomonic and there is more to the mystery than most are comfortable with. It is the fear of the very real mystery of God which foments fundamentalism, and blinds the minds eye. Don't let fundamentalism blind your objectivity toward science nor toward God." - Daniel Pride www.kingsolomonsgate.com
Quote: "Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, "there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier" ("Animal Kingdom," 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed "anachronism" of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the "silence" of archaeology…which is silent no more!" -Eric Lyons- http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1781
more:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bibleunrvw2.html
BA- In short, my take is- Some people can't get enough of revisionism ad nauseum.
PS- It seems these days it's ok to be a skeptic of the Bible, but not ok to be a skeptic of what it's detractors write.
