Why go on a dig when you can find "the most important biblical archaeology find in 100 years" in the basement of the British Museum?
The London Telegraph reports that Vienna professor Michael Jursa found a cuneiform tablet in the British museum which dates back 2,500 years.
Jursa says the tablet bears the name of the chief eunuch of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.
It’s the same name found in the book of Jeremiah 39.
A British museum expert says, "a throwaway detail in the old
testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means the
whole narrative of Jeremiah takes on a new kind of power."
Very cool.
He sounds surprised.
Experts continue to be *shocked* that the Bible is actually true and the Bible just continues proving itself to be trustworthy after all.
So, a "throwaway detail" from the Bible means that it's to be true in other respects? Seems a leap to me.
No, the point is, many, perhaps most of the major details have been confirmed by archaeologists. The fact that even minor, mundane details are also confirmed indicates that the bible is more than an approximation of what happened, but it may be a much more exact record than anti-biblicists believe, and those believing in the accuracy of scripture have more evidence to support that belief.
I have no doubt that the stories contained in the Bible have some accuracy historically. However, that's a long way from confirming the supernatural and moralistic elements.
that's a long way from confirming the supernatural and moralistic elements.
Fair enough, the bible's high historical accuracy doesn't prove it's supernatural or moralistic claims, but it does lend itself towards fidelity in these other areas. I mean, if such events were fabricated, it would stand to reason that some of the historical information was fabricated as well. Since we don't find that, we might reason backwards from there to say that the miraculous claims were probably not made up either.
But what this does do is force the skeptic to retreat from accusations of inaccuracy, leaving them only with metaphysical and philosophic arguments against the claims of scripture (although the naturalistic "scientific" argument against miracles still exists).
Again, I agree with you that this doesn't PROVE the miraculous and moralistic claims of scripture, but it supports the general reliability of scripture and largely reduces skeptics to non-factual philosophic arguments.
I don't agree. For one thing, I don't think the Bible has "high" record of historical accuracy. For instance, the Exodus story has been challenged by scholars. Also, as a general rule, myths and miraculous claims do tend to spring up around stories from the past – it's human nature. I see no reason to jump from verification of a few historical facts to believing in such miraculous claims as the parting of the Red Sea, Joshua halting the sun in its course, and the resurrection of Jesus.
I see no reason to jump from verification of a few historical facts to believing in such miraculous claims as the parting of the Red Sea, Joshua halting the sun in its course, and the resurrection of Jesus.
Well, maybe not, but there should be no doubt in your mind that Jeremiah wasn't lying when he named an obscure(?) chief eunuch to a king that lived thousands of years ago now. :)
Antiquity is so interesting. And I thought you enjoyed learning about the history of the world?
Of course. I love the ancient world, particularly the ancient Greeks (as opposed to the Hebrews). I don't, however, think Zeus and Athena are real (nor Yahweh).
the Exodus story has been challenged by scholars.
Scholars and skeptics have always and will always challenge the scriptures. And the problem is, the farther you go back into antiquity, the harder it is to find remaining evidence.
You may want to skip over the many, many pieces of archeology that support the biblical record, and depend on the absence of data for support of the exodus, but relying on an argument from ignorance, while ignoring the other data, is not a very strong position. The biblical believer has much more reason to trust the scriptures than you have to doubt, historically speaking.
You may want to skip over the many, many pieces of archeology that support the "James Bond Movies" record (pieces of the Berlin Wall, tourist maps of Moscow, Walthar PPK's), and depend on the absence of data for support of the worlds greatest secret agent, but relying on an argument from ignorance, while ignoring the other data, is not a very strong position. The 007 believer has much more reason to trust Casino Royale, Dr No, AND Goldfinger than you have to doubt, historically speaking.
:)
Cedric, nice try but the analogy is off.
For one thing – Bond claims to be fiction. The Bible does not.
Second – While their may be certain facts included in Bond are real, as with most movies the disclaimer always follows that no person in the movie is meant to portray an actual person. The Bible is filled with actual people, which have been proven archaeologically. The same cannot be said for Bond.
Third – It's not an argument from ignorance to say that so far archaeology has supported the Bible and has not offered a contradiction. While as skeptic pointed out that does not prove the miraculous, it does lend credibility to the accounts when minor details of the story are proven true. The reverse is true as well. If the small details of the Bible are proven false then it would cast doubt on the larger points.
I disagree. Humans are always embellishing the facts and, over time, even true stories can take on the fabulous (especially if the people involved want to reinforce their faith). This occurs throughout human history and across cultures. It is interesting when bits of evidence pop up for certain aspects of biblical stories, but I still see no reason to leap from that to belief in the supernatural elements or the theological positions drawn from them (i.e., you have to "believe" in Jesus or you're going to hell).
Skeptic, I don't believe this discovery alone would or should cause anyone to leap to belief in Jesus as the only way to heaven. This is a small discovery that reinforces the existence of a person mentioned in one Old Testament prophet's book.
This is a molehill, a rather important one, but not a mountain. But I do believe that it is a small pebble that is added to the top of the mountain of evidence that supports the Bible.
I don't think there is any type of archaeology that can prove a miracle to be true. There is evidence that can be examined, but I don't know of any that can be dug out of the ground.
But the thinking for historians is that a person who is honest in small insignificant details is much more believable than a person who is wrong on those details or doesn't give them.
"For one thing – Bond claims to be fiction. The Bible does not."
Aaron, come on.
The Bible claims to be non-fiction, therefore it is?
Huh?
Do realise how lame this sounds?
The Book of Mormon claims to be non-fiction, for goodness sake!
For those of you who don't know how wierd they are, check this out.
Cartoon banned by the Mormon church (7:30min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo
And for those of you who are into DNA and archeology..
DNA vs. The Book of Mormon (50min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o
"…as with most movies the disclaimer always follows that no person in the movie is meant to portray an actual person.'
We true believers of the 007 faith have a simple explanation for the disclaimers.
Bond was a SPY! Of course they had to pretend that it was fictional. It was all 'secret agent' stuff.
:)
"The Bible is filled with actual people, which have been proven archaeologically. The same cannot be said for Bond."
Nope. Thatcher was a 20th century political leader. She was portrayed in a James Bond film.
:) :)
" If the small details of the Bible are proven false then it would cast doubt on the larger points."
Aaron, do you take the Bible as an infallible document, perfect in every way? I don't know if you do or not but before you answer there's something you should look into.
Camel Domestication.
Just sayin'.
I didn't say a claim proved truth, but merely that you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare fictional movies to religions that make truth claims.
You don't need to illustrate the absurdity of many of the Mormon beliefs and archaeology has cast tons of doubts on much of what their church teaches.
Camel domestication is an interesting argument, but it is odd that you brought it up when you earlier dismissed arguments from ignorance. That argument is based on numerous assumptions and then makes its assertions based on the fact that no currently known writing mentions using camels at the same time period as Abraham.
"…assertions based on the fact that no currently known writing mentions…"
Thank you for playing. Please try again.
Archeology is not based upon 'writings'.
(Try camel bones for a start.)
(Oh, almost forgot.)
Out of curiosity, Aaron, how old do you think the Earth is?
Just asking.
Cedric, why do you always ask that question? Is it because
1. If someone says 10,000 years, you can then decide to publicly call them an anti-science boob whom we should all ignore rather than answering their arguments directly (a clever ad-hominem method, or perhaps poisoning the well) OR
2. You're just curious because you are trying to find the correlation between YECs and other ideas?
My impression is that you are trying to set intellectual traps for people, asking them what they think about things so you can spring your canned answers on them as you glory in taking down another idiot who fell for easily dispached creationists nonsense (a type of sport for those who enjoy things like bull-baiting – call it YEC baiting ;).
Seeker, we've been through this 'ad-hominem' thing before.
I'm not making an 'ad hominem' argument.
(If I said that Aaron is fat and therefore his argument is wrong, that's ad hominem. Even if Aaron IS fat, that has no bearing on his position on camel domestication.)
I'm asking Aaron about about this 10,000 year old thingy because I'm curious.
(Fascinated, actually.)
Also, it's a good indicator as to how a person views science in general.
Just how solid is their grip on reality?
After all, is there any point in bringing up archeological methodology in a discussion on camel domestication when the person you're talking to rejects all the physical sciences?
Besides, surely it's IMPOSSIBLE to 'bait a YEC'?
After all, they have real science on their side.
Right?
The global scientific community wallows in ignorance believing that the Earth is ancient and yet the YEC'ers have figured out that it's really 10,000 years old.
Right?
Why, they even have links to AIG to prove it!
The evidence for your side is overwhelming.
Right?
Surely, if anybody should be 'baiting' anybody it should be YOU baiting the scientific community. Having some fun at their expense.
Something like…
" Oh those silly scientists. Can't get their story straight on their humanoid fossils.
But their position is much worse than that!
Those wierdos even believe that their fossils are over a million years old.
Can you imagine? A million.!!
(What a laugh riot.)
At the very most, those 'fossils' are a mere 7,000 years old. So it's back to the drawing board for those ivory tower types. Come back when you have some real science to show us."
…Or words to that effect.
To be honest, I just don't get this 10,000 year old thing. I mean, why that particular number?
What's wrong with say…6000 years?
I heard some firebrand claim that it was 14,000 years.
Yet, that seems an awfully long time.
Which is has more scientific evidence in support of it?
6000 years? or 10,000 years? or 14,000 years?
Aaron doesn't have to answer my question of course.
He can just let you (Seeker) answer my questions with questions of your own in order to avoid answering for himself.
I'll quite understand.
Let's face it, even you were not exactly forthcoming with the "10,000 years" estimate.
I had to ask you repeatedly about it before you gave a firm figure.
(You were a touch 'defensive' about the whole issue, so I went easy on you.)
You've proved my point. What is worse, your seething disdain and sarcasm is invisible to you.
Firm figures are not really possible, whether you are an OEC or a YEC. Relative orders of magnitude are what makes you one or the other.
No firm figures?
That's OK. I'll settle for a ballpark figure.
The thing is, you've settled on 10,000 years (or thereabouts).
I still have no idea why you feel comfortable with that particular number.
Other YEC's have seriously different numbers.
Let's face it. If one of you says 6000 years, and somebody else says 14000 then…somebody's got it wrong, big time!
If we look at how science has tackled the question of the age of the Earth, there's a clear progession of estimates and gathered data. All of the the estimates getting older and older and older. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Lord Kelvin, John Perry, Holmes etc.
Then we have Young Earth Creationists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creation…
"Revival
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution. In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur 'armchair geologist' who had not actually studied the rocks, wrote The New Geology to provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book was partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. This attracted only a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[8] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times)."
Hmmm.
"Scientific Criticism
Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept in the 1860s.[citation needed] While many scientists accept it as a faith position, they contend that it is just that, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US scientists believed in creationism[13]; however, not all creationists are YECs. In the aforementioned poll 40% of scientists said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view known as theistic evolution. Some scientists are known to subscribe to still other forms of creationism such as Old Earth creationism, which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago."
Hmmm.
So you see, when somebody says that they go with the the idea that the Earth is really only 10,000, I just can't resist.
I can only pull up a chair, grab some popcorn and say…"OMG, why?"
Let's face it. If one of you says 6000 years, and somebody else says 14000 then…somebody's got it wrong, big time!
Let's face it, starting your sentences with such derisive, matter of fact statements as "let's face it" don't lend any weight to your arguments.
They're both about the same order of magnitude (10^4), so I'd say they were in the same ballpark.
And many YECs can produce minimum ages (at least 6000) or perhaps forge some educated guesses at maximum ages (e.g. not more than 20000) based on observations and assumptions, but that seems all fine and dandy to me.
All of the the estimates getting older and older and older.
Your argument, when applied to the disparate old earth ages guessed by scientists, would indicate that THEY have a problem. I mean, they've disagreed by as many orders of magnitude as the YECs say are in the age of the earth (10^4 or more), if I am not mistaken.
O wait, getting older and older seems acceptable as they find out new info ;). More like get deeper into their own deception based on their bad assumptions and evolutionary timeline needs.
So you see, when somebody says that they go with the the idea that the Earth is really only 10,000, I just can't resist.
Of course you can't. You're a TROLL.
"They're both about the same order of magnitude (10^4), so I'd say they were in the same ballpark."
So, any number between 6000 years and 20000 years is fair game?
What's wrong with say…5,000 years?
Or 22,000 years?
In any case, you have yet to explain why you picked 10,000 years.
If you like, you could retract your estimate and perhaps pick an older one.
No harm, no foul.
Seeker said "Your argument, when applied to the disparate old earth ages guessed by scientists, would indicate that THEY have a problem. I mean, they've disagreed by as many orders of magnitude as the YECs say are in the age of the earth (10^4 or more), if I am not mistaken.
O wait, getting older and older seems acceptable as they find out new info ;). More like get deeper into their own deception based on their bad assumptions and evolutionary timeline needs."
Are you really suggesting that scientists should suggest an age for the Earth and that it's a one-shot deal?
No revisions or corrections allowed for?
Or perhaps it's like baseball!
Three strikes and you're out?
Or maybe some 'scientific statute of limitations', no new number crunching after a certain number of decades?
So if more people gather more evidence or different evidence and develop newer ways of doing things, then…tough luck?
They made their call fifty years ago so they have to dogmatically stick with the old numbers?
Older ideas don't get replaced by newer and better ideas backed up by fresher multiple lines of evidence? http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae56…
"It is as well to remember that all Science is tentative what we may believe today, subsequent research may show to be not quite correct and in need of amendment, but this is the interest in Science, and what gives it its fascination." http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/3hol.dis….
"Finally, don't ever have the class vote for the "best hypothesis." Science is not democratic. The best explanation is the one that works best, not the most popular or most logical, or prettiest one. All of this is included in "the nature of science," much of which runs counter to popular notions about science. Your job, as a science teacher, is to help your students have vivid experiences with real science that conflict with those popular myths, and hopefully replace them with a more accurate understanding of science.
Destroying more myths: We firmly maintain that students should NOT see real science as "knowing all the answers", but rather a process, a way of thinking and solving problems creatively and effectively so as to arrive at the most likely solutions. Scientists do not engage in "proving" their hypotheses, but rather attempting to disprove them by testing. Much in science is actually inferred; it's not "known" in any absolute sense, such as the inner structure of the Earth or an atom. Scientific "facts" and "theories" have often changed; all science is tentative. But science does develop reasonably workable explanations that seem to fit all the observations and seem to work all (or most) of the time, so far, until new observations and/or new techniques are developed."
"Of course you can't. You're a TROLL."
Ouch.
In any case, you have yet to explain why you picked 10,000 years. If you like, you could retract your estimate and perhaps pick an older one.
I'd say that YECs would say "on the order of 10,000." As I said, they have interpreted some data to give maximum or minimum ages, but they would NOT commit to a number down to the the last digit. No real scientist would.
Now, some theologians (like Usher) might use their understanding of scripture to give a specific number, but even that is somewhat speculative. I am, in this case, also happy with an order of magnitude. Any more than that is unhelpful.
Are you really suggesting that scientists should suggest an age for the Earth and that it's a one-shot deal? No revisions or corrections allowed for?
Not at all, though when I wrote that I suspected you would counter with that misinterpretation. But here's what I mean. If new information leads to a new consensus, that is fine. However, if scientists disagree on what the real number is, that is, they don't find the new information compelling, then you would have the same "problem" among old-earthers, but the order of magnitude difference would be much higher, since we are dealing with larger numbers.
So unless you force science to have a consensus on such hard to prove theoretical items, I suspect that the more likely scanario is you have a range of accepted values, and that range is tremendously larger than the 5000-12000 year range that YECs have. So if YECs have a problem, then I'd say that OEs have a much bigger problem, by your logic.
———–
Regardint trolling, you have appeared to be trolling, YEC baiting, mocking. Perhaps I was a little too harsh. I retract my troll comment and apologize.
In your defense, you have tried to present counter-arguments, but your incredulous tone and mocking examples don't help you.