BIBLE
Out of context: Reply #282
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
Next, you say that “it is generally assumed that archaeological digs in the Near East usually confirm the biblical record”. No it is not generally assumed. If it was generally assumed, then the three separate Encyclopaedic resources I used yesterday, would also state such a thing. I got no evidence from any that this was true. There have been several digs in the early part of the 20th century that did confirm a certain degree of historicity of the Bible, but this confirms nothing more than the fact that the Bible was written in the Middle East, a long time ago. Your statement twists words and uses language in a wholly dishonest fashion. It is like saying that the writings of John Grisham are confirmed by archaeological digs, because there indeed is /was a Manhattan on the East coast of America, and that lawyers did work in giant sky-scrapers there. Nothing more superfluous than that, can be proven archaeologically. That is the position of Bible minimalist (which stands to reason) and, as the three Encyclopaedias state is the widely held opinion of academics. You on the other hand (a Bible maximalist) believe everything in the Bible is true, unless proven otherwise (this is called arguing out of ignorance/incredulity – “this is so, because you can’t prove otherwise”). When you dismiss recent archaeological findings as the discoveries of “various groups of radical revisionists” – well then that is not you being academic, but using carefully selected phrasing to discredit a much wider and uncertain academic debate.