Do you think that it is futile or ridiculous to use the the bible for research in an archaeological study or dig? Do you think it is useful? Why or why not?
Please state of you are an archeologists or at least studying to be one.
Thank you so much in advance.
2007-12-09 22:23:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
It makes sense to put the faith aside while using the Bible and focus more on the content. Anyway I asked this same question in RS and the general answer was that an archaelogist would be happy if anyone funded their digs.
2007-12-10 11:41:43 · update #1
I'm an archaeologist in the US.
Sure, people can use the Bible. In fact, there's an entire subdiscipline known as Biblical archaeology. I wouldn't suggest using it as your only source. Sorry to the true-word believers, but it's simply not accurate enough for that. But it can be a useful tool when combined with other source-materials, just as archaeologists in the US use diaries and maps created back in the day. Biblical archaeologists have found some awesome stuff (check out wikipedia's page on them).
Their main problem would be bias. Cultural bias is a major issue for those of us in the social sciences, and any anthropologist worth their salt should know how hard it is to overcome those biases. People who go out specifically trying to prove the veracity of the Bible will probably find what they're looking for, even if non-biased, outside people don't think they have. They'll trumpet findings that bolster their theory, even if the findings are inconclusive at best, and ignore evidence that doesn't fit. This is a problem that everyone in the field has, and as long as the people conducting the digs realize this can be a major problem, then it's no worse than any other professional dig.
And I really wish Yahoo! knew that "archaeology" is spelled with two As, or at least that that spelling isn't _wrong_.
2007-12-10 02:41:29 · answer #1 · answered by random6x7 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Some modern archaeologists will use the bible as a source to prove what they have found is what they say it is.
But the problem with that is the same problem as Schliemann had a troy; he knew Homer and expected to find it; so as such it colored his interpretations to badly that he believed he found it.
The gate of Priam for example; predates the late bronze age by nearly a millennia!
A destruction at Jericho can be attributed to Joshua; except that the biblical timeline and archaeology are about 300 years off. It is believed that half the cities listed in Joshua were uninhabited at the time he is supposed to have done this circa 12/1100 BC; but all were inhabited at the time it is believed that the story was written (somewhere closer to 500 or 300 BC).
I think that using any written source from that time-period as proving you found what you say you found it sketchy at best.
2007-12-10 14:18:11 · answer #2 · answered by jared_e42 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The early versions of books from the Bible in Hebrew or other languages would be a great aid in understaning ancient cultures. The languages, writing, and stories themselves are all a large part of the culture of ancient civilizations. Later versions of Latin manuscripts created by monks provide much insight into the lives of people at that time as well, and even what materials were available to them.
As for the search for the ark of the covenant or the holy grail as in Indiana Jones, this is entirely futile.
2007-12-10 23:21:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, most mythology has a grain of truth to it. The problem is that stories passed down by word of mouth were so often changed & embellished upon to make them more entertaining. Troy, as written about by Homer, had some degree of fact, but had been greatly expanded upon by Greek story tellers. The great flood, as indicated in the Bible, was probably the breaking of the land bridge between the Med & Black Sea, about 12,000 yrs ago. This had a great impact on civilizations of that time.
The Bible obviously has lots of folk lore & history in it, thus making it a valuable tool for pre history clues.
2007-12-10 08:34:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The bible is 3 things:
A historical reference book
A philosophical book
A teaching book
An archaeologist regardless of his/her faith can use the historical references in the bible to compare what he/she finds in the field and to compare against other references. However, if he/she is researching areas outside of the bible's scope, the researcher should not make the mistake in attempting to connect things that shouldn't be connected. In other words, the bible can be used as a historical reference in the correct context.
Almost minored in archeology in college, but went with Math instead.
2007-12-10 14:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by skurka 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would help them in some way of course, especially when referring to Middle eastern civilization. But an archeologist's research are based on their findings, not on written scriptures.
2007-12-10 09:12:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there is a subfield of archeology called Biblical Archeology which studies the history of the Near East and often uses the Bible.
wl
2007-12-10 12:03:28 · answer #7 · answered by WolverLini 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In a way that's what archaeology is about so it is used
I also have a book called "archaeology study bible " it's very interesting by the way (it's by NIV new international version )
2007-12-10 06:39:33 · answer #8 · answered by Leah nora 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they had to...for reference....
2007-12-10 06:33:30 · answer #9 · answered by patrick 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I know a bunch that use the bible to develop a hypothesis and then spend the rest of their lives trying to prove it.
2007-12-10 20:39:14 · answer #10 · answered by cynic 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