KoT, Archeology can be used to ultimately prove/disprove aspects of historical events…not always, but the majority of the time. The example you give does not actually knock archeology because they ultimately got it right.

The same question could be posed, “who the heck uses faith to determine their address in eternity?” Faith is obviously not an accurate barometer, because so many different results are determined by it, based on the same input. This is why so many people look to science for augmentation…to help confirm their faith.

(Or is it King?) I’m not quite sure who the last paragraph is addressed to, but it seems to be off topic.

Galileo set off a firestorm when he said the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth. At the time, it was theologically threatening. Now we look back, and say, “duh, Galileo was right.” I don’t really understand why it was so threatening at the time, but for the pious, it certainly was.

So it is with biblical archeaology. Some people may be threatened by the fact that the Exodus didn’t quite happen the way the Bible says. Martin Luther believes the Book of Esther is fiction, not fact.

If it was shown conclusively that Noah’s flood was not earthwide, but rather a large localized flood, would this threaten your faith? It wouldn’t threaten mine. Whether it is a worldwide flood or not, does not diminish my faith in God. God told Noah to build an ark, Noah listened, and his family was saved. Is this not faith-promoting still? The details of whether it was worldwide or not do not matter. Does it matter to you?

Let me quote William Dever for a minute.

The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don’t try.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that’s doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

The Bible was not written to prove archeaology. People who get upset when the archeaology doesn’t match the Bible are misguided. The Bible is of immense worth, regardless of whether it may or may not have told the flood story completely 100% accurately as CNN or PBS would like it to.

ralph haulk
Romans 8:6-9
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

You may think it is funny. Puffed up with pride and ignorance. You think you can twist the scriptures to your lies. If I read just this sentence I am free to sin. I am smarter than God? What about the weak in faith that you may influence, or the person that is searching for the truth? Do you tell satin “Look what I did. I bet you didn’t even think of that one.”. If you want to live in outer darkness for ever, so be it. You etter pray you don’t drag anyone with you.

Ralph, you’ve got my head spinning. I think I caught most of it, until the very end when you said,

This leaves us with one, and only one, logical conclusion: we are free. And that is precisely what Jesus said whenwarning against deception in the “end time” in Matthew 24:23:

“Then if ANY MAN says to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

I’m not sure what freedom and location of Christ have to do with each other.

But, you made some very interesting points. Obviously it is impossible for man to completely understand God. I find archaeology interesting, though I admit it certainly has weaknesses.

Assuming it is true, it would have at least two results:
1. No one can claim physical authority in God’s name, since no natural mind can be subject to God.
2. Any attempt to do so would result in an infinite speciation of religions and concepts of God, as we have today, with over 30,000 cults, sects, and denominations within christianity alone.

Assuming that archaeology has proven the bible correct historically, what have we proven? Even accepting the truth, we are still stuck with a gorwin number of religious ideas about God.

The second category that intrigues me is Godel’s theorem, which says, basically, that in any consistent axiomatic formulation of number theory, there exists an infinity of undecideable propositions. Even in mathematics, within a consistent axiomatic system, there exists an infinity of undecideable propositions!

What does this tell us about truth? Many mathematicians write that there is no rational, finite way to define truth in one package, which is precisely consistent with the conclusions of Romans 8:7, above.

No matter how hard we try, or how formal we make the system, it will end up in an infinite splintering of religions or ideas about truth. If you think not, look at the “many worlds” theory in quantum physics.

But, as Sherlock Holmes said, once we eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbable, is the truth. The truth is, we cannot prove the “whole truth” in one finite, rational package of knowledge.

That means we cannot represent God with one religion or truth with one government. It means that there is no decision procedure to get from “here” to “God”, or as Ephesians 2:8-9 says, by grace we are saved through faith, and that not of ourselves. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Suppose we could list all truth in one package? There would be no need for separation of church and state, since both could be combined into one unit. State and church would be the same.

But this would create a problem created by the Church-Turing thesis, which says that the human brain is no more than a computer, since both must operate by physical laws, and we can ultimately mathematically simulate a program like the brain, which will solve any problem solved by the brain.

So, if we are capable of packaging all truth into one unit, we can create Artificial Intelligence that would be better ‘sons of God” than we are! And if we can define the Holy Spirit, we can program sons of God with qualities of the Holy Spirit!

Ah, but both Godel’s theorem and Romans 8:7 says we can’t, so we must arrive at a further conclusion. If there is no finite, rational way to define all truth, and if religions and government are based on our best rational, finite formal efforts at truth, then they have no real authority over us either! None of them can represent truth!

This leaves us with one, and only one, logical conclusion: we are free. And that is precisely what Jesus said whenwarning against deception in the “end time” in Matthew 24:23:

“Then if ANY MAN says to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

Jesus told us the truth. There is only one choice, and humans cannot provide it.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Jesus, your post has nothing to do with the topic I posted, and is merely an attempt at self promotion, a threadjack, and is spam. It is just as offensive as viagra or gambling spam. Any future posts like this will be marked as spam and deleted. This time, I merely removed your link, instead of deleting the whole thing, but I won’t hesitate to delete any similar future posts.

If you want to participate, please stick to the topic at hand instead of shameless self promotion.