Ark of the Covenant

bob

New member
Cain said:
http://www.baseinstitute.com

It has the tons of evidence found along this route, including altars, a "land bridge" under the Gulf of Aqaba littered with chariot wheels, and a blackened mountaintop where Mt. Sinai is said to stand.

Thanks for the site

Unfortunately i am not convinced simply because rather than being an archaeological exercise it is simply an exercise in joining the dots as the people doing this clearly did not approach the project with an open mind and it seems suspicious to me that they have interpretted things in only one way, archaeology simply is never that definative.
 

Venture

New member
These aren't the only scientists to have found or followed this route. I'll have more names at a later date.
 

intergamer

New member
bob said:
To be honest from a historical point of view it is nigh on impossible to say with any certainty even possibilites about the Ark, as it was such a long time ago without particularly reliable texts (oh dear.....)

If how I read this is what you meant by it, then you are a funny funny man.
 

bob

New member
intergamer said:
bob said:
To be honest from a historical point of view it is nigh on impossible to say with any certainty even possibilites about the Ark, as it was such a long time ago without particularly reliable texts (oh dear.....)

If how I read this is what you meant by it, then you are a funny funny man.

Disagree with my views if you like but debate them (or look into them), pick them apart rather than simply belittle them

[Edited by bob on 10-24-2003 at 01:01 pm]
 

intergamer

New member
I'm not <font color=#D3B07D>attempting</font> to belittle anything. If I read your post incorrectly, then excuse me.
<font color=#D3B07D>(I took it as a rather humorous attack on the Bible, which I found funny)</font>
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
bob,

Are you suggesting that outside of the historical context of the Bible, there are no other accounts of the Ark of the Covenat existing?
 

StarFire

New member
Unfortunately i am not convinced simply because rather than being an archaeological exercise it is simply an exercise in joining the dots as the people doing this clearly did not approach the project with an open mind and it seems suspicious to me that they have interpretted things in only one way, archaeology simply is never that definative.

The baseinstitue exemplifies problems faced in all archaeology;
1) Archaeologists are not only involved in re-constructing the past, but are also constructing it, and their beliefs, culture, socio-economic positions, etc, influence the construction. Thus, there are extremely few sites whose interpretations are nearly globally accepted.
2) Archaeology is inherently political; and the results of archaeologists going out into the field to prove something should be viewed with extreme caution. Science is not the practice of proof, but rather of disproof: you take multiple hypotheses into your excavation, and try to disprove as many as possible. The surviving hypothesis/ese are never considered ?truth?, and are always subject to further investigation and revision.

Definitely an interesting site, but while the methodology seems scientific on the surface, I certainly would never use material from this organization in any publication.
 

Venture

New member
Not to be inflammatory, but it never ceases to amaze me how "hypotheses" make it into textbooks and scientific literature as long as they don't step on anyone's toes where Judaeo-Christian history is concerned. Evolution has more holes than a box of donuts, and yet it is taught as more fact than theory. There is more historical evidence for Christ than for Julius Caesar, and yet even His historicity is occasionally called into question. I'm not ranting, but I'm amazed at how easily equally valid assumptions are dismissed because they may prove the accuracy of the Bible.
 

StarFire

New member
Evolution has always been taught as a theory, at least in the classes I've taken. If some state it's a fact when teaching it, then they indeed deserve to be corrected. But if Dawinian evlotion is truley as flawed as you suggest, then other theories would be proposed in its place. Darwinian evolution is still taught because of the bulk on knowledge out there supports it (not to suggest Darwin hit it right on the nail; our views have changed and grown over the last 150 years, but his basic concept has thus far not been disproved).

Who claims Christ is not an historical personage? I've never seen that in any scientific literature. If you have a source or link which demonstates this claim, I'd be extemely intersted in reading it, although I suspect (at best) it would be pseudo-science, and thus of no concern to you or I.

No valid hypothesis which would prove the Bible true (or false, for that matter) would been dismissed--as you yourself have pointed out in other threads, archaeologists have discovered (and use as a research material) the Bible is a quite accurate geo-political-historical document, in terms of dynasties, terrtorial boundaries, etc. I'm merely pointing out that archaelologists who are attempting to prove something are not practicing science, even though they use scientifc methodology like stratigraphy, seriation, etc, when excavating a site. If they go in to 'prove' something, they've baised themselves, tainitng their results (which I admit would happen anyway in a scientific excavation) as well as hurt those who belive in the Bible, because a further polarization occurs. Thus, the gulf widens between those of relgious and sceintific backgrounds, but not because of the subject matter, ie, Judeo-Christian religion, but because the methodology of the excavation is inherently flawed.

A person can be both a scientists and a believer of a religion, and still do good scientific work. Two of the best archaeologists I know (how I define best would take an essay, so I won't go into here) are both religious men, and are both excellent scientists. They both agree (we were discussing Mormon excavations regarding diffusionism) that going out to prove something is the worst thing you can do. Unfortunately, I'm not as articulate as either of them, so I'm not sure if my meaning is coming across clear here.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Some great points, StarFire, and well stated. Nice to see another logical person putting their two cents in. The more of us the merrier!:)
 

Pilot

New member
One thing that makes a good scientist is how he/she regards facts and the truth. A scientist who has an agenda or preconceived ideas usually has trouble with the truth. There are still others who extrapolate too far from known facts. I have more confidence in those who say they don't know when they really don't than those who make things up while claiming to know for certain.
 

Venture

New member
Okay, okay...I have an apology to make. My earlier post that "wasn't meant to be inflammatory" was made while I was "fired up." Due to my life, my faith, et cetera, I think, live, and act on the basis of Scripture as truth and reality. Before I was born again, I was a staunch detractor of all things Biblical. Sometimes, that "tabasco sauce" rears its head in the opposite direction. Please accept my apologies for what could be construed as a temper tantrum. I meant only to say that there is more than sufficient scientific evidence from all applicable disciplines to bear out the Bible's claims. Again, sorry if I squelched the conversation.

Aaron H said:
Some great points, StarFire, and well stated. Nice to see another logical person putting their two cents in. The more of us the merrier!:)

And Aaron, I'll try not to take that remark personally. :mad:
 

merancapeman

New member
Well, i think it is out there. But do you think that the person who hid is made it so easy to find that a few Indiana Jones fans could find? He'd have to be a primitave moron...
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Venture said:
And Aaron, I'll try not to take that remark personally. :mad:
It wasn't meant to be personal...in fact I don't know why you would be mad. I was just saying a kind word to a member who made a great point. You could say that I was also saying that everyone else who had commented had all made logical points too.

Please tell me how my comment was rude or mean
Some great points, StarFire, and well stated. Nice to see another logical person putting their two cents in. The more of us the merrier!

<small>I might add that I am a Believer too, but I like debates where the merits and logic of the case come into play other than just what one believes.</small>

[Edited by Aaron H on 11-18-2003 at 11:21 am]
 

whipem

Member
Oops... Sorry, Aaron H. I didn't notice that there were three pages of this (stupid me!). "Good point" referred to your last post on page one. Sorry for the confusion.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
whipem816 said:
Oops... Sorry, Aaron H. I didn't notice that there were three pages of this (stupid me!). "Good point" referred to your last post on page one. Sorry for the confusion.
Its okay, I think this is quickly becoming one big confused thread.:D
 
Top