ForumGarden

Its amazing how humans can find something under the earth that is 10,000 years old, and still deny that it exist?

The earth is the Lords and the full nest thereof; that means archaeology.

Show me any Archaeology that proves that God does not exist;

you can't; it does not exist.

Biblical Archaelology still is being unvealed and discovered. Just in the year 2012 these were discovered;

The Hugog Synagogue Mosaic

Bethlehem Bullah

The Kiryat Gat Hoard

Akko's Hellenistic Harbor

3,400 year old wheat from Hazor

The Jerusalem seal.

Another recent list;

Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries by Keith N. Schoville. Biblicalstudies.info by Ferrell Jenkins

Here are last years discoveries;

Biblical Archaeology’s Top Ten Discoveries of 2014 | Christianity Today

Just one from this year:

Rare Inscription Bearing Biblical Name Found in Israel : Discovery News

This is just one of the many sites on the City of David excavations;

Excavations | City Of David

The fact that any of them contain names doesn't mean a thing. Future achaeologists might find relics from this century containing the name "Tony B...". Now you might instantly assume that referred to Tony Blair, but it might just as easily refer to Tony (Wedgewood) Benn - or Tony Bloggs, for that matter. Even these days (especially in the Arabic / Islam) culture there's very little imagination as far as names are concerned - generally, Mohammed, Ali, or Hassan (and variations of the same regarding spelling). This wouldn't necessarily mean, then, that an ancient record with the name "Mohammed" on it referred to the Prophet. It just means that there was someone called Mohammed. Jesus (or Joshua, if you prefer the former version) has never been an uncommon name in the region. To automatically relate it to a chance co-incidence of someone with a similar name in the Bible is nothing but wishful thinking & an attempt to put coloured stones into some order so as to make a mosaic-like picture, when those same stones could be put in an entirely different order to make an entirely different picture.

Biblical Archaeology News 2015 (Bible History Online)

Mickiel;1486158 wrote: Biblical Archaeology News 2015 (Bible History Online)
And your point is...? That archeology proves that there was a civilisation during the period in which the Biblical fairy stories are set? Yes, I am prepared to accept that much. Are the statues of the Egyptian Gods evidence that the Gods existed? Were there really giant Sphinx animals wandering around. The archaological 'evidence' might indicate so, and with a lot more clarity than any of the vagueries about whether a certain name belonged to a certain person, or someone entirely different somewhere else in the world of the same name.

FourPart;1486182 wrote: And your point is...? That archeology proves that there was a civilisation during the period in which the Biblical fairy stories are set? Yes, I am prepared to accept that much. Are the statues of the Egyptian Gods evidence that the Gods existed? Were there really giant Sphinx animals wandering around. The archaological 'evidence' might indicate so, and with a lot more clarity than any of the vagueries about whether a certain name belonged to a certain person, or someone entirely different somewhere else in the world of the same name.


LETS LOOK AT REALITY;

Bing Images

Mickiel;1486189 wrote: LETS LOOK AT REALITY;

Bing Images
I say again - Your point is....?

You still haven't answered the question. You seem to be trying to convince me of something I am not disputing - that there was a civilisation at the time the fairy stories in the Bible were based. So what does that prove, apart from the obvious, which I have already mentioned?

FourPart;1486192 wrote: I say again - Your point is....?

You still haven't answered the question. You seem to be trying to convince me of something I am not disputing - that there was a civilisation at the time the fairy stories in the Bible were based. So what does that prove, apart from the obvious, which I have already mentioned?


It proves that biblical archaeology is a real science with real history; valid history verified by these digs and discoveries. They are not digging up fantasy. And we can piece together these finds and correlate them with the bible's information.

Mickiel;1486216 wrote: It proves that biblical archaeology is a real science with real history; valid history verified by these digs and discoveries. They are not digging up fantasy. And we can piece together these finds and correlate them with the bible's information.


Wrong. Archaeology is the science. It is unbiased & takes the raw facts for what they are. No more. No Less.

"Biblical Archaeology" cherry picks from those raw facts & does what it can to fit them into what they want them to fit into - to prove anything they want to prove (or "piece together and correlate them", as you so eloquently put it - piecing together unrelated pieces of information like coloured stones in a Roman Mosaic fitting together to make a picture), and to either disregard, or falsify anything that doesn't meet their agenda.

The finds you have highlighted thus far are nothing to do with Biblical Archaeology. They are just archaeology. There is nothing Biblical about them, apart from, at the most, that many of the finds have been of the Biblical era which, is of archaeological interest, but only because it is part of a much wider time frame.

Biblical archaeology is biblical archaeology.

Mickiel;1486787 wrote: Biblical archaeology is biblical archaeology.


Biblical is Biblical.

Archaeology is Archaeology.

The Bible is a story book.

Archaeology is a Science.

FourPart;1486799 wrote: Biblical is Biblical.

Archaeology is Archaeology.

The Bible is a story book.

Archaeology is a Science.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

This is biblical archaeology.

Mickiel;1486809 wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

This is biblical archaeology.
The article simply describes Archaeology. Adding the "Biblical" prefix to it simply identifies its agenda.

