Why is it that when an archaeologist finds something, it's automatically associated with the bible?

Question

They think they found the Ark. Great. I am a Classics Major, and have participated in Archaeological digs. I appreciate any bit of history. Aha! Keyword there- history. Just because you found something that could be an ark does not prove God exists. I'm sorry. The bible was written by man, therefore is loaded with flaws and corruption. It is mans interpretation of what was supposed to be God's word. Therefore, it is WRITTEN HISTORY. Of course some of the stories hold truths, because they were written by men! Of course they will include something like a MASSIVE FLOOD. It still doesn't prove God exists. It could prove there was a massive flood(which we already know has happened on several occasions..melting of the ice caps, perhaps?) and "Noah" built it to stay safe. And, maybe Noah did exist. Do you know him personally? I don't. He could have been a raving lunatic listenign to voices in his head, or had seizures (remember your nice 'friend' Saul? I mean Paul? Those were seizures!)

*reposted a few times in diff. forums to get diff. answer* :)

Haha sorry 'because it is' is a bad answer :/

My conception is not based on lack of research, smarty. I meant this paticular archaeology team, because yes, if YOU do your research, it was a Christian team. I'm just sayign a lot of the time it's automatically link to the bible. I'll admit things in history are portrayed in the bible, but as one guy said its the only history we have left to really work with. I never said all archaeologists are christians. Read the question next time, before you make yourself look stupid.

(not all finds, bah! thats what I meant-at work and distracted by silly said work!)

You do yourself too much justice here. I do not believe in Christian doctrine ,especially in the first part of the bible (I'm not dirty because I have a period-screw you and your red tent.) I am fasinated by bib history. What I cannot believe is the teachings- God is a vengeful god, then merciful? He is jealous, he is loving. Too many oxymorons. And, I refuse to believe I'm going to hell if I dont go cleanse myself after my period, or childbirth. Havign sex isn't dirty. I never said the bible wasn't good as a HISTORICAL document, because some things in it are hsitorically accurate, and that is just fascinating. I dislike the doctrine in the Old testament.

Answer 1

Because the Bible is all that a lot of people *think* they know about ancient history.

Answer 2

You have answereed your own question.The Bible has always been used as a road map to every archelogical dig ever done. Sorry you cannot believe this. Then what are you doing going on digs. The Bible is used to get you where you were. I know some try so hard to not believe that they cannot even believe their own proffession uses the Bible. Hey are you a woman or girl how did you get here? Were you formed from an amebia out of the sea? Where did the Sea come from? Being in archeology what about the chariots that are at the bottom of the Red Sea almost exactly in the middle. Is that just chance or did the Bible lead people to find them. Sorry for you and your disbeliefs even in your own ocupation. That must be hard to sdo a job that even you do not believe in, what a problem.

Answer 3

I'll leave the comments in the details alone, since they aren't really a question, and I can't even really understand where you were trying to go with them.

As to the question, "Why is it that when an archaeologist finds something, it's automatically associated with the bible?"

Well, first of all it isn't necessarily. When Kennewick man was discovered, not many people associated that with the Bible (although understandably, some people brought the Book of Mormon into it, since the radiation of people in North America is what that particular holy book is about.)

But when archaeologists make finds in the lands of Mesopotamia or the Fertile Crescent, yes, the Bible frequently comes into it. The Bible describes a huge span of time - from the bronze age right through to the Iron age. Although it is obviously from an Israeli-centric viewpoint, the ambitious histories of the Bible cover so much temporal and geographic territory that no archaeologist is going to overlook it when they have a find in the middle east.

The rest of the middle east's history is in various steles, broken tels, diaramas, hieroglyphs, and stone tablets scattered throughout landscapes and museums all over the world. In the Bible, it is all compiled into a single literary work. Very few archaeologists of the middle east would even think of doing their work without one handy.

Answer 4

I think you answered your own question. It is associated with the Bible, becuase along with being God's Word, it also contains history (by your own admission).

If you want to find out what this big boat looking thing is that happens to be found on a mountian, as a scientist that is looking to understand history, wouldn't it be irresponsible to leave out certain historical books that talk about a large boat looking thing on a mountian, just because you don't like the context of what that book stands for?

All forms of science (including archeolgy) are supposed to start from a place on no pre-concieved notions and then after gathering ALL the data and dong ALL the research, a scienctists draws a conclusion, not based on personal feelings or beliefs, but based on what the data says. If the data says it's the Ark, then that is what science is supposed to report and not just keep looking because it doesn't like the answer.

Answer 5

First of all ... excellent rant ! woo hoo .. bet you are a blast at those stuffy academic cocktail parties!

I think that one thing that is so troubling .. so damn infuriating .. is the fact that the bible and its spawn are "man written history" and when you combine that with the masterful job that religions have done with destroying and suppressing other versions of history you end up with this one very slanted version of the truth. When you find an ark it seems to justify that history simply because there is no other history left in so many ways. As you said, as a history the bible does hold some truths, and when one of those truths are proved it is used as a tool to support the validity of the entire book.

Of all of the things I hate about religions it is the destruction and suppression of our real history that I find the most appalling.

Answer 6

Actually that's largely incorrect. The ISSUE is that the BIBLE offers us MYSTERIES unsolved but apparently of far more importance financially and Icon-ically,. than say Mel Fishers dicoveries.

I am a clergyman among many other things, but association with what is texted in a Bible seems to be,,,Publically, at least, far more important than discovering the origins of my Native ancestors, or the rational behind the HYPE of what rests in the Valley of the Kings, or the Jungles of SO America,,, neither of which have any relationship with the BIBLE.

I'm also a long time DIG SITE explorer, and never have I equated BIBLE to a pottery shard.

Rev. Steven

Answer 7

i suppose it might just be curiosity. the bible contain some of the oldest documents ever, and maybe they want to see does it corrobrate with anything they find? i assume this question isn't raised when they find dinosaur fossils? : )
the bible has had a LOT of add-ons over the years, but some of the basic facts seem to be consistant with finds. there was a Pharoh Ramisis, Herod was around the time jesus was born and people were crucified back then. i think it might just be a reference point.
i know of someone whose thesis pretty much cast a lot of doubt over the whole "40 days fast" jesus did when he talked to god, the devil, and probably several amused camels. he was lacking in seratonin because of the fasting, which cause you to hallucinate......oh dear. so don't worry about it. just laugh it off.

Answer 8

It is not the case that all archaeologists find are associated with the bible. What you were tlaking about is an isolated case and does not represent the majority of archaeological digs or findings.

Your question is based on a misconseption and a lack of research.

(p.s. Archaeology student)

Answer 9

Simple answer. The faith of a religious person requires no proof. But the religious are always confronted by the atheists who say, "You nave no proof". So naturally, we take delight when any discovery supports the Bible version. The bible is history, Maybe it's history with inaccuracies (all history is). Maybe it's history with contradictions (show me a historical record where that isn't true). But it is history.

And any historical finding that explodes the atheist argument of "mythology" is welcome. We welcome the proof that when an atheist claims mythology, the mythology is theirs and not the Bible's.

Answer 10

I think it helps to prove God's existence, because it gives validity to the Bible and its stories. It doesn't mean that all have to be literal, but it increases my respect for the Bible and the way it was written.