- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
For the record I personally feel that turning to Archeology to prove the Torah is something that is not needed as what is in essence known as the Kuzari’s proof has never been ansewered.
However I do wonder as to why it is that people seem to continuosly feel the need to state that archeology has “proven” that the Torah is r’l false.
Anyone who has even a cursory interest in Archeology knows that this is a strectch at best.
Let me explain why.
In order to prove something wrong you must have definite “proof” against it.
There has been much effort put into finding archeological proof against the Torah, however none has been found.
What does exist is a “gap’ in area which has been used as “proof”.
Meaning the proof is a lack of proof which in Talmudical terms is never considered proof at all.
However the “Bible Critics” (such as Finkelstien and co) are left with a need to conduct mental gymnastics to explain the overwhlming amount of evidence that strongly indicate that the Torah is accurate.
And I”ll post some examples.
“In order to prove something wrong you must have definite “proof” against it.
There has been much effort put into finding archeological proof against the Torah, however none has been found.
What does exist is a “gap’ in area which has been used as “proof”.
Meaning the proof is a lack of proof which in Talmudical terms is never considered proof at all.”
So basically, you are telling people who don’t believe in the validity of the Torah that their proofs do not hold up to Talmudic standards of proof– disregarding the fact that the Talmud has no meaning to them whatsoever.
It’s cool. Digging up stuff our ancestors played with. Sometimes it helps understand things, but never really something important (e.g., when the Avos were acting in a way that reflected Mesopotamian law, but we would have expected it since our tradition was that in those aspects of law weren’t usings Jewish law since it was pre-Sinai). It’s also fun when archeologists dig up stuff that contradicts the hiloni’s “higher critical” theories and they have to come up with a revised edition of their theories (remember that the “critical” refers to literary criticism rather than research into ancient history, which is why it is so amusingly wrong – they make it up as they go along for obvious ulterior motive).
Ben Levi,
Also the Prism isn’t “silent” on what happened after Sancheirivs siege on Jerusalem. It says that Chizkiyahu bought sancheiriv off by giving him Gold and all of his wives and daughters and that Chizkiyahu became a tributary ruler under sancheiriv. Quite a different account then the one Nach gives….
I believe quite strongly that the Torah is true, and as a creative thinker, I always see things in my day-to-day life that prove its existence, whether or not I’m looking for it. I especially enjoyed reading “Purim and the Persian Empire,” not so that I could see proof, but so that I could take a peek into the lives of those who lived during the time period of Megillas Esther.
1. Different people have different takes on matters. While neither is lying, YWN and Haarets appear to be discussing different worlds.
One wouldn’t expect Nach to match the other side’s account of a war.
2. The hilonim “higher critical” were saying that everything in Taanach was myth, and that finding any document discussing Sancherivis seight was as likely as finding a first person letter from one of the Greek or Roman “gods”. Archeology can’t prove details (especially since we wrote on perishable substances, not clay tablets), but it does show that Nach happened and wasn’t the figment of some modern frum rabbi’s imagination – which is what they were claiming until Archeology proved otherwise.
- The topic ‘Archeology and the Torah’ is closed to new replies.