Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

[turanclancath]

A quote from Rick :


It absolutely does support much from the Bible...but admittedly also helps show us what, in the Bible, should not be taken literally...or is factually/historically incorrect.

(I say that even as I affirm the inerrancy, in matters of faith, of the Bible)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I.Dont forget i,m not an native speaker  inerrancy wasnt in my dictionary  but i think  it means can not err?

Correct ?


A vey very interesting statement     depending how polite  and  civilised  ( dont forget here in Europe we  arent used to the typical American way of  conversation ) the postings will be i will respond .We here in Europe arent used to the vitriolic barking and biting !!!!

I know and undestand Ricks statement  and can explain it  and its indeed an way out of the dilemma and its already   an Mediaeval solution
I hope to see good conversations in    Agape!!!!!


stay well  and polite .( sometimews i,m really desperate about it  too European i guess by character ) ?

turanclancath:)

[falasha]

I don't believe that's a matter that archaeology or science will ever resolve.  God can do anything He pleases.

The Universe itself is no different.

It's "physically impossible" for something to arise out of nothing...
(which is why I think scientists, especially physicists, who do not believe in Creation are being quite hypocritical.)

I have to disagree. Science has resolved this issue. People cannot turn into salt. That is an undeniable universal truth.

[RamboPreacher]

I don't believe that's a matter that archaeology or science will ever resolve.  God can do anything He pleases.

The Universe itself is no different.

It's "physically impossible" for something to arise out of nothing...
(which is why I think scientists, especially physicists, who do not believe in Creation are being quite hypocritical.)

I have to disagree. Science has resolved this issue. People cannot turn into salt. That is an undeniable universal truth.

Is this apriori something that you can back up with "proof".  not just evidences that it probably can't happen, but absolute proof that it "can not" happen? please provide links, sources and bibliographies.

[Admin1]

Seems to me that there is a statement that anyone from Atheist to Zoroastrian can agree with:

Archaeology in general does not "support the Bible" but archaeological finds can support or verify some statements made in the Bible.

Is there any logical argument against that?

[Admin1]

I don't believe that's a matter that archaeology or science will ever resolve.  God can do anything He pleases.

The Universe itself is no different.

It's "physically impossible" for something to arise out of nothing...
(which is why I think scientists, especially physicists, who do not believe in Creation are being quite hypocritical.)

I have to disagree. Science has resolved this issue. People cannot turn into salt. That is an undeniable universal truth.

God is not bound by Science.  The issue of Lots wife is one of faith not of science.

What say you about something coming from nothing?  Is our Universe an impossibility?

[Admin1]

PS.  I side with Devers' opinion that the word "proof" should rarely, if ever, be used about conclusions based on archaeology alone.

[notalent]

Science has resolved this issue.

Or more accurately stated, "Science has a hypothesis for this issue".  That's as sufficient to resolve the issue in some minds as are words spoken ex cathedra in other minds.  But neither suffices to settle a matter objectively.

[Brianroy]

In regard to Lot's wife, one reader says:
People cannot turn into salt. That is an undeniable universal truth.

I assume that we are talking of metamorphosis here, correct?  Perhaps a term such as metathesis is more appropriate. 

In WWII, and in other ages, there were those soldiers who died in a frozen state, while standing, gun in hand, etc. 


We are never told how high a "pillar" Lot's wife became, only that she became one. 

If she is imply COVERED in salt, the record is thus vindicated.

 Do we have any archaelogical similarities?  In 79 A.D. we have Pompeii.


At Pompeii, there were those struck by magma while in an upright postion...even though seated....

Pompei Virtual Tour - slide 51

While the above link is of a plaster cast, it is of an actual form, an actual person who died and was buried as such. Why then, could not hot salt instead of hot magma or hot ash perform the same result?


Imagine an explosion of an oil well...because we have a combination of asphalt, natural oil, gas, and salt at the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Now imagine that a rich vein of salt peter weighing a few hundred pounds is propelled into the 2,000 feet into the air via a gas pocket explosion.  It changes its chemical composition slightly in its being heated into a hot glob of salt...like a speeded up metasomatic (i.e., change in the chemical constitution of the rock) process that appears alien to those metempirics (i.e., not familiar or experienced) with magma.

So now, we have this 300-400 lb. glob of salt zenith at 2,000 feet, and begin to widen and fan out and spread by external forces, and as it drops to the earth more slowly than it normally should because of its odd shape...and as it drops, it begins to cool and harden, taking on a substance likened to hot dough, but falls more like wood because of the airation pockets throughout it. 

And directly below, is Lot's wife, looking back...stubbornly erect, refusing to budge...and splat!!!  But instead of flattening her, because of certain laws of physics, the doughy salt peter wraps around her like a 300 -400 lb. mass of hot cookie dough over a fence post.

And like the figures in Pompeii many thousands of years later, some form of the original person is left.  Or would we rather say that those empty shells and forms of people at Pompeii were simply molds left underground by some ancient sculptor for archaeologists to discover at a later time?  No...Lot's wife, and the history of it, is vindicated by the discovery of the results of the Pompeii eruption. 

Had Lot's wife been covered in a glob of hot tar, she would have turned -- according to the expression -- into a "pillar" of tar. 

So from the view of "possibility"...this history of Lot's wife is far from violating any perceived "universal truth".

Peace.

[archaeologist]

There is a danger among us people of reason that we may at times be selective in our application of it.

i am going to ask for clarification of the bolded part as  i would like to know if you are being slective here and omiting those of us who use faith or are you being inclusive and applying this phrase to everyone who is not found clinically insane?

so to say that the (sciences of) archaeology supports "the Bible", is not quite right, in my opinion.

i think you are being contradictory and playing the middle of the road card.  i believe that archaeology and science can and does support the Bible.  when we discover a created process, we see God at work; when we discover an artifact, i.e. the dan stele or the menertph(sp) stele, we see archaeology supporting the Bible.

the Bible talks about the house of david and the stele's mention thehouse of david.  that is support.  what we have to be careful of is 'interpretation'  this little word seems to be the mother of all excuses to not accept the truth or fact.

it is the hiding place of all hiding places to avoid dealing with what is the reality of life.  i see it happen all the time.

I have to disagree. Science has resolved this issue. People cannot turn into salt. That is an undeniable universal truth.

science is NOT the last word in life.  the Bible tells us 'nothing is impossible for God' thus science cannot say, it is impossible, science is not god/God nor is it infallible-- all it can say is, we have not discovered how that was done-- what is impossible for science, is still possible for God.

it must be remembered that science is a tool, created by God for us to use properly to learn more about HIm and what He has created.  over time, secular man has used and abused science's abilities and have elevated it to a positon of authority which it does not belong nor have any right.

[notalent]

There is a danger among us people of reason that we may at times be selective in our application of it.

i am going to ask for clarification of the bolded part as  i would like to know if you are being slective here and omiting those of us who use faith or are you being inclusive and applying this phrase to everyone who is not found clinically insane?

I'm of the opinion that faith can be reasonable or unreasonable.  So my statement was a general observation that reasonable people shouldn't forget.

 

[RamboPreacher]

...

so to say that the (sciences of) archaeology supports "the Bible", is not quite right, in my opinion.

i think you are being contradictory and playing the middle of the road card.  i believe that archaeology and science can and does support the Bible.  when we discover a created process, we see God at work; when we discover an artifact, i.e. the dan stele or the menertph(sp) stele, we see archaeology supporting the Bible.

the Bible talks about the house of david and the stele's mention thehouse of david.  that is support.  what we have to be careful of is 'interpretation'  this little word seems to be the mother of all excuses to not accept the truth or fact.

it is the hiding place of all hiding places to avoid dealing with what is the reality of life.  i see it happen all the time....

Not sure what the last sentence means, can you clarify?  as to the rest, we are in agreement.  Archaeology can support the Bible when it comes to historicity.  However, archaeology can't support "the Bible" as far as faith/theological reference is concerned.  It can show evidences of people, places and things of history, but it is not the place of archaeology to prove miracles happened or not, for example - I believe that to be out of scope of the sciences (currently).

[archaeologist]

It can show evidences of people, places and things of history, but it is not the place of archaeology to prove miracles happened or not, for example - I believe that to be out of scope of the sciences

to me , this goes without saying andi agreewith you on that point.  sometimes we over-generalize  (to save time etc.) and other times we over-specify(to appear too concilitory).

Not sure what the last sentence means, can you clarify?

basically all i was saying was that the term 'interpretation' is a form of escape to avoid dealing with the truth.  it is all too common to hear someone say--'well that's your interpretation'.  it is a great hiding place when one is not liking what they are hearing.

[RamboPreacher]

It can show evidences of people, places and things of history, but it is not the place of archaeology to prove miracles happened or not, for example - I believe that to be out of scope of the sciences

to me , this goes without saying andi agreewith you on that point.  sometimes we over-generalize  (to save time etc.) and other times we over-specify(to appear too concilitory).

Not sure what the last sentence means, can you clarify?

basically all i was saying was that the term 'interpretation' is a form of escape to avoid dealing with the truth.  it is all too common to hear someone say--'well that's your interpretation'.  it is a great hiding place when one is not liking what they are hearing.

ahh - thanks...
I guess the only reason I said it doesn't support "the Bible" is that I dont' see the Bible as a history book.  It's a consolidation of books that have theological bent and implications; that happen to have some historicity, etc. (because of the nature of the content).  So, sorry, don't see myself hiding behind "interpretation".

[archaeologist]

So, sorry, don't see myself hiding behind "interpretation"

i wasn't talking about you with that comment.  it was a generalstatement addressing an issue i see happen a lot.

It's a consolidation of books that have theological bent and implications; that happen to have some historicity, etc

but it is a history book.  it just isn't a complete history much like the book 'battle cry of freedom' by mcpherson.  that book claims to be a history of the civilwar yet it does not record every act, event, or word said or done during that time period.

[Diane]

Falasha you wrote: "The problem I have with the verse taken literally is that people cannot turn into salt."

You are right. You are using the gift of reason in this.

But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”—Genesis 19:24-26

Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” not in that her flesh, bones and blood became salt but that she was entombed in the downpour of salt as the result of rejecting the specific instructions of the angels, “Don't look back!”—Genesis 19:17

The account tells us that God "rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah"
Zephaniah said Gomorrah was a place of  “salt pits.” (Zephaniah 2:9) A fire storm would cause explosions and incredibly hot wind storms even as we see today in horrendous forest fires. And this was a miraculous fire storm.

Why did Jesus say we should remember Lot's wife? Because, while fleeing from Sodom as fiery destruction rained down from heaven upon it, she looked back disobediently, slowed down in her flight and was encased in suffocating salt, to become a pillar of warning to all who choose to reject God’s instructions.
If this event hadn’t really happened it would be senseless of Jesus to use it as an example of what will happen to those who refuse to listen to God’s warnings.