How can we be sure archaeologists and scholors aren't frauds?

[Irishman]

You use the Bible and if the archaeologist and scholar disagrees with it, then you know they are wrong.

That sounds all well and good on the surface, but in practice, there are too many disagreeing viewpoints about the Bible to make that work without debate or disagreement.

How would you expect to "use" the Bible in such cases?

[Irishman]

I have been wondering about something for awhile now.  The IAA and many scholars are so big on provenance and documented finds that they say all antiquities w/o provenance and not found on a sanctioned digs must be ignored.  Who is to say that all archaeologists involved in digs are of the highest character and not beyond trickery?  If I have learned one thing in my reading, study and collecting of antiquities, it is the majority of them have huge egos and are very competitive.  Who is to say they don't "salt" their finds?  Mel Fisher, the famous treasure hunter and discover of the Atocha was accused of "salting' his finds.  That is, that he placed actual artifacts in specific areas to draw attention to himself and his operation.  Mel Fisher was 100% innocent of this, but "salting" is a practice that has been known to happen.  Ok, so an important artifact has been found on an IAA dig.  How do we know it wasn't planted?  Either an original artifact planted or a forgery that has been planted.  Can we ever be 100% sure?  The answer is NO.   The academics need to get off of their high horse on this issue.

Regards,
Joel

P

Well, the IAA seems to view the more "sensational" unprovenanced artifacts (i.e. anything that appears to confirm the biblical texts) as suspect right out of the gate (primarily because many of those in leadership positions at IAA do not suscribe to a historical view of the Bible. Further, they don't wish to sign off on an unprovenanced artifact and later have it shown to be a fraud and be embarrassed by endorsing it).

It's human nature not to want to be taken in by a forgery, but it's not science.

[Irishman]

The IAA and many scholars are so big on provenance and documented finds that they say all antiquities w/o provenance and not found on a sanctioned digs must be ignored.

i disagree with this idea but i am sure it is an attempt to limit the amount of forgeries being 'discovered'.

one cannot limit discoveries to 'sanctioned' digs because archaeologists do not have the time nor the money to dig everywhere and how many items would be lost if they were excluded.  some of the best discoveries come from amateurs and unsanctioned areas.

Indeed! Dead Sea Scrolls anyone?

[Irishman]

I agree with we  can never be to sure about archeologist or scholars of fraud.  Most of the scholars and archeologists today have very large egos and a status that they must maintain, because of their compeition.  I think that it is very sad that we are unsure about the findings of todays archeologist and scholars.

Competition? Please elaborate.

[Elijah]

Competition is an easy definition.
Jealous that discoveries rise up from amateurs.
Of course archeologists would not be the only
fraud (liars), amateurs have just as much an equal
imagination... imagination leads to both truth
and to lies. Like any experiment, more often your search
and testing of imagination will fail than succeed. The problem
is people fail and lie and say it was success. So competition
is actually between all people telling others they are all wrong because they think themselves all right.
That competition is emotionally driven by a desire for fame, but fame always wants to be rewarded monetarily in figures of some sort of score or benefit.

[Irishman]

Competition is an easy definition.
Jealous that discoveries rise up from amateurs.
Of course archeologists would not be the only
fraud (liars), amateurs have just as much an equal
imagination... imagination leads to both truth
and to lies. Like any experiment, more often your searhc
and testing of imagination will fail than succeed. The problem
is people fail and lie and say it was success. So competition
is actually between all people telling others they are all wrong because they think themselves all right.
That competition is emotionally driven by a desire for fame, but fame always wants to be rewarded monetarily in figures of some sort of score or benefit.

I do not believe that the vast majority of archaeologists are driven by a desire for fame, whether it be of the Indiana Jones variety or other.

[Elijah]

you didnt ask whether most or all are. In fact to imply that I said all are is an indication of where you would sit on a jury against the amaterus for the archeologists. Simple fact archeologists are regarded as on a payroll, amateurs are not. In fact by saying that I imply they can be classified as all or most ignores the topic that is here, or that you pretend to answer, the topic being fraud. Fraud is driven by money or fame. But you rather accuse me of saying archeologists are driven by money or fame. Only someone concerned about reputation fame and the money it will effect as in bring income or cut income are going to stick behind their fraud. Only a fool would think all fraud starts out as malice intent to play the world as fools, many people are sincere and when their discovery falls thru then wish to save face by defending it which would be and is FRAUD.

[notopri]

That sounds all well and good on the surface, but in practice, there are too many disagreeing viewpoints about the Bible to make that work without debate or disagreement.

How would you expect to "use" the Bible in such cases?

Then you know how many people are wrong.

[Irishman]

That sounds all well and good on the surface, but in practice, there are too many disagreeing viewpoints about the Bible to make that work without debate or disagreement.

How would you expect to "use" the Bible in such cases?

Then you know how many people are wrong.

Please elaborate?