RE: on Eastern Orthodoxy and science

Hi Rich, you wrote:
 
"One of the conclusions Finkelstein comes to - much of the history is
embellished - to firmly establish the theology."
 
Archaeology is not an exacting science. Inferences must be made from
reading artifacts. Just like theologians, they make mistakes. When I
read up on what archaeologists thought about the ziggurats of
Mesopotamia, of which the tower of Babel is one, there was no good
answer as to the motivation for building them in the first place.
"Artificial mountains" to remind them of home was the lamest of
explanations which has somehow managed to survive the scrutiny of common
sense.
 
What screamed out at me was the fact that the inception of building mud
brick platforms, commencing no earlier than 3000 BC, was very close time
wise to the Genesis flood of 2900 BC. But archaeologists don't
recognize "Bible stories" so Genesis as a source of historical evidence
worthy of being considered, was simply ignored.
 
Had they factored in the flooding that takes place annually in southern
Mesopotamia and the Big One which they ignored, they might have hit on a
better motivation than they're being simply a cure for homesickness.
The mud brick platforms located in virtually every major city afforded a
means of surviving floods - floods that archaeologists experienced
frequently, by the way.
 
Over time the ziggurats became temples to the gods adorned with cut
stone and lapis lazuli and attending priests. But initially they could
have been used every time the overflowing rivers threatened to wipe them
out. Additionally, the ziggurats would have been part of a system of
self defense, an inner place of refuge if the outer city walls were
breached.
 
The point I'm making is that what seemed painfully obvious to me was
overlooked completely by field archaeologists.
 
An archaeologist who can't exegete is no better judge of Scripture than
an exegete who ignores the evidence from archaeology.
 
One last point, the Hebrews telling of history in the Scriptures is so
full of embarrassing details that it seems ludicrous to me to accuse
them of embellishing. Why not leave out Noah lying drunk in his tent,
or Abraham palming off his wife as his sister, or David lusting after
another man's wife? If they wanted to embellish history they had every
opportunity to hype their revered ancestors a little and didn't.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of RFaussette@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:33 PM
To: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: on Eastern Orthodoxy and science
 
In a message dated 4/7/2006 1:41:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dickfischer@verizon.net writes:
No issue such as Original Sin or Imago Dei can be reasoned out
theologically unless the necessary first step is taken to reconcile the
biological origins of mankind in Africa a few million years ago with the
origins of the Jews commencing in Southern Mesopotamia about 7,000 years
ago articulated in Genesis. One is entirely biological, the other is
entirely historical.
Read Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed, Archeology's new vision of
ancient Israel and the origin of its Sacred Texts.
 
Please.
 
One of the conclusions Finkelstein comes to - much of the history is
embellished - to firmly establish the theology.
 
The amazing thing about the book is that once you know the milieu of the
late bronze age, early iron age, you see the reasons why the theology
developed the way it did.
 
Then continue your thread.
 
The biological origins of man in Africa have NOTHING to do with original
sin or Adam and Eve.
 
Genesis is pure theology. And the theology conforms to sociobiological
law.
 
The Deuteronomistic history also seems to be primarily theology.
 
rich faussette
Received on Sat Apr 8 12:44:28 2006