FourPart;1486831 wrote: The article simply describes Archaeology. Adding the "Biblical" prefix to it simply identifies its agenda.


Funny how you see things only in the manner that it fits your agenda. The truth can stare you in the face; and you can't see it.

Archaeology, as with any science, seeks to find the facts & to theorise, without preconceptions, as to what they indicate.

Biblical Archaeology takes a preconceived belief & seeks to find bits of evidence to back it up, ignoring anything it sees as 'not relevant'.

FourPart;1486882 wrote: Archaeology, as with any science, seeks to find the facts & to theorise, without preconceptions, as to what they indicate.

Biblical Archaeology takes a preconceived belief & seeks to find bits of evidence to back it up, ignoring anything it sees as 'not relevant'.


There is grave archaeology, tree archaeology, cement archaeology, animal archaeology, bone archaeology, primordial man archaeology; and there is biblical archaeology. Plain and simple; and you can't change that Four Part; its reality as it is, not as you accept.

Mickiel;1486887 wrote: There is grave archaeology, tree archaeology, cement archaeology, animal archaeology, bone archaeology, primordial man archaeology; and there is biblical archaeology. Plain and simple; and you can't change that Four Part; its reality as it is, not as you accept.
All of the examples are physical things to be studied. Biblical, however, is a concept, based on a story book. Even "Biblical Era" would be pushing it, as according to the Bible that covers everything to the beginning of time itself and as such is not limited to any particular era.

If I were to study Aesop Archaeology I might find remains of a rabbit, a fox & a bear. That, using Biblical Archaeology as a mirror, would indicate that the stories of Brer Rabbit were absolutely true.

FourPart;1486902 wrote: All of the examples are physical things to be studied. Biblical, however, is a concept, based on a story book. Even "Biblical Era" would be pushing it, as according to the Bible that covers everything to the beginning of time itself and as such is not limited to any particular era.

If I were to study Aesop Archaeology I might find remains of a rabbit, a fox & a bear. That, using Biblical Archaeology as a mirror, would indicate that the stories of Brer Rabbit were absolutely true.


Like I said, you NEED myths; they are a vital part of your defense.

Mickiel;1486921 wrote: Like I said, you NEED myths; they are a vital part of your defense.
Huh?

FourPart;1486949 wrote: Huh?




Just last year;

Biblical Archaeology’s Top Ten Discoveries of 2014 | Christianity Today

The very first one:

The tomb of the first Christian martyr may have been located in an excavation just west of Ramallah.


From the start, the object of the exercise is preconceived. Everything else is just trying to find ways to make the facts fit the idea.

The Olive Oil jars one, if anything, disproves any Biblical accuracy, as it means that the discovery predates the Creation by about 3000 years. It even says it predates the Biblical patriarchs. Therefore this is nothing to do with being Biblical & is plain Archaeology.

Bing Images

So tell me, what is the difference between Archaeology & Biblical Archaeology apart from the creative way Biblical Archaeology interprets the evidence.

FourPart;1487142 wrote: So tell me, what is the difference between Archaeology & Biblical Archaeology apart from the creative way Biblical Archaeology interprets the evidence.


Biblical is the difference , both are archaeology.

Biblical Archaeology - What is Biblical Archaeology

Mickiel;1487306 wrote: Biblical Archaeology - What is Biblical Archaeology


Some, but by no means all, biblical scholars are interested in proving the absolute truth of the bible. Others see the bible as a historical document, and seek to find evidence supporting some of the events reported.
In other words, they have a preset agenda & a looking to cherry pick to find some way of making the facts fit into the fiction.

Pooh Corner

Christopher Robin is a real person. (Historical Fact)

The Poohsticks Bridge exists. (Archaeological Fact)

"The House At Pooh Corner" is a story book. (Biblical Reference Fact)

All these facts, therefore prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Winnie the Pooh was a real intelligent life form (albeit one of very little brain), who had a load of other talking animal friends, including a pig, a rabbit, a kangaroo & her joey, an owl & a stuffed donkey. The evidence proves all this to be true, does it not?

A good site to research;

Associates for Biblical Research

One only needs to read the headline to know how impartial that site is:

A Christian Apologetics Ministry Dedicated To Demonstrating The Historical Reliability Of The Bible Through Archaeological And Biblical Research


It is unashamedly demonstrating that it has an agenda to fit the evidence to mean what they want it to mean. Throughout history there have been organisations & Governments that seek to do the same sort of thing. It's more commonly known as Propaganda & Spin.

FourPart;1487730 wrote: One only needs to read the headline to know how impartial that site is:



It is unashamedly demonstrating that it has an agenda to fit the evidence to mean what they want it to mean. Throughout history there have been organisations & Governments that seek to do the same sort of thing. It's more commonly known as Propaganda & Spin.




Hey, I got to use what's out there ; I have enough sense to separate Christianity from good obvious archaeology and good reporting.

