I have a book in my possession called “The Stones Cry Out” by Randall Price which shows how certain archaeological digs have proven stories of the bible. Once I find it, I’ll post some of the information, citing it of course 
Wow, you haven’t even read it yet, and you already believe that it proves the Bible? I wish every scientific work I do had that level of “rigorous” proof.
I’m sure we’re all breathless with anticipation. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a biblical omni-errantist. There are no mirror-image fundamentalist atheists who believe that every single word of the bible is absolutely false. Therefore, presenting archaeological evidence that, say, King David was actually a real person will probably not shake anyone’s belief system to its core. Hard evidence that the Exodus took place would be considerably more interesting. Hard evidence–or any evidence at all–for Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, or the hypothesis that the entire universe was created ca. 6,000 years ago would be about as interesting as, well, hard evidence that the Earth really is flat after all.
Of course archaeological digs have proven certain stories of the Bible. What did you think, that the entire Bible was woven together out of whole cloth? If you wish to prove the Bible reliable however, you must show that archaeological digs have proven the vast majority of Bible stories, exactly as described, not just the general essence of some of them. For an article on how certain Biblical stories have been falsified by archaeology, read http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html
Sorry for posting again. I can’t figure out how to edit my previous post to add more text. For more information about how archaeology has disproven Biblical accounts, see a previous post of mine, in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29023
It starts out with a discussion of Jesus, but near the bottom there are some posts on the accuracy of the Bible as a whole. Search for “symposium” to find my specific message.
Anyway, CollegeStudent is the guy who called Piltdown man “Pritdern man,” and called a Jack Chick tract his “notes” and “research” (Without mentioning that it was a Chick comic, BTW). Here’s hoping that this new book is of slightly better quality than a Jack Chick tract!
Opus1, nobody but a moderator or an administrator can edit a post once it’s on the board. Carry on.
I’d just like to point out to Mr. Student that, for every piece of evidence that “proves” the Bible’s authenticity, there can be found evidence that casts doubt. So don’t be so hasty to exclaim, “Such-and-such has PROVED the Bible… etc.”
Such as quantum probablity for example. =]
When it comes to so-called “Biblical Archaeology,” there are two camps here. One is of the “I found Noah’s arc!” school of thought (see Ron Wyatt) and are to this “study” as Hovind is to Creation Scientists. Liars who are doubted even by other Christian organizations.
As for Randall Price, from what I have seen (and I am still unaware as to his credentials as an archaeologist) he is in the camp which takes the existance of something ordinary - say, a city mentioned in the Bible being dug up or anchaeological evidence that there was, in fact a King David - and uses this as evidence that the Bible is factual in other ways.
Now, I am of the school that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and I just don’t see that with Price. Setting a fictional story in a real time or place does not make the fiction any more “factual.” I mean, us digging up the remains of the Empire State Building does not validate the story that a large ape once climbed it with a young female in tow, does it?
I found a page entittled ANSWERS TO ANTI-MORMON ATTACKS, #2 by Michael T. Griffith <mtgriffith1@cs.com) which states the following of this book:
Of course, the author uses these quotes directly from the book in answer to assert that “archaeology is not nearly as supportive of the Bible as most evangelical anti-Mormons seem to think it is,” but they are important to note even without that context.
Finally, the simplest thing which gives me reason to suspect anything Price might find even if it were more extraordinary than mundane is that he is not impartial by any means, which is what I think an archaeologist should be. Actually, I don’t even think he has credentials AS an archaeologist (he has several other books which deal with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Prophesy), but this quote from Price from an interview I found on line gives me reasons to be wary:
Emphasis above mine.
Much like the Creationist Scientists who start with a premise that they then MUST uphold (due to the circular reasoning that the Bible is inerrent and factual), this quote shows me that Price acts in a similar manner.
In a nutshell, if a mainstream scientists were to find soemthign which dispelled a hypothesis, they would discount that hypothesis as inaccurate. Any of these “Biblical Scientists” would not do that, could not do that, and never will do that.
This is bad science no matter how you cut it.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, 7 hours, 23 minutes and 33 seconds.
4892 cigarettes not smoked, saving $611.54.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 23 hours, 40 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
I dissagree. I don’t believe he or other archological scholars are making a mistake when they take this approach.
Archology is a bit differnt in it’s approach than science. It’s rebuilding “history”. To do this one has to start somewhere. The fact that the bible acts as a history at times is well documented. Given this it gives us a starting point to look into.
History is by no means science. I haven’t read the book myself, but I think the orginal poster might have been jumping the gun when he said “proved” the bible. This kind of thing was never meant to prove God or the themes of the bible, rather it is intended to show what kind of things happend in history. Things like the exodous, there being a king david, and so on and so forth.
This is not bad science. It’s not making saying anything as to the valdity of the claims that the bible makes, only that certain events seemed to happen in time.
Actually, it is bad science. Archaeology is done in many ways just like any other science–you collect data and interpret what the data tells you by finding trends and extrapolating and cross-referenceing with other data. I have personally performed experiments that show that certain stone drills recovered were not used on shell–the logical assumption given where they were found and who most likely made them–but in fact used on bone and antler. History is your guide only insomuch as it tells you where might be a good idea to start digging. Then you use hard data to support your interpretations. It’s a science like any other; if you start out with an agenda that you have to fufil, it is bad science.
Ted: Do you really think that if Price discovered something (I doubt that would happen anyway, since he is not an archaeologist himself to my knowledge) which did NOT lend evidence to some historical data in the Bible, such as finding a city where it is not supposed to be or… Well, I’m sure someone who is better versed in the Bible can come up with a good thing here as well for my example…
Do you think that he would accept this evidence? Talk about it? Use this evidence to modify or even discard his hypothesis?
His exact words are that “you find that archeology confirms, clarifies, corroborates and, really, brings in some very interesting illustrations of things, helps someone see the Bible in its proper context.”
This is not a dispassionate archaeologist who is seeking truth. This is a person who is seeking information to back up what he already feels IS Truth (big “T”), and do you really think he is prepared to bring forth evidence that says his hypothesis (the Bible) is a lie?
“Real” scientists do this all the time…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, 12 hours, 52 minutes and 17 seconds.
4901 cigarettes not smoked, saving $612.68.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
When they dig up those wine stained caskets clearly marked water… 
The Bible certainly can be a valid help to archaeologists in the same way that the Iliad was a help to Schliemann, and I think that is what Ted is trying to say. Accounts of battles, rulers, migrations, and so forth could be very useful. There is no conflict if the Bible is used that way. But, as Satan rightly maintains, if a scientist is starting with the Bible and looking only for evidence which tends to confirm it, then there is a problem.
This quote alone that Ted posted:
**
isn’t particularly illuminating as to the author’s context. If he is speaking as a historian, and talks about understanding the Bible as a historical record, then it is not an unreasonable statement. If, however, he tends to think that any true historical reports are somehow reflective of the divinity of Jehova or that any evidence contradicting the Biblical accounts must somehow be false, then there is a serious problem, and he is doing neither history nor science, but the archeological counterpart of creationism.
Simple example – If archeologists dug up ancient Jericho (which I believe they have already done), and found that the walls were knocked down, it does not prove that this happened because the Israelites blew their horns.
Sua
Pshaw. They find stuff like that in Chicago all the time.
Or did you mean older than the 1920’s?
A number of things actualy. Such as the realitive importance of the kingdom of isral to the rest of the world. It was acutaly rather small.
Yes! You see it happen all the time in biblical scholars. I think you’re missing his context. He is NOT trying to prove that everything in the bible happend as it said it happend. He is however trying to judge historical claims from others.
His hypothesis is not to confrim the bible. At least you can’t assume that from those words. He sounds like a completely legitamte scholar. He’s not looking to find proof for you, he’s looking to reconstruct ideas and events that are important to him and a good 33% of the worlds population.
He is assuming that the good majority of the bible is based on acutaly events. This is not a bad assumption. From this he’s trying to put things of the biblical perspective, into the historical perspective. There is great room for change.
I think you’re just seeing creationist shadows in others. Which is really a shame. A lot of biblical scholar ship is actualy quite amazing. These are not stupid people.
You’re right, Ted. Biblical scholarship is certainly not to be equated with zealotry.
The problem comes, however, when a scientist of any stripe refuses to abandon his initial hypotheses if the evidence demands he does so. This is why “Creation Science” is fundamentally poor science–because it holds as a hallmark the distortion of fact to “prove” an initial hypothesis which all available evidence shows to be incorrect.
This is the danger with Biblical Archaeology, and why I am (just a little) concerned about the motives of Dr. Price. It’s one thing to say, “let’s see what parts of the Bible are historically accurate.” It’s quite another to say, “the Bible is historically accurate. Let’s see how many things I can dig up that demonstrate it.” Only in the latter is there a danger of twisting science.
-andros-
Let’s see.
I have indisputable evidence of the existence of the Mississippi River and that there were several cities along its banks in the mid-1800s. This proves that Huckleberry Finn is inerrant, and therefore A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (which is in the same volume of works) is also a factual account.
Sorry CS, but discovering that there is independant evidence for some of the people, places, and events of the Bible in no way validate the metaphorical and mythical portions of the work.
I pity anyone whose Faith is so weak it needs to be buttressed with illogic.
Well, this is amusing. On July 31, I had printed out a New York Times article titled, “The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests,” by Gustav Niebuhr.
I paged thru it and then kept it a few days. When I was cleaning up the room (not my idea, I assure you), I threw it out because I didn’t think it would end up being too useful.
Silly me.
Luckily, it was still here in the wastebasket.
So, Mr. Student, do you want to hear what it has to say, or would you rather not? I suspect it’s the latter…
Unfortunately, the article is no longer available on their website (at least not for free). If CollegeStudent says he is willing to listen, I’ll go ahead and take the time to type some of the info in. If not, there’s no point – just like there hasn’t been any point in trying to talk to him in the creation/evolution discussions. 