Well, I'm going by biblical archeologists. Doesn't this pretty much mean we really don't know Jewish history well?
If you read the entire interview, we have evidence that the majority of Israelites were polytheistic and the monotheistic people were a small eliteist minority. So their real history has been skewed by using the OT as history.
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. In the following interview, Dever describes some of the most significant archeological finds related to the Hebrew Bible,
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
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.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
You surely do really think no archaeologist
could even kinda hint at the meaning of
finding the covenant ark and noahs ark,
something to prove ToE is false,
find the wreckageof pharoahs army or prove
the earth really was made in 6 days.
If someone ever does that they've
pretty much proved the book got the important
stuff right.
Instead, every datum point out there consistently
shows) the "god" stuff is bs.
Now that any educated Christian has to accept that the "bible"
mixes semi -historical events with wild fantasy, it becomes
necessary to "move the goal posts" so that all that is bs is
actually
metaphor, yes, symbolic language.
"They wanted you to know what those purported events
mean."
Really? How do you / we know that?
They sure forgot the footnotes!!
If people just made up stories about a made up
god (they way every other religion is) then, why bother
with any of it, let alone the vast devotion of time
and resources to the maunderings of that buncha guys?
If "God" kinda suggested what to say then he is quite
the card.
Threemajor religions in conflict, thousands
upon unknown thousands of sub groups
denouncing eachother- if "He" wanted people
to know what his alleged flood meant
(other than to show he is a psycho monster)
or what any other bible fairy tale really means,
well, we have to wonder why not just say what
he means. Mr Omniscient knew it would not
work the way he did it.
What purpose is there for anyone other than
academic scholars or eccentric hobbyists
to bother reading that book?
(Now dont spoil my fun by asking the
point of preaching to the choir.)
