How would you answer: Archeology

by sabastious 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  I have noticed that the professional archeology community, in my opinion, likes to jump the gun. They seem to fill in a lot of historical holes with little actual evidence. Not to say they don't fill an important role on this planet.

  What is your general view of Archeology and why?

  Would you rather come to conclusions that are loose and easily changed as new information is unearthed? Or do you prefer getting as much data first then coming to a more realistic conclusion, albeit at a much slower rate.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  I personally would like to avoid 180 degree historical flip flops.

  -Sab
• 

  brotherdan

  I agree. It's because of the tendency of Archeologists to jump the gun on certain issues and theorize on things that they can't know yet that gives the Watchtower its power to question anything in archeology.

  For example I think of 607. This is one issue that is not disputed in the archeological community, but because of past supposed failures, the Watchtower allows itself to question all credibility regarding Archeology.
• 

  heathen

  because of the WTBTS failures I think they are highly questionable .
• 

  brotherdan

  They are pretty much the least credible organization that I can imagine. I can't trust ANYTHING that they say...especially when they alter, twist, and distort any quote that they use from credible sources. Plus, most of the time they won't even tell the reader where the quote or source came from.
• 

  Lion Cask

  Hey there, sab. I understand where you are coming from. I watch and read a lot of nonfiction. National Geographic, nature, history, forensics, etc. and I shake my head at the wild-ass guesswork that is passed off as scientific extrapolation. It happens more in the field of archeology than in others simply because the gaps are so much bigger. However, the deficit may not be so much what appears to be a giant leap of speculation as not knowing or understanding the logical process that took the story from point A to point B (or X).

  In a former incarnation I did a lot of problem solving. Most often the process involved getting a bunch of really smart people in a room and sitting them at a table with a white board in the corner. Solving the problem often took hours and what we would come up with at the end was sometimes brilliant, sometimes speculative but never obvious. Someone walking into the room cold, on seeing the solution written on the white board, would not necessarily see the logic immediately but would need instead to be walked through the steps it took to get there. I think the process is much the same in archeology.
• 

  sabastious

  For example I think of 607. This is one issue that is not disputed in the archeological community, but because of past failures, it allows the Watchtower to question all credibility.

  It's the Watchtower's responsibility to examine the data of archelogical findings and then form an opinion. That's the Watchtower's MO: Preconceived notions.

  I also would not call it Archelogical failures, but rather just a matter of jumping the gun :)

  Big difference between the Archelogical Community and the Jehovah's Witnesses: Archeology doesn't perport to be God's mouthpeice... it's ok, and admitingly frustrating, for Archeology to run ahead of themselves.

  Your response makes me think of personal responsibility in general as well. Unlike the Watchtower, Archeology has all their data (for their conclusions) available to all who asks. So if we disagree with some findings we should look into the raw evidence and draw our own conclusion... also if our conclusion is drastically different than the offical explanation then it would be prudent to write them about it.

  Such a different process than with the Watchtower... can you imagine if the Archeology Community just asked everyone to "wait on God" as an excuse for when their explanations for their findings don't make sense.

  -Sab
• 

  brotherdan

  I also would not call it Archelogical failures, but rather just a matter of jumping the gun :)

  Definitely agreed. I was actually looking at it from a WT perspective. They will call them "failures". How many times have you heard them talk about how the existance of Nineva was rejected by Archeology until it was discovered in the 19th century? They like to take this and say that they mocked the Bible by questioning the city's existance.
• 

  sabastious

  Lion Cask,

  I am starting to get peaved with the History Channel in particular... it seems to be becoming the National Enquirer of TV. It's so frustrating that an acclaimed network like the History channel is letting greed get the best of them, IMO. The more "scandalous" their content the more viewers they have and of course make more on ads.

  It's lazy programming, imo; there are many subjects that have firmer conclusions than the drivel they are playing of late.

  I will admit they are entertaining though, but I have caught them in some intellectual dishonesty... seems like many times.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Definitely agreed. I was actually looking at it from a WT perspective. They will call them "failures". How many times have you heard them talk about how the existance of Nineva was rejected by Archeology until it was discovered in the 19th century? They like to take this and say that they mocked the Bible by questioning the city's existance.

  Uggghhhhhh.... it hurts my head when I hear about the Watchtower belittling other groups for "flip-flopping" their positions.

  The Watchtower needs a huge trophy inscribed with: "We held steadfast to the Truth... on most things."

  -Sab