Originally Posted by
rickj
I can't comment intellegently on this particular issue, but will share a resource that I just love: It's a magazine called
Biblical Archaeology Review.
Great stuff!
That looks like an excellent publication. As with all archeologies, Biblical archaeology is limited in what it can support, and great care should be exercised before enthusiastically accepting that 'findings' are what they are held to be or that they 'prove' any particular thing.
Some claim, for example, that Bible archeology 'proves' the Bible to be true, either as to its history or
in toto. Such a claim is excessive. It is based on the false premise that if the Bible can be shown to be accurate in one oparticular as to certain places and distances between them, then that proves everything else in the Bible must also true.
I could say, for example,
(1) that I am over seventy years old
(2) that I almost died in childbirth three times, and
(3) that my present occupation is that of Senior Tutor and Research Fellow in Biblical Studies at a secular university.
Only one of those statements is true, and you would be foolish to believe that because one is true, they all are true.
Having said that, the contribution that archaeology can make to our understanding of the past ought not to be minimised, just as it must not be overblown.
Thank you for the link.
MORGANITE
:)