Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Increasingly, though, it looks as though the Bible has handed down a distorted picture of history. Papyrus scrolls recovered from Qumran on the Dead Sea, as well as a fragment of the Bible that recently surfaced on the market for antiquities, necessitate a "complete reassessment," says Schorch.
Quote:Increasingly, though, it looks as though the Bible has handed down a distorted picture of history. Papyrus scrolls recovered from Qumran on the Dead Sea, as well as a fragment of the Bible that recently surfaced on the market for antiquities, necessitate a "complete reassessment," says Schorch.
Hardly a "complete reassessment," such scholarship has been around since the nineteenth century, and copies of the Samaritan Torah have always been in existence. Ironically the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (In itself something that happened over fifty years ago.) has done more to confuse the issue than to clear it up... As for as the archaeological find. I'd love to see his published material because it sounds like he's found something pretty interesting, but as evidence of a Samaritan temple was found on Mount Gerizim some decades ago ( I think possibly before WWII, but not sure...), it's hardly groundbreaking news. This article isn't offering up any "new" evidence that isn't at least fifty years old already.
That said, it is an interesting article, and a fascinating topic, but I wish journalists who deal with the academic would resist the urge to portray things as "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking", when they aren't anything of the sort. I know Tiberius gets annoyed when they do it with science, and it is also slightly annoying when they do it with history. (Though to be honest, if it gets people interested, why not.)
I don't know if your aware but the specific dispute mentioned in the article is explicitly referenced in John Ch. 4, (Verse 20 if you don't wanna read the whole chapter for the context.).
Quote:Increasingly, though, it looks as though the Bible has handed down a distorted picture of history. Papyrus scrolls recovered from Qumran on the Dead Sea, as well as a fragment of the Bible that recently surfaced on the market for antiquities, necessitate a "complete reassessment," says Schorch.
Hardly a "complete reassessment," such scholarship has been around since the nineteenth century, and copies of the Samaritan Torah have always been inexistance. Ironically the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (In itself something that happened over fifty years ago.) have done more to confuse the issue than to clear it up... this article isn't offering up any "new" evidence that isn't at least fifty years old already.
That said, it is an interesting article, and a fascinating topic, but I wish journalists who deal with the academic would resist the urge to portray things as "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking", when they aren't anything of the sort. I know Tiberius gets annoyed when they do it with science, and it is also slightly annoying when they do it with history. (Though to be honest, if it gets people interested, why not.)
I don't know if your aware but the specific dispute mentioned in the article is explicitly referenced in John Ch. 4, (Verse 20 if you don't wanna read the whole chapter for the context.).
You have started upon a false premise and ignorance and being stubbornly unreceptive to new evidence.
Quote:Increasingly, though, it looks as though the Bible has handed down a distorted picture of history. Papyrus scrolls recovered from Qumran on the Dead Sea, as well as a fragment of the Bible that recently surfaced on the market for antiquities, necessitate a "complete reassessment," says Schorch.
Hardly a "complete reassessment," such scholarship has been around since the nineteenth century, and copies of the Samaritan Torah have always been inexistance. Ironically the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (In itself something that happened over fifty years ago.) have done more to confuse the issue than to clear it up... this article isn't offering up any "new" evidence that isn't at least fifty years old already.
That said, it is an interesting article, and a fascinating topic, but I wish journalists who deal with the academic would resist the urge to portray things as "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking", when they aren't anything of the sort. I know Tiberius gets annoyed when they do it with science, and it is also slightly annoying when they do it with history. (Though to be honest, if it gets people interested, why not.)
I don't know if your aware but the specific dispute mentioned in the article is explicitly referenced in John Ch. 4, (Verse 20 if you don't wanna read the whole chapter for the context.).
You have started upon a false premise and ignorance and being stubbornly unreceptive to new evidence.
Quote:I don't know if your aware but the specific dispute mentioned in the article is explicitly referenced in John Ch. 4, (Verse 20 if you don't wanna read the whole chapter for the context.).
I don't give a flying fuck what is in your stupid ass bible, buddy.
This is archaeological evidence...do you understand what that means? An ACTUAL SITE being excavated and not the pious blathering of xtian jerkoffs.
April 17, 2012 at 9:17 pm (This post was last modified: April 17, 2012 at 9:19 pm by King_Charles.)
Um, did you even read my post? In it I point out that the site had ALREADY been excavated, and that none of the evidence claimed to be new in that article is actually new... this is all stuff that has been in libraries for decades.
The article itself is interesting for its description of the moder state of the Samartians, and the evidence it cites is largely accurate, however the idea that any of it is in any way "new" is entirely wrong.
