Posted on 02/17/2005 9:33:16 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
The Mideast's latest archaeological sensation is all about Edom.
The Bible says Edom's kings interacted with ancient Israel, but some scholars have confidently declared that no Edomite state could have existed that early.
The latest archaeological work indicates the Bible got it right, those experts got it wrong and some write-ups need rewriting. The findings also could buttress disputed biblical reports about kings David and Solomon.
Edom was a rugged land south and east of the Dead Sea in present-day southern Jordan. The Bible reports that Edom had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31, 1 Chronicles 1:43) and that they barred Moses' throng after the Exodus (Numbers 20:14-21) and later warred with David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).
Traditional dating puts David's rule from 1012 B.C. to 972 B.C., followed by son Solomon through 932 B.C. By looser reckoning, their monarchy emerged around 1000 B.C. (The exodus came long before.)
The doubters figured the Bible erred because the earliest discovered remains from Edom and nonbiblical references dated back only to the eighth century B.C. Such thinking ignored the old archaeological warning that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Sample skepticism:
The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) says "Edom was probably not a political unity" in Moses' time, and for three or four centuries afterward, which also rule out war with David.
Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University contends in "The Bible Unearthed" (2001, co-authored with Neil Asher Silberman) that archaeology made it "clear" there were "no real kings and no state in Edom" before the eighth century because earlier large settlements and fortresses were lacking.
University of Arizona archaeologist William G. Dever states in "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?" (2003) that the Edom region "remained largely nomadic" until perhaps the seventh century B.C. when a "semi-sedentary tribal state emerged."
Dever, for one, acknowledges that the chronology has been thrown centuries earlier and thinks the "revolutionary" findings support the Bible's credibility concerning Edom and the kingdom of David and Solomon.
(Dever remains dubious about the biblical history of the earlier Exodus, dismissing conservatives who cite the towns on Moses' route named in Egyptian records.)
The Edom dig is described in Antiquity, a British archaeological quarterly, by Russell Adams of Canada's McMaster University; Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues in Britain, Israel, Germany and Jordan.
They report that pottery and radiocarbon dating of organic materials from a major copper mill in Jordan show settlement in the 11th century B.C. and perhaps earlier. An impressive fortress site, 80 yards square, dates to the 10th-century era of David and Solomon.
This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading.
In addition, Adams says, early settlement in Edom corroborates archaeological work at the major Tel Rehov site in northern Israel by Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University and others. This team reported in Science magazine in 2003 that radiocarbon dating of olive pits and charred grain from the site dates between 940 B.C. and 900 B.C. That fits snugly with Solomon's biblical kingdom and the Pharaoh Shishak's invasion five years after Solomon died (1 Kings 14:25-6).
Most senior archaeologists' dating relates various remains with Solomon's kingdom, but they have recently been challenged by Finkelstein's "low chronology," which seeks to shift dates downward by as much as a century. That would undercut the Bible on David and Solomon and support "minimalist" skeptics.
Apparently, science cannot conclusively settle this dispute. At a radiocarbon summit in England last year, both sides stuck to their chronological schemes.
Ping
The Shroud of Turin? I haven't heard anything to convince me it's a fraud...
What do you think about the skull that scientist say is about 160,000 years old? I think they are wasting money, since the Bible says we've been around 5,000 years plus.
Where does the Bible say the earth is 5000 years old???
Have you read the bible? I have, and nowhere is an indication of the age of the earth or of the human race given. People try to extrapolate from the geneological information given, but by comparing those geneoloties, it is clear that the purpose is to establish lines of descent rather than time. If the purpose were to establish time, then life-spans and other time indications would be given, and whole generations would not be left out as they are (in a number of places the same geneological line is traced, and generations will be present in one that are omitted in the other and vice versa.)
I consider myself a biblical Christian, but that does not equate to stupid-- we are meant to read what is there with our whole minds, recognizing parables and figures of speech as such, recognizing that plain language means what it says, and neither adding to nor omitting from the information given. The bible is true revelation, but as Schaeffer says, it is not and was not intended to be exhaustive revelation.
Yes, I have read the Bible, and have not found a verse anywhere dictating the age of the planet or the human race, for that matter. And how long is a "day"?
I said nothing about scientific dating. Don't presume that I am calling you stupid.
Anyway, listing geneologies does not prove anything. Jewish geneology lists are not necessarily all-inclusive. Only important people are listed. One must recognize the genre of Genesis was not to give precise scientific information. So unless you find me a scripture telling of the date of the planet/human race, your argument is based on presumptions.
"we are meant to read what is there with our whole minds"
Good idea. So where does it tell us the age of the earth?
Thank you for your time
"So where does it tell us the age of the earth? "
Excuse me? I think you are confused-- you and I are saying the same thing. Re-read my post.
Sorry, walden, I meant to address the other person. Please forgive me for not noticing the "to" while typing.
No problem!
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I thought this was a great post, until I saw my name at the top and saw that *I* was the one that posted it! What made you find it just now?
Also as the most literary of the three synoptic gospels, his was(perhaps) a freer translation of older Hebrew (Aramaic) documents. He might have missed some connotations.
It turned up in a Google search for something altogether different, and wasn't in the catalog, soooo... :')
No. I don't think The Bible says 5,000 years at all. It gives some geneologies and some extrapolations have been made. It's hard to tell how accurate those extrapolations are to anything.
But Scripture declares that the
world was void and without form.
The Bible does NOT say what the world was BEFORE it was void and without form.
It could have been populated and then made void and without form and God started over with manlike critters countless times. It's just not important to His message to us to say one way or the other.
If this is bootcamp . . . primarily designed to rear, train future rulers to rule and reign with Christ . . . lots of possibilities are conceivable.
I tend to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture where at all plausible. But I don't think we can say 100% certainly and emphatically what a lot of the Genesis Scriptures meant precisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.