If you guys do believe in archaeology,it may help you clear some fogs on the illusions of blind faith.Archaeological findings helps to prove and authenticate history,and so far nothing authentic as regard the story of abraham to jesus have been found to authenticate the stories,apart from maybe dead sea scrolls which are later material talking about what was suppose to have happened before,just like we are speculating too

Not even the magnificent and gigantic temple of solomon have been  discovered yet but egyptians and nubians temples,palaces,artifacts,writings and mummies are living memories and proofs of ancient egyptian and nubian civilization.

Food for thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6824030/Jerusalem-tomb-discovery-casts-further-doubt-on-Turin-Shroud.html

Archaeological findings do not prove anything. . . they can either support, or cast doubt, depending on how they are interpreted . . .but they hardly ever, if ever, prove anything.

In the next few weeks u will find articles springing up with credible archeologists exposing all the holes in everything in that article. Thats just the nature of the beast. Archaeological findings are like statistics. . . They can pretty much say whatever u want them to say

I think that the temple of solomon has been discovered. The thing is that it wasn't as grand as the bible made it out to be. But bear with me while I find out exactly where I got this information. It might yet be wrong.

Krayola:

Archaeological findings do not prove anything. . . they can either support, or cast doubt, depending on how they are interpreted . . .but they hardly ever, if ever, prove anything.

In the next few weeks u will find articles springing up with credible archeologists exposing all the holes in everything in that article. Thats just the nature of the beast. Archeological findings are like statistics. . . They can say whatever u want them to say

Let's agree that archaeology is not hundred percent perfect but to a great extent,all the things we know about great past civilizations is from archaeological discoveries,ruins,tombs,abandoned structures,etc but nothing whatsover that is recorded in the bible have been discovered,not even the ancient isrealites habitation and enslavement in egpyt,no graves,no structures,no cultural symbols pertaining to ancient jews having lived in egypt of old for donkey years according to the bible.

I know faith is blind,but only the truth can set you free.

archaeological findings are hard evidence to reflect the past, a historical event could be recounted with its help. of course, disputes in interpretation occur but it does not diminish its value.

redsun:

Let's agree that archaeology is not hundred percent perfect but to a great extent,all the things we know about great past civilizations is from archaeological discoveries,ruins,tombs,abandoned structures,etc but nothing whatsover that is recorded in the bible have been discovered,not even the ancient isrealites habitation and enslavement in egpyt,no graves,no structures,no cultural symbols pertaining to ancient jews having lived in egypt of old forr donkey years according to the bible.

Iknow faith is blind,but only the truth can set you free.

Archeology can tell us how people lived in the past. About their cultures, rituals, burial types, clothing, etc. It can NOT prove anything about specific events.  Why? Because there are always a number of plausible ways the evidence can be interpreted. That is what I always try to point out to deep-sight that logic tells us nothing about reality.  Using archaeology to get at specific events requires  lot of inferences to be drawn and pre-suppositional thought plays a big role. That piece of cloth can mean ANYTHING!! ANYTHING!! Cause someone reasoned it out to point at Jesus does not mean the next guy that analyses it can't get it point, convincingly, at anything else. That's what I'm saying here. Not that archaeology doesn't tell us about the past, put that it can't prove what exactly happened or didn't.

For e.g. If the Bible says a temple was destroyed in a certain war, and we find a destroyed temple at the same site, It does not mean that the temple was destroyed in the same war the bible says. We may find records from other records (say, eqyptian records) that several battles were fought around that temple at different times). . . u see what I'm trying to say? It isnt just as simple as putting 2 and 2 together. It is much more complex than that

Krayola, yes i understand what you are saying that archeological findings cannot tell us about specific events. What the poster is trying to say is that there is no archeological objects to collaborate the stories of the bible; like we have not seen Jewish settlements in Egypt or Egyptian records to prove Jews were taken slaves by the Egyptians, no settlements on Mount Sinai to prove the Jews settled there, No temple of Solomon that was said to be the most magnificent temple in the world. No ruins of the tower of Babel. Nothing.

Archaeological findings are like the cameras,pictures,recorders and recordings of today that the ancient didn't have,they are the  physical windows into past that tells us what happened,unless of course as a religious person you don't believe in reality in the sense that religion centers on illusions and that is the essence of this thread,trying to burst the illusion for those who cares to look and reflect.

People will feel a whole lot better if they free themselves from the bondage of blind dogmas,especially africans,they tend to float in some kind of limbo that does not make sense to what one will call a reasoning mind but makes the whole world them and from all indications,it is hopelessly backfiring.

@ wirinet, I get ur point. But like I said all that stuff is debateable. There are credible arguments on both sides. I just don't want to get drawn into an all out debate on this cause it's too much work. But I'll look up some sources and post them later.

@ redsun. Whatever u say. U seem to have ur mind made up already.

Archeology or not the faith of the believer does not depend on archeological findings.

toneyb:

Archeology or not the faith of the believer does not depend on archeological findings.

GBAM!!!