Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible itself is a documented, very dependable historical book. There is more reason to believe in Jesus and his miracles than there is for Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.
From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words. "The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.
Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided. After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.
****************************
Battle of Jericho
Kathleen Kenyon, one of the most respected practitioners of the new archaeology, dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952-1958. Kenyon traced the entire history of the city from the earliest Neolithic settlement. She did this by digging a narrow deep trench maintaining clean, squared off edges, rigorously examining the soil and recording its stratification, and thus building up a cross-section of the tell. When presented with an area that would require wider areas to be excavated - the floor plan of a house for example - she carefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyon reported that her work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result was confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%
Archaeologist Bill Dever has said: "If you want a miracle, here's your miracle, Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there."
So anyone that doesn't interpret the Bible literally is not a Christian?
LOL
Religious fascism rears its ugly head. Again.
Desmond Tutu is not a Christian, because he is an Arminian/Methodist?
Guess what? That is not for you to say. It ain't for John Calvin to say, either.
Quote:
And I have to conclude that you apparently don't want to look at the evidence and appreciate logic.
Oh I would, if you only presented some. I've asked you over and over again. Where is a falsifiable hypothesis that supports Creationism?
Quote:
You have not been able to come up with an answer to how the universe came into existence.
Because it has nothing to do with evolution. But if you are that curious, Google "branes." Happy reading.
Quote:
Until then, I'm going to have to assume that you just don't have an answer and are not willing to think logically.
Another cowardly cop-out from you. Evolution is what it is whether the Bog Bang happened or not. This is a typical pathetic Creationist tactic: refusing to engage in a debate about the EVIDENCE for evolution unless your opponent proves that 1+1=2 first.
So you agree then that the old theories about the world being flat or the earth is the center of the universe should not be mentioned also?
When put into context of mythology, then no. It helps to understand Columbus's journey better, and helps to put you in the mind frame of a sailor sailing out across the ocean, not knowing whats there, to mention that many at the time believed that the world was flat.
I studied greek mythology when I was in 6th grade as well. Not to teach me science from it, but to teach me about writing, and to better understand how we got to where we are at.
Creationism is a pseudo science, not real science. Most of its supporters don't want it taught as a myth, but want it taught as real science, along with gravity, the solar system, physics, and other scientific studies. Thats what most of us disagree with.
I read the bible for my advanced placement English course in high school. Not to indoctrinate me with religion, but to understand an intense piece of writing, and to help understand the plight of man.
Religious studies (from all over the world) are good for expanding the children's horizons, awareness of cultures, understanding of history and current events...
But this does not belong in the science classroom. Unless you also want to teach them that lightning bolts MIGHT come from Zeus's cloud castle.
Whooooooosh...there goes the rest of the world kicking our ass in math and science because some people want us to teach mythology in science class.
So you agree then that the old theories about the world being flat or the earth is the center of the universe should not be mentioned also?
Ironic you bring this up as they are examples of how people used to hold moronic ideas with no science to back them up. Ideas usually gleaned from overreliance on the bible to teach them about nature and physics.
Religious studies (from all over the world) are good for expanding the children's horizons, awareness of cultures, understanding of history and current events...
But this does not belong in the science classroom. Unless you also want to teach them that lightning bolts MIGHT come from Zeus's cloud castle.
Whooooooosh...there goes the rest of the world kicking our ass in math and science because some people want us to teach mythology in science class.
The OP does not state science class, it only says public schools.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
