• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How does anthropology/archeology affect Judeo-Christian Islamic beliefs?

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Considering the "out of Africa" theory such as the search for humanity through Eve mitochondria DNA as well as other discoveries that run contrary to Biblical and Quranic history, how do people feel about it? Do you incorporate the anthropological discoveries in your beliefs or i8f you do at all?

The following are some videos are both religious/anthropological in nature that may challenge some of the thoughts about the nature of individuals in the Bible/Qur'an:


(I suggest following the series as it is interesting)

 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I have thought for some time that science and religion should be in agreement that humans all come from a common ancestor. The differences in the beliefs being less important than the fact that all humans are essentially brothers and sisters just a billion times removed.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Considering the "out of Africa" theory such as the search for humanity through Eve mitochondria DNA as well as other discoveries that run contrary to Biblical and Quranic history, how do people feel about it?
What contradictions are you talking about?
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
I don't believe that God hides Himself in creation; I believe He is manifest in it.

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
--Romans 1:20-22 (Amplified Bible)

I also believe that the Bible is intended to be a book of spiritual truth, and as such, it's pretty good at being what it is intended to be. If someone tries to use it in a way that it was NOT intended--like as a science or history book, for instance--they are likely to fare much worse.

Now anthropology isn't any particular interest of mine--I can barely stand MODERN history--but I treat it like any other body of scientific knowledge; i.e., the best that we have so far. To the extent that the Bible conflicts with scientific or historical (including anthropological) knowledge in matters of science or history, I will defer to science and history. To the extent that science or history conflict with the Bible in matters of spiritual truth, I will defer to the Bible.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I have thought for some time that science and religion should be in agreement that humans all come from a common ancestor. The differences in the beliefs being less important than the fact that all humans are essentially brothers and sisters just a billion times removed.

True however what is being taught tends to diverge from that truth. As someone who seeks truth I want to know what is historically true than what is true in the literary sense.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I don't believe that God hides Himself in creation; I believe He is manifest in it.

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
--Romans 1:20-22 (Amplified Bible)

I also believe that the Bible is intended to be a book of spiritual truth, and as such, it's pretty good at being what it is intended to be. If someone tries to use it in a way that it was NOT intended--like as a science or history book, for instance--they are likely to fare much worse.

Now anthropology isn't any particular interest of mine--I can barely stand MODERN history--but I treat it like any other body of scientific knowledge; i.e., the best that we have so far. To the extent that the Bible conflicts with scientific or historical (including anthropological) knowledge in matters of science or history, I will defer to science and history. To the extent that science or history conflict with the Bible in matters of spiritual truth, I will defer to the Bible.

So you prefer to not know the actual history of biblical figