I would not generalize from the specific examples I mentioned to all archaeology. Some things line up, some not so much.
1 Like
Ron,
Obviously, we have to look at the PROBLEM CHILDREN when seeking reconciliation.
So why do you accept SOME archaeological evidence, but reject others?
What archaeological evidence have I rejected?
Ron,
You deftly stiff armed the archaeological consensus that the Philistines described in the Bible were in place by at least 1130 BCE. The conventional EARLY date is 1178 BCE. Why don’t you accept that kind of date range for the beginning of Exodus?
As I stated earlier, I have no opinion at all for the date range of the Exodus.
I do not think it is coincidental that the very first place I go for archaeological confirmation is apparently the LAST place you want to go to.
My understanding is Eastern Orthodox has ancestral sin. We inherit the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin but not the guilt. But that is the Catholic position as well. We inherit a state outside God’s grace and are prone to sin and such. Baptism is supposed to alter that. What would you say is the chief difference between the two understandings?
1 Like
No. I’m blaming American YECs for the loss of faith among the younger generations of Americans. I’m also blaming Aussie YECs like Ken Ham for popularizing the idea in the US, and I’m blaming US YECs for spreading this theology around the world via SBC missionary dollars (among others.)
No. It’s not just “someone’s” incorrect beliefs. It’s a whole movement of grifters who discovered peddling false ideas about science in the name of God was profitable. And when young people discovered they were sold a false bill of goods about science, they naturally began to question everything else they’d been taught in Sunday School.
I’m not speaking in hyperbole. Just look up “rise of the religious nones”. Studies abound.
I used to think scientism was the problem. Turns out it’s anti-science propaganda that is vastly more influential in the church, and the church’s anti-science stance is one of the main reasons young people give for turning away from the faith. See, for example, “You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church . . . and Rethinking Faith.” It’s based on extensive polling data:
https://www.amazon.com/You-Lost-Me-Christians-Rethinking/dp/0801015898/
2 Likes
Augustinian position: We are tainted with sin because we inherited the first sin(s) chosen by Adam/Eve.
Eastern Orthodox position: All humanity is tainted newly by sin because we all have moral choice and have chosen sin at some point early in life. Infant baptism is practiced for multiple reasons, but “ORIGINAL” sin is not one of them…. since there is no ORIGINAL sin. Each sinner creates his or her own FIRST sin…. and when each first sin occurs varies from person to person.
1 Like
Honestly, I’m sure many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Church members will disagree with me, but that really isn’t that huge of a difference to me. Both essentially accept a literal Adam and Eve and both think we live in a world with the consequences of their sin (e.g. death). In neither one are we guilty due to A&E, we are guilty due to our own sin. The more interesting and problematic question is, did Adam and Eve exist and how can they be compatible with evolution?
At any rate, the Catholic position is more defensible to me. since inherited sin makes more sense than every person whoever lived (all 100 billion plus) choosing to sin. That game is clearly rigged just as a classroom is when every student who ever takes the class fails. The Catholic teaching explains why every student who ever takes the class essentially fails. We have inherited the sin nature of Adam. Adam’s sin clearly rigged the game. The Eastern Orthodox position does not seem to explain this adequately in my mind. But my explanation may go beyond official Church teaching and even be contrary to parts.
I made a thread on this a long while ago and my views on originals sin have changed. Like so many, it’s easy to respond to caricatures and what we think doctrines teach vs what the Church actually says.
Our propensity to sin via Adam, at least explains why all 100 billion (in popular Christian thought) have chosen sin in life.
Vinnie
I have to disagree with you on three important points:
-
Original sin makes as much sense to me as saying, my grandfather murdered at least 20 people, so his grandchildren MUST be destined to murder people as well because they are sinful because of their biological ancestor… even if they die at 11 months of age!
-
It makes much more sense to say sin is a moral weakness of humans…. and that if an infant dies young enough, perhaps they also died sinless.
-
And finally, since sin is natural (rather than supernatural), Adam and Eve don’t have to be literally historical for humanity to have various shares of sinfulness.
There is no “want” here. It troubles me not if there is archaeological confirmation or contradiction to the Exodus account, or more generally any of the Pentateuch, because I am not interested in pursuing concordant explanations. I cannot agree or disagree about particulars I have given little thought to, other than to note broadly that the large scale of the Exodus narrative does not seem to comport with the overall scarcity of evidence. You have done more digging into this topic than myself; if you’re so inclined tell us what you think.
Ron,
I think the most telling thing about the Old Testament Narrative is that from the start of the Patriarchal narrative until the marriage of Solomon, the supposedly divine recording of the history of the Hebrew doesn’t mention one Egyptian tax collector, Egyptian chariot captain, or Egyptian ambassador!
From the time of the Hyksos evacuation there is really only one time threshold where this could be historically feasible or relevant: the time after the Philistines drive out the Egyptian presence in Canaan. Archaeologists have firmly dated the end of the Egyptian military presence to 1130 BCE, when the garrison of Joppa/Jaffa is driven out, and the administration center at Beth Shean is destroyed.
The Philistines, unlike most of the Canaanite centers, have country men in reserve scattered about the Levantine coast. They may not be collectively as powerful as the whole of the Egyptian people, but they are certainly powerful enough (especially when allied to various Canaanite cities) to compel the Egyptian military that it is too costly to “farm” Canaan for a forseeable future!
This means Numbers, Joshua, Judges and books of Samuel have to be seen as a series of overlapping folk legends - - rather than a continuous timeline of historically real events.
Many of the interpretations of Augustine of Hippo, like the ‘original sin’ leading to total corruption of humans, were accepted in the western (Latin) churches but drove the churches in the Greek-speaking east farther from the west, widening the starting schism between west and east. The eastern (Greek-speaking) churches could not accept the doctrines based on what Augustine claimed. In practice, the difference was huge enough to divide the catholic church to two separating lines of tradition.
The interpretation of Augustine was based on the prevailing customs in his church, assumedly a mistranslated verse in the Latin translation of the NT, and logical thinking that followed the worldview of that time. The churches in the east relied on Greek scriptures, like what Irenaeus wrote (in addition to the texts in the Greek NT).
Irenaeus did not picture A&E as perfect, rather as child-like creations that needed to grow in understanding. In that tradition, the ‘original sin’ was more like children stumbling than something that caused a fall from perfection to corruption.
The teaching of the churches outside of Europe/Roman empire ( - those that are not established by RCC or joined to it or the eastern Orthodox tradition), for example the Aramean-speaking church in Syria, is interesting in the sense that they do not teach the interpretations introduced by Augustine (IIRC). That is one evidence showing that the interpretations introduced by Augustine were not teached in the earliest churches, at least not widely.
As far as I have understood the teaching of the RCC (and its’ daughter, the sacramental tradition of Lutherans), ‘original sin’ makes people so guilty that even newborn children are doomed unless they are ‘born again’ in baptism. The black-and-white doom has been mitigated a bit by leaving the fate of the unbaptized newborn to the mercy of God - a hope that God would show mercy to the newborns but without any promise of salvation to those who have not been baptized.
As I do not belong to the RCC or eastern Orthodox church, my understanding of their teaching is far from perfect. If I wrote something that is not true, please correct.
4 Likes
They question because that’s what they were taught to do: YEC insists vehemently that if Genesis 1 isn’t taken literally then none of the Bible can be trusted. YEC young people leave the church because their pastors teach
them to do so.
You’re being sloppy. The East teaches that we are all infected by sin from conception, but that there is no guilt until an individual sins. This is why infants are baptized and communed as well, to fight the disease of sin with “the medicine of immortality”.
At least that’s what I got from Orthodox catechism class and lectures online.
So your big concern is that something that no historian would expect isn’t found.
1 Like
@St.Roymond
Which secular historians do you hang with? Every secular person I mention this to is surprised that they had never thought about this oddity before. Then when I ask if we are supposed to believe Samson had magical hair … they are surprised they never questioned that either.
Intelligent ones. There’s no reason at all to expect that the Hebrews would have recorded anything to do with any Egyptian tax collector(s).
@St.Roymond
You are fixating on specifics. The point I’m making is that Egypt ruled Canaan like a territory….as the behind the lines of the Egyptian frontier in Syria. The idea that the Hebrew could be serially oppressed by Canaanites, Philistines and Midianites for generations is impossible in the Canaan we know from the 1400s BCE to the 1100s BCE! At the very least, these REBELLIONS against the status quo oppression would have been quite notable even to Hebrew scribes if the Egyptians were in any way involved in restraining such rebellions. Egypt would have been a “recurring evil” menace … much more than the Midianites, Canaanites or the Philistines!
I am not an expert, so just a general comment:
Our experience in the modern world is that media people, authorities and historians record whatever important happens, around the globe.
It may be difficult to remember that this did not happen a few thousand years ago, especially not outside the cities where the rulers lived.
Whatever important may have happened, it probably started local oral stories but not necessarily anything that was written in the official documents of important rulers. If something was written in the documents, there is a high probability that the story was twisted to what sounded good for the purposes of the ruler - much of ancient ‘news’ was propaganda used to strengthen the position of the ruler or the prevailing local religion (= the status and income of the priests).
There are probably tons of short notes and lists documenting commerce and taxation, written in the administrative centers, so these might provide more reliable information. I read that much of that archeological material is still waiting for someone to go through it. Some local rulers also sent letters requesting help from the central power and that kind of letters may tell about local threats. Otherwise, I guess recording of events was not common in the distant locations - no written, reliable documents available, outside of the Bible.
Whatever we may think of the biblical scriptures, they may be the best (sometimes only) documenting available from the events. The biblical scriptures are also texts written with a purpose, so they tell the story from one narrow viewpoint. What the opposing people would have told would have likely been something different.
@knor
If you insist that the Bible scribes were so detached from their surrounding environment that they didn’t care about Egyptian hegemonoy over themselves, over the Canaanites, over the Pre-Philistine and/or Philistine pentapolis or over the Edomites/Midianites…. who is to say what else they might not be interested in?
Perhaps they preferred making up their own “historical narratives” to replace the actual historical timeline? And that’s my point exactly!
G.Brooks