Mickiel;1487751 wrote: Hey, I got to use what's out there ; I have enough sense to separate Christianity from good obvious archaeology and good reporting.


https://pjmedia.com/faith/2015/12/9/arc ... nt?ref=yfp

Mickiel;1490403 wrote: https://pjmedia.com/faith/2015/12/9/arc ... nt?ref=yfp
That's not Biblical Archaeology. That's just Archaeology. I could use Winnie The Pooh Archaeology to discover the Pooh Sticks Bridge (and it does actually exist, by the way), but that doesn't prove that Winnie the Pooh, as a walking, talking entity actually existed. So what if it proves there was a palace there at some time, which may or may not have been built by King Hezekiah? Story books use real people & real places. It doesn't necessarily make them factual, though. For instance - Sherlock Holmes lived in the time of Queen Victoria - he even met her a few times. He lied in 221b Baker Street, in London. Both London & 221b Baker Street are real places. Queen Victoria was a real person. However, no amount of future Archaeology discovering Baker Street is ever going to 'prove' Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, to be a real person.

FourPart;1490415 wrote: That's not Biblical Archaeology. That's just Archaeology. I could use Winnie The Pooh Archaeology to discover the Pooh Sticks Bridge (and it does actually exist, by the way), but that doesn't prove that Winnie the Pooh, as a walking, talking entity actually existed. So what if it proves there was a palace there at some time, which may or may not have been built by King Hezekiah? Story books use real people & real places. It doesn't necessarily make them factual, though. For instance - Sherlock Holmes lived in the time of Queen Victoria - he even met her a few times. He lied in 221b Baker Street, in London. Both London & 221b Baker Street are real places. Queen Victoria was a real person. However, no amount of future Archaeology discovering Baker Street is ever going to 'prove' Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, to be a real person.


I find it so interesting how you keep using myths to dispute facts. How you need things in fiction to help support your dispute with non fiction.

Mickiel;1490425 wrote: I find it so interesting how you keep using myths to dispute facts. How you need things in fiction to help support your dispute with non fiction.


The building exists = Fact.

The existence of King Hezekiah = Quite possible, but unproven.

King Hezekiah ordered the building of the palace = As before - possible, but unproven.

The Bible is Fact = Myth.

The simile is simple. You claim that the whole of the Bible is factual because of the existence of a few locations mentioned therein as being evidence to that effect. This is no different from claiming that the whole of the Winnie the Pooh stories are true because the Pooh Sticks Bridge mentioned in the stories really exists. The point is not trying to claim that Winnie The Pooh is a factual book, but that neither is the Bible, on the same basis.

FourPart;1490431 wrote: The building exists = Fact.

The existence of King Hezekiah = Quite possible, but unproven.

King Hezekiah ordered the building of the palace = As before - possible, but unproven.

The Bible is Fact = Myth.

The simile is simple. You claim that the whole of the Bible is factual because of the existence of a few locations mentioned therein as being evidence to that effect. This is no different from claiming that the whole of the Winnie the Pooh stories are true because the Pooh Sticks Bridge mentioned in the stories really exists. The point is not trying to claim that Winnie The Pooh is a factual book, but that neither is the Bible, on the same basis.


Do the people a favor and show them, show us, where I ever stated that the " Whole" of the bible is fact. If you cannot produce that, then please refract your false claim about things I have said. I don't lie about things you have said. I would say much of the bible is fact, but there are errors; and I have never claimed differently.

I have no need to falsely accuse you; I wish you would treat me the same.

Check this out;

digital history project: Discovery of Palace & Temple of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon Dr. Robert Koldewey

Consider the " Nuzi Tablets";

Great Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: The Nuzi Tablets

King Hezekiah in the Bible: Royal Seal of Hezekiah Comes to Light - Biblical Archaeology Society

These finds are most interesting;



10 Great Biblical Artifacts at the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem - Biblical Archaeology Society

Yes the are interesting. For instance David's kingdom was not as big or as lavish as described in the Bible. The same is true about Solomon. There is not a shred of evidence for the exodus as written and there is no evidence for a massive invasion of Canaan. There is some history there but not much. No trip to Egypt to save Jesus, no census as in the gospels, no star the leads folks around unless you are navigating by the stars and that is not leading people around like the three Magi who did not exist. We now know that roman sculptures were also included in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Look at "David and Solomon" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman or "The Bible Unearthed by the same., "Archaeology" by Robert Sharer and Wendy Ashmore.

Here's a few things on David;



New Archaeology Supports Existence of King David - Israel Today | Israel News

Mickiel;1492147 wrote: Here's a few things on David;



New Archaeology Supports Existence of King David - Israel Today | Israel News


I wasn't even aware that the existence of King David was ever in doubt.

Mt. Zion is mentioned so many times in scripture, its hard to count:



Mount Zion, Israel - Find a Dig

Mickiel;1492221 wrote: Mt. Zion is mentioned so many times in scripture, its hard to count:



Mount Zion, Israel - Find a Dig


So what?

FourPart;1492226 wrote: So what?


''Good question, " So What", allow me to use it, " So what about finding 50 people in the bible through archaeology?



50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically - Biblical Archaeology Society