Archaeology Thread - Page 2 - TheologyWeb Campus
TheologyWeb Campus TheologyWeb Campus


Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.




*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.

Reply

Archaeology Thread
View First Unread
Vorkosigan is offline
Vorkosigan tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 2,392
Join Date: February 25th, 2003
Spam: 37 | Anti-Spam: 820
Pearls: 539
 
Old
  February 26th 2003 , 06:37 PM
 
 
 
 
The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family. Windsor is a place name.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
People are the only mirror we have to see ourselves in. The domain of all meaning. All virtue, all evil, are contained only in people. There is none in the universe at large. Solitary confinement is a punishment in every human culture. -- LM Bujold
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pilgrim is offline
Pilgrim Haiti
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Micah 6:8  |  Micah 6:8  
Posts: 15,122
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1848 | Anti-Spam: 2093
Pearls: 1279
 
Old
  February 26th 2003 , 06:46 PM
 
 
 
 
Well there you have it. Thanks for the info. It seems like in history that is the course a lot of names took. That is, the family name comes from the geographic circumstance. But why was the place names "windsor" to begin with?

Where did the name "Stewart" come from? I had thought that prior to "Windsor" the Royal family was Stewart?

 
  Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: proud papa    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly, I don't care.
~ Don Miller Blue Like Jazz
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
The Curtmudgeon is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Conservative  
Posts: 6,823
Join Date: January 28th, 2003
Spam: 3928 | Anti-Spam: 1041
Pearls: 62
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 12:25 PM
 
 
 
 
02-26-2003 @ 04:46 PM
Pilgrim:

Where did the name "Stewart" come from? I had thought that prior to "Windsor" the Royal family was Stewart?
We can get into a whole deep 'nother issue about British royalty, but in short the current House of Windsor was originally the House of Saxe-Gotha-Coburg; it became that when Victoria married her cousin Albert Duke of SGC. However, during WWI it was decided (probably quite rightly) that having a family name so closely connected with "the enemy" Germany was a Bad Idea, so Vicky's son Edward, by that time king himself, took the name of his (primary) residence, Windsor Castle, in place of the original name.

Prior to the House of SGC, the reigning family was the House of Hanover, which became monarchs by the election of Parliament over the prior House of Stewart (though usually spelt Stuart from Mary Queen of Scots on, Stewart is the original Scots spelling). House of Hanover changed over to House of SGC by marriage as I mention (the "house name" is a patriarchal thing--Vicky was still House of Hanover before she married, but once married her husband's house became the official house, even though Albert was never King of England).

House of Stewart/Stuart was driven from the throne because of being Catholic and/or Catholic sympathisers, so at least I brought this back around to a religious point! :)

But Vork's point about House of David/House of Hanover is a complete red herring unless he can show that Israel and/or other contemporary ANE cultures followed medieval/later European conventions in naming their royal families. All the actual evidence is that they used actual, real people, and most dynasties back then didn't last long enough to get away with creating mythological ancestors--wars, palace coups and just dying without heirs has a tendency to break up even the most famous dynasties in usually a couple of centuries or less.

The (too many families spoil the monarchy) Curtmudgeon

 
  Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: March 2008 Alumnus    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pilgrim is offline
Pilgrim Haiti
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Micah 6:8  |  Micah 6:8  
Posts: 15,122
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1848 | Anti-Spam: 2093
Pearls: 1279
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 12:51 PM
 
 
 
 
Thanks for that info. And for the insight onto the distinction between English and ANE practices.

 
  Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: proud papa    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly, I don't care.
~ Don Miller Blue Like Jazz
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sera Sixwings is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 34
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 02:06 PM
 
question
Last edited by Sera Sixwings : February 27th 2003 at 02:30 PM .  
 
 
I'm sorry to make my first post such a naive one, but what does Tel Dan have to do with the archaeology of the Exodus?

(Great topic, by the way, what with Passover coming in a few weeks.)

[ edited for spelling - S6W ]

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
J. J. Ramsey is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 105
Join Date: January 31st, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 02:18 PM
 
 
 
 
02-27-2003 @ 01:06 PM
Sera Sixwings:


I'm sorry to make my first post such a naive one, but what does Ted Dan have to do with the archaeology of the Exodus?
(That should be "Tel Dan," not "Ted Dan.")

AFAIK, it shouldn't have much to do with it, I'd think. David himself was born after the Exodus, and the stele apparently refers to a king far along in the line of David, born some generations after David himself.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sera Sixwings is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 34
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 02:29 PM
 
 
 
 
Thanks. It should also be "Passover", but I'm a notoriously sloppy typist. Sorry.

Anyway, what archaeological evidence is there for the Exodus?

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pilgrim is offline
Pilgrim Haiti
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Micah 6:8  |  Micah 6:8  
Posts: 15,122
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1848 | Anti-Spam: 2093
Pearls: 1279
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 03:47 PM
 
 
 
 
Probably the most significant thing fro Tel Dan, other than the stele, was the alter that was placed there and the 'cult' that grew up around it.

 
  Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: proud papa    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly, I don't care.
~ Don Miller Blue Like Jazz
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sera Sixwings is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 34
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 04:23 PM
 
 
 
 
[02-27-2003 @ 07:47 PM] - Pilgrim:

Probably the most significant thing fro Tel Dan, other than the stele, was the alter that was placed there and the 'cult' that grew up around it.
I thought that they reused stone back then, and that the Stele was found, not in its original location, but as part of a wall. As far as "the 'cult' that grew up around it", I'm not at all sure that anyone knows where "it" was originally located. Oh, well.

All of this still leaves Exodus archaeology unaddressed, if not totally avoided.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pilgrim is offline
Pilgrim Haiti
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Micah 6:8  |  Micah 6:8  
Posts: 15,122
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1848 | Anti-Spam: 2093
Pearls: 1279
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 04:44 PM
 
 
 
 
What I was referring to was an Alter that was set up at Dan and was used used instead of the Temple at Jerusalem. There was a Bull cult there at the time.

 
  Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: proud papa    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly, I don't care.
~ Don Miller Blue Like Jazz
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sera Sixwings is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 34
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 05:22 PM
 
 
 
 
[02-27-2003 @ 08:44 PM] - Pilgrim:

What I was referring to was an Alter that was set up at Dan and was used used instead of the Temple at Jerusalem. There was a Bull cult there at the time.
Thanks. It's my understanding that Biran's group believe that they have found Dan's Bamah (high place of ritual), but I was unaware that the site had produced evidence of a re-instituted Canaanite cult. I'd really appreciate any archeological references that you might have.

And, of course, I'd be interested in archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pilgrim is offline
Pilgrim Haiti
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Micah 6:8  |  Micah 6:8  
Posts: 15,122
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1848 | Anti-Spam: 2093
Pearls: 1279
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 05:55 PM
 
 
 
 
Well I don't know about "high place" because Dan really isn't all that high. but I have been to there and seen the remaines of the alter site. they have reconstructed part of it but very poorly.

I'll see what I can dig up in terms of links.

 
  Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: proud papa    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly, I don't care.
~ Don Miller Blue Like Jazz
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sera Sixwings is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
 
Posts: 34
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 0
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 27th 2003 , 06:11 PM
 
 
 
 
Thanks!

With regards to the Exodus, is there a Scripture-based consensus on its date?

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Sauron is offline
Sauron tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  my business  |  as well  
Posts: 266
Join Date: February 27th, 2003
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 61
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  February 28th 2003 , 12:30 AM
 
Last edited by Sauron : February 28th 2003 at 12:35 AM .  
 
 
02-24-2003 @ 08:08 PM
Blake Reas:[/b]


The Tel Dan inscription is interesting because it made fools out of the minimalist position in Archaeology, they said David did not exist but it claims other wise!
Actually, the Tel Dan stele doesn't give conclusive evidence for a particular person existing. Many peoples trace their ancestry back to a single individual who is themselves mythological. Rome traces its ancestry back to twins Romulus and Remus, who were supposedly raised by a she-wolf in the wild. And the royal house of the Svear (pre-christian Sweden) traced their ancestry back to Yng, an incarnation of the god Freyr. They royal line was called the "Ynglingar", or Ynglings in English.

So the stele *might* indicate a real person named David. But then again, it might not. It's just not conclusive.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Blake Reas is offline
Blake Reas tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Reformed  |  Calvinism  
Posts: 804
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 48 | Anti-Spam: 135
Pearls: 470
 
Old
  February 28th 2003 , 01:54 AM
 
 
 
 
"The point at issue is not whether an Israel ever existed, but rather whether the historical ancient Israel was like the portrait in the Bible."

I think this debate between Maximalist and Minimalist goes back to the Documentary Hypothesis. We should probably have started there !

The article you sent me just confirmed what I thought about the minimalist position. They make statements like "we are not trying to prove the bible." So they think that gets them off the hook and hides there presuppositions but later on in the article he says he thinks the Bible is an irrelevant book!

My reasons for thinking that most of the biblical writings were composed in the Persian period by urban intellectuals are manifold
This quote from Davies I find funny, considering that modern Pentateuch studies are in a state of Crisis! They start with the assumption that there is no way there is really historical information in the text and if there is any then it is VERY little. I would advise you to read about their lack of knowledge of languages and other important areas again, that have to do with constructing a account of Israel!

In Christ,
Blake

 
  Letterman: gym debate particpant - Issue reason: debate warrior    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. -Albert Camus
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Blake Reas is offline
Blake Reas tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Reformed  |  Calvinism  
Posts: 804
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 48 | Anti-Spam: 135
Pearls: 470
 
Old
  February 28th 2003 , 02:33 AM
 
 
 
 
Here is what a Archaeologist said about Davies and his theory of the Biblical Documents being dated to the Persian Period:

The issue that Davies seems to ignore is the presence in the biblical text of a good many indicators of pre-exilic data that were not likely to have been invented in Persian times. It is all well and good to claim that the biblical text was shaped in its final form in post-exilic times, but how much of it reflects pre-exilic memories or actual information? This issue requires historical critical argumentation and not polemics. A fair approach to this issue would require Davies to offer a detailed examination and assessment of the archaeological data presented by Dever in his most recent book.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Comments_Davies_Dever.htm


Like I said the minimalist positon ignores other evidence in the Bible that says certain parts are younger than Persian times! I would go as far as to argue for Mosiac Authorship of a substantial amount of the Pent. but that is another story.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I have enjoyed are discussion! You actually got me thinking about the Tel Dan inscription(I do believe it refers to David even more so)!

 
  Letterman: gym debate particpant - Issue reason: debate warrior    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. -Albert Camus
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 

« Previous Thread   |   Post New Thread   |   Next Thread »


 
Forum Jump  

Page generated in 0.52387 seconds with 17 queries