Don't you think that this is a really, really big omission?
Maybe the problem is Christian theology is badly flawed, so you have to duck the question.
Is it really "full of bologna" that's it's very unlikely that there was a conquest of Canaan by the Israelites? Well, there's a well-supported argument.
You need to keep up with the literature.
Much of the New Testament is all about getting into heaven, Christian parents worry constantly about whether or not their kids will go to heaven, but God isn't going to answer the question about kids going to heaven?
It simply doesn't make sense that this question would be left unanswered.
Flawed compared to what? It's flawed compared to a theology that could answer the question of what happens to kids who die.
Is the archaeological literature really elitist gobbledygook?
when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred
you might claim that a given city was burned to the ground in 1805. So I dig down through the ruins of the city from the 1910 level to the 1720 level, and there is no evidence of burning anywhere between these two horizons.
God told you?
I would really consider a theology that gave me an answer to be far superior to a theology that didn't
I guess if you want to believe that the theology is flawless, I doubt if any arguments to the contrary will change that.
Willian Dever's approach.
Why not start with the assumption that every historical account of every culture on Earth is accurate?
Can you point to an archaeologist who says that there are no more new discoveries to be made?
You don't know much about ANE archeology and ANE archeological sites, do you? The magic sand is going to fix everything for you.
First, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your child. Had I known, I might not have raised the point in the first place.
A theolology that makes the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc., a central focus is flawed when it fails to provide an answer to the question of the fate of infants.
It strongly suggests a theology created by the flawed human mind.
On the other hand, if a considerable amount of evidence is clearly pointing against the accuracy of the narrative, he says that the narrative is not accurate for a given event and time
now you're a trained historian who knows how historians do their reseach?
"As to Dever, if you'd read his books, you'd know that Dever starts by assuming that a give passage of the Bible could certainly be true."
3) And yes, I do happen to know it b/c I've listened to historians lecture.
4) And that approach makes way more sense than the approach you've been proposing, upon analysis. Just throw out EVERYthing we think we know about history if we're going to approach it with a radical skepticism like that which is the logical conclusion of your proposal. Have fun with that, though; I'm sticking with the idea that people actually sometimes wrote true things and had a reason for it.
Please do not jump to conclusions about my knowledge of the subject. (Hittites, right?)
Yes, I know that new discoveries can change things. How many times do I have to say this before you notice that I'm saying it?
when one repeatedly fails to find what one expects to find, when one fails to find what really should be there if a given event really occurred, then it's fair to say the the hypothesis is almost certainly false.
But occupation sites do not.
You really, really need to dig into the available data.
Nobody, repeat, nobody wants to find the evidence to support the narrative in its entirety more than the Israelis.
In the end, you've already told me how you respond to the evidence. "Elitist goobledegook.
What's the point of showing you evidence? You've made up your mind before examining the evidence, which, ironically, is what you keep accusing me of doing.
have spent long hours in one-to-one discussions with Catholic priests
your assertion is still rude about other people's beliefs
Abbie was rude about Evangelical beliefs, and her sardonic tone follows from her own views on religion.
But applying such double standards are only likely to reinforce my atheism, not challenge it.
NOT at all what I'm saying, and you know it. I've cited Dever as an example, and this is not at all what Dever does.
Please, please, please take the time to learn something about archaeological methods.
. You prefer to reject the evidence as "elitist goobledegook", and that's that.
Did you really have to throw in some anti-Catholic bigotry, too?