Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 194 of 477 (551769)
03-24-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Pauline
03-24-2010 2:55 AM


Dr. Sing writes:
There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible. Here are quotes from just a few of 'em:
Um, can you pinpoint any of the particular names in that list of quotes who are "unbelievers"? With sources like "The Authority of the Bible", "Associates for Biblical Research" and "Scripture Press", I suspect your notion of "many unbelievers" is an exaggeration at best.
(I was intrigued by Millar Burrows, "Prof. of Archaeology at Yale", and looked up his bio -- he was actually referred to as "professor of Biblical literature" and held a position as "Winkley Professor of Biblical theology in the Yale Divinity School". An "unbeliever"? With direct scientific involvement in prehistoric archaeology? Really? Bear in mind that by "prehistoric", I mean "before any writing system existed to record history" -- that is, pre-Sumerian, hence long before the Dead Sea Scrolls that apparently occupied most of Burrows' career.)
This is a "Social and Religious Issues" thread, not a "Science" thread, so it would be unfair and probably off-topic to question these references with regard to their stance on the global flood or the Tower of Babel, stories for which the archaeological evidence is contradictory, to say the least.
Assert whatever you like about your personal reasons for accepting and maintaining your particular religion (or faith, or religious faith) -- I'll respect that (to the extent that it's not indicative of pathology) -- but for your own good, don't make it dependent on how the Bible is thoroughly and completely accurate as a historical document. I'm not saying it's all false: the New Testament clearly contains references to places, individuals and even some events whose existence/occurrence has been independently verified; less so for the Old Testament -- there are some confirmed references, but just on the basis of the flood and the tower, I have to conclude that it really doesn't work as history.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar fix for clarity

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 2:55 AM Pauline has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024