Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Thomas L. Thompson is not a mainstream archaeologist; that is why his book The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past continues to be widely used as an anthropology and archaeology text book. 🙄
Look at the people they debate and disagree with: William Dever, Mazar, Finkelstein... I mean, that's as mainstream as it gets. No matter how loudly you insult me to support your arguments, minimalists are NOT mainstream.
PLus you have to remember that Thompson et al. look at the Bible almost solely from a linguistic POV. That's a limited view on such a book. The conclusions that the Bible was written about 250 BC is based on their linguistic research, even though their conclusions are not shared. From that basis, or call it a secret agenda even though you claim scientists don't have them, they try to fit everything in their ideas, even ignoring archaeologists that contradict their views. But that's in true scientist fashion: ignore eveything that doesn't fit the theory you work in.
The only reason they can't go even later is because th dead Sea Scrolls prevent them. And that is about the only way they came to their date. They have no hard evidence to date the Bible to the time that they do. And that makes them NOT MAINSTREAM.
Originally posted by queeq
Look at the people they debate and disagree with: William Dever, Mazar, Finkelstein... I mean, that's as mainstream as it gets.
Simply repeating that the archaeologists you listed are mainstream despite evidence to the contrary does not make it so.
Originally posted by queeq
No matter how loudly you insult me to support your arguments, minimalists are NOT mainstream.
By all means, indicate where I insulted you in the post that you quoted.
Originally posted by queeq
PLus you have to remember that Thompson et al. look at the Bible almost solely from a linguistic POV. That's a limited view on such a book. The conclusions that the Bible was written about 250 BC is based on their linguistic research, even though their conclusions are not shared. From that basis, or call it a secret agenda even though you claim scientists don't have them, they try to fit everything in their ideas, even ignoring archaeologists that contradict their views. But that's in true scientist fashion: ignore eveything that doesn't fit the theory you work in.The only reason they can't go even later is because th dead Sea Scrolls prevent them. And that is about the only way they came to their date. They have no hard evidence to date the Bible to the time that they do. And that makes them NOT MAINSTREAM.
You are describing Biblical Maximalists, not mainstream archaeologists.
Maximalists??? These people don't believe the Bible is accurate, they do believe however that parts of the Bible coincides with the cultural picture archaeology has shown from ca. 800BC up to the common era. That's NOT maximalist.
Most archaeologists in Israel don't even consider the Bible reliable to use it in archaeology and focus mainly on cultural an anthropological research, creating a picture of the land in ancient times independent from the biblical narratives. Maybe then they look for correlations, since ar5caheology does not surrender histor. Only data about buildings, pottery, burial customs, foreign influences etc.
Let me tell you one more time, because you show to have NO IDEA what you're talking about:
1. Bible Maximalists are people who take the Bible as a scientifically accurate book and believe there's evidence for everything using the currently accpeted chronology. If there is no evidence, they will say that it's just not been found yet.
2. Mainstream: Everything from the Iron (th period of the Divided Monrachy in te Bible) is reflected fairly well in the arcaheological record. Biblical kings' names are found in epigraphical material (L'malek jar handles, Assyrian documents etc) and from IRon 2 up to the present th arhcaeological record reflects the cultural world descibed in te Bible. But the Bible is not a reliable document and everything preceding ca. 800 BC are at best legends that are blown out of proportion but conatain some interesting details that at least suggest older documents may have been known by the Biblical redactors.
3. Minimalists: everything is nonsense, the Bible is written around 250 BC and compeletely made up by a large number of authors. There's absolutely NO historical back at all.
And then there are the chronological revisionists who see a fairly large number of chronological problems in the Near East: primarily in Egyptian chronology. It is taht chronology that seems to have created some artificial Dark Ages in Syro-Palestinian archeaology (based on the ceramic records) and in Greece. A revision would mean that if tehre is any evidence for earlier biblical stories, one would not have to look at the currently assigned strata for these stories (which surrender NO tangible evidence - ergo: the Bible is unreliable as an historical document) but in earlier strata. And those actually show some interesting correlations with biblical stories. If such a revision is correct, then details are sometimes so perfect that Thompon's biblica redactors from 250 BC must have been arcaheologists to know them. That's rather unlikely.
So there, you have it. It's not as simple cut and dry as you propose it. You said once thats cientists have no agenda... I see four agenda's here. Your agenda is also quite simple: "everyone who says the Bible is complete BS from cover to cover is scientifically correct." That's a bias, and you obviously don't feel very hindered by your lack of knowledge.
Originally posted by queeq
Yup... you are right, DK. And the keyword is "accurate", as in exactly correct in every detail and proven as such.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories? Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?
Originally posted by queeq
Who's the quote from anyway?
One of the websites found after googling the term.