Does archaeology in any way threaten the core priniciples of those religions based on the God of Abraham?

Question

I am a student of archaeology myself and specialise in the 'Biblical' lands of the Middle and Near East and when one studies the bronze and iron ages of this region it does somewhat remove some of the mysticism (for want of a better word) surrounding those characters who feature so prominently in the books of the Christians, Jews and Muslims, but does not neccesarily detract from the prohpet's messages of piety.

Do you think this could develop in to a good or bad thing, or does it make little difference?

Please do not cut and paste large sections of religious text here or preach your faith, I am looking for open-minded and serious answers regarding archaeological study in the Levant. Note that I in no way wish to offend anyone's relifious beliefs and have the utmost respect for all schools of faith.

Thanks!

Answer 1

For the "true believer" it wouldn't necessarily make a difference.

The historicity of the biblical stories wouldn't necessarily take away from the meaning of the stories. I think even the most devout believers (fundamentalists notwithstanding) understand the bible was written from one point of view. That history can tell an objective story, doesn't necessarily take away from the subjective reality of the people living at the time which is what is documented in the bible or other religious texts. Whatever archaeology or history discovers, that could always have been how the God of Abraham did it. Just like how evolution and natural selection could have been how God created everything.

On the other hand, archaeology, combined with other disciplines, can paint a picture that makes it easier for us to see how these belief systems could have been developed without the need for the events to have actually happened. Or when certain events did happen, (ie, the potential for a literal, yet localized flood) the study of history (amung others) can tell us how these events happened without the need for God to explain them.

If biology and cosmology can explain how we got here, archaeology can be a key discipline in determining how we developed these religious views. With a greater understanding of these two concepts, I think we'd have quite a few more atheists.

An example, and I would appreciate your feedback on this given your studies, is the connection between biblical stories (like Adam and Eve) and the Agricultural Revolution. Check out the best answer to the following question. I would appreciate your perspective. (You can email me from my profile)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnmdV0RnPI70LrdCy2X.jELsy6IX?qid=20070423151857AAYpYDM

Answer 2

If you propose a question that touches on the matter of faith and religin, you cannot avoid getting a smidgin of either in a responce.
But I'll try to keep it to a dull roar.
The efforts of archeaology in the middle eastern region in the 18th, 19th and early to mid 20th centuries where begun with expectations of great discoveries to substantiate biblical references. I recall an archeologist who dug benieth the Temple Mount after bribing local officials in the early 20th century and prematurly reported the discovery of the Arch of the covenent. You know the rest I'm sure. Back to the point.
It's true objectives were not as all science should be, the pursut of objective truth. It was to substantiate the Bible.
Assuming that the world has moved towards a less secular based society based on the sriptures (that point is arguable), archeology followed the trend and worked to uneath the past and understand it for what the evidence suggested.
I find this to be a breath of fresh air, as now the record unearthed can speak for itself with less of a biased opinion.
Jerico is believe to have been found. The jury is still out on how it was really destroyed.
Cities reminicent of Sodom and Gemorrah as well.
What I do find is that a the central theme of archealogy remains biblical in nature, in the middle eastern region at least.
Most all of the finds are related back to and compared, and debated over and re-evaluated with reference to arguably one of the better pieces of written history available from those eras, the Bible.
The problem with this is that you can only prove something existed. A city. A trade or possible exodus route from Egypt. A ruler. A war.
It is far more difficult, if not impossible, to prove something did not exist. People will say you simply dug in the wrong place.
Good luck with you chosen field.
If you do have a religious belief, hold on to it tight and remember that cold hard facts cannot tarnish the riches of the imagination, the spirt of the soul or the desires for the truth.

Answer 3

yes and no, it depends on which version of the Bible you want to follow and how to interpret it. The New Testament is a load of rubbish historically, all chopped up edited and invented here and there so it isn't much use at all. The Dead Sea Scrolls speak for themselves as "Biblical". The Hebrew Tanakh is far more accurate for an historian yet even there Isaiah hints at a bit of editing by the Babylonian exile scribes! Your best bet, as an historian and not theologian, is to go to an AramaicTarghum- the oldest version of the Torah- which you may find it interesting. Try reading a book called the "Secret of Exodus" too , this reveals a lot about Egypt and the possible origins of Mosaic religion, it may be difficult if you do not understand any Hebrew of Aramaic though but at least it doesn't go wacko with aliens, sphynx theories and Graham Hancock-Dan Brown stuff which is always a problem with Biblical history, archaeology and theology.
Shalom

Answer 4

Archeology so far has worked so as to build up the Bible's reputation.

On several occasions the Bible's testimony has been doubted. I believe one example to be justified was in connection with the waters where the angel healed the ill when the water was disturbed.

Here is it: John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem, at the sheepgate, a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches.

I believe it was recently found and thus vindicated the Biblical account once again?!

This has happened repeatedly in regards to so many Biblical events and personages that one gets a little tired of hearing the criticism but no praise from these self inflated bubble heads -- know nothings as it turns out.

Answer 5

I don't see how archaeology, properly interpreted, can do anything other than reveal facts. If our definition of truth is "that which is in harmony with fact, reality", why should anyone fear it? An honest person wants to know thetruth. If it conflicts with his or her previously held belief, we should be willing to change.
Having said that, let's be realistic and admit that not all archaeologists agree with each other, do they? So we need to be sure that what is said in any field, Bible or science, comes froma provable reliable source.
I was just this week looking at pictures of bullae (clay seals) from the 7th century BC with the name Baruch son of Neriah on them. He is mentioned in the book ofJeremiah.
Can I say one more thing? It is dangerous to say..for example, as was said up till 1945 "Pontius Pilate did not exist because no traceof his name has been found." Let's go by what HAS been found and honestly interpreted.

Answer 6

I would think that to the contrary, archeology supports those faiths. One of the first things that the Jews did after the formation of Israel was to establish a governmental dept of archeology.
In the middle east, many of the muslims still deny that the original jewish temple was where the jews say it was. Any attempts at archeology in the area are usually met with riots.
The muslims, on the other hand, dig things up and hide dispose of them if they think they will support the jewish claims.

I'm neither jewish nor muslim, btw.

Answer 7

Put very simply...God cannot be either proven or discounted.
Each discovery adds a brush stroke to the picture, but does nothing to change the subject....which is existence.

We are fast approaching the understanding that the question is not whether God exists...but if we care enough to keep wondering?

Answer 8

You may know this better than me but seem to remember the archaeological evidence for the shennanigans at Jericho is virtually non-existent.

Answer 9

I thought Archaeology only upset Creationists. I'm still not clear on how they explain away fossils and carbon-dating etc.

Answer 10

Archaeology and the Bible are no threat to each other.