5 ms·
Biblical archeology is hopelessly compromised as a field. The people most interested in pursuing it and funding it are the people least interested in discoverin
by empath75 6y ago
Biblical archeology is hopelessly compromised as a field. The people most interested in pursuing it and funding it are the people least interested in discovering the truth, rather than confirming their own beliefs.
- NateEag 6y agoI think if that were true there would not be enough controversy in the field to write an article like this. I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
- Jedd 6y ago> I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another. I suspect that still aligns with GP's point -- people are generally partisan on this subject, one way or another.
- NateEag 6y agoBeing partisan does not guarantee you are dishonest. Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean we're all incapable of feeling or finding truth. The GP said clearly that the field is broken due to everyone preferring to shore up their worldviews rather than follow the evidence. People disagreeing with the Biblical narrative sounds like the opposite to me.
- NateEag 6y agos/feeling/seeking/
- Jedd 6y agoAgree that partisan does not correlate to honesty. I think the claim, and I agree with it, is that partisanship will affect where you look, how you look, and what you do with contradictory information. Are you suggesting disagreement with 'the biblical narrative' indicates partisanship, or the lack of? (Or, rather, referring back to original wording - an indication of shoring up a worldview?)
- empath75 6y agoBecause all Jews and Christians and atheists agree on the Bible?
- NateEag 6y agoI'm sorry, perhaps I'm being stupid, but I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously not everyone agrees on the Bible's meaning, source, or value. I'd go so far as to say no two people do (like any large document, it is possible to have an infinite variety of interpretations of it). I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote. I'd appreciate a clarification.
- empath75 6y agoWhat I’m saying is that people get into the field of biblical archeology to find evidence that validates their religious viewpoints, and more particularly and insidiously people _fund_ biblical archeology for that reason — particularly Christians like the Hobby Lobby corporation that funds the museum of the Bible. That doesn’t imply that their shouldn’t be controversy because obviously people have been killing each other over religious disputes for centuries. It implies that biblical archeology would be an extension of religious holy wars fought on the pages of journals instead of on the battlefield.
- NateEag 6y agoOkay, thanks for replying. Just noticed that you had today, skimming through my comment history. When I said "controversy wouldn't exist", I guess that was unclear. I meant specifically you wouldn't get people from broadly the same cultural and religious background so strongly disagreeing on how to interpret the evidence, if they were all there just to exercise confirmation bias. Your point is a good one, and very fair. Sorry for the slow reply.