When I was in high school guitar hero was a insanely popular game, everyone loved it. But many in the music business soon found out that many in to guitar hero had a harder time learning real guitar. It was because they made assumptions about the song based on their guitar hero experience. Experience and assumptions they made about the song would be flatly wrong.
I wonder if archeology suffers from the same problem. Perhaps we have been assuming the bible is even remotely accurate. I would propose that we throw the book out wholesale and try to eliminate all assumptions of the ancient world based on the Bible. That way we can start with a clean slate, and draw our conclusions based on the historical evidence. If that eventually does prove the bible accurate then so be it.

(November 30, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: When I was in high school guitar hero was a insanely popular game, everyone loved it. But many in the music business soon found out that many in to guitar hero had a harder time learning real guitar. It was because they made assumptions about the song based on their guitar hero experience. Experience and assumptions they made about the song would be flatly wrong.
I wonder if archeology suffers from the same problem. Perhaps we have been assuming the bible is even remotely accurate. I would propose that we throw the book out wholesale and try to eliminate all assumptions of the ancient world based on the Bible. That way we can start with a clean slate, and draw our conclusions based on the historical evidence. If that eventually does prove the bible accurate then so be it.

The bible isn't remotely accurate or a great accurate telling of ancient man. people who go to look into it further in the real world are doomed to fail looking for evidence.

(November 30, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: When I was in high school guitar hero was a insanely popular game, everyone loved it. But many in the music business soon found out that many in to guitar hero had a harder time learning real guitar. It was because they made assumptions about the song based on their guitar hero experience. Experience and assumptions they made about the song would be flatly wrong.
I wonder if archeology suffers from the same problem. Perhaps we have been assuming the bible is even remotely accurate. I would propose that we throw the book out wholesale and try to eliminate all assumptions of the ancient world based on the Bible. That way we can start with a clean slate, and draw our conclusions based on the historical evidence. If that eventually does prove the bible accurate then so be it.

Many of the archaeologists who specifically try to prove the bible through their digs in the Middle East find that they cannot do so and that the physical evidence does not back up the stories.

There are, of course, those who make up all sorts of nonsense to back up their assumptions, but those are few, fortunately.

There are more then a few history gaffs in OT.

When I was studying history at university, the first lesson was to look at the origin of your sources. We were presented with different quotes without being told their origin. One was from the Third Reich, but not obviously so, one was from the GDR, again not obviously so. You had to read between the lines to get to the bottom. In short, not to take any source at face value was encouraged, but with the caveat, that you absolutely should use these sources. Scepticism was the lesson when dealing with any kind of text.

Same goes for the bible. I for one treat the old testament as a collection of ancient laws as well as a sort of breast pounding by semi nomadic tribes. Some of the things described in the bible probably did actually happen. But they were embellished by the ones telling them at the campfires. It's very much like the Illiad. Nothing can be taken as it is written, but you still can get some clues to what actually happened.

Now, I'm not in any way specialised when it comes to old history. I simply wanted to give you an insight how any serious historian would deal with the material at hand.

(November 30, 2014 at 5:59 pm)abaris Wrote: When I was studying history at university, the first lesson was to look at the origin of your sources. We were presented with different quotes without being told their origin. One was from the Third Reich, but not obviously so, one was from the GDR, again not obviously so. You had to read between the lines to get to the bottom. In short, not to take any source at face value was encouraged, but with the caveat, that you absolutely should use these sources. Scepticism was the lesson when dealing with any kind of text.

Same goes for the bible. I for one treat the old testament as a collection of ancient laws as well as a sort of breast pounding by semi nomadic tribes. Some of the things described in the bible probably did actually happen. But they were embellished by the ones telling them at the campfires. It's very much like the Illiad. Nothing can be taken as it is written, but you still can get some clues to what actually happened.

Now, I'm not in any way specialised when it comes to old history. I simply wanted to give you an insight how any serious historian would deal with the material at hand.

I know how historians see it. However there is a major difference between the illiad and the OT. The illiad was told and retold as a story by bards. It's a bit like if we wanted to learn about 1990s England by reading harry potter. Treat it with some skepticism and you might surprised what you can learn.
On the other hand I think that the bible is a bit more like a soviet or third Reich history lesson. So full of shit you may as well throw the book out and learn from scratch.

(November 30, 2014 at 6:11 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: On the other hand I think that the bible is a bit more like a soviet or third Reich history lesson. So full of shit you may as well throw the book out and learn from scratch.

That's because it has been written and rewritten for political reasons over the centuries. And it's origins are most probably campfire tales, taking in myths from other regional cults as well as an attempt at law making for an otherwise lawless society.

That's why I compared it to the Illiad. You can still learn something from it. If nothing else, you can observe, how the people in this region built their society. Doesn't look friendly, but hardly any society in the bronze age did.

Quote:I wonder if archeology suffers from the same problem.

Nope. Since the 1970's archaeology has done more to trash the fucking bible than any other discipline. It sure as hell isn't the theologians who are facing reality.

(November 30, 2014 at 6:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Nope. Since the 1970's archaeology has done more to trash the fucking bible than any other discipline. It sure as hell isn't the theologians who are facing reality.

But it's still interesting source material. You can reconstruct how myths tavelled from land to land as well as how the contemporaries built their societies and laws.

It gives an insight into a particular society at a given time and is therefore an interesting source for historical research.

The "given time" is generally when it was either written or last redacted.
Since jesus freaks insist it was written by fucking god and never redacted this does not leave much room for discussion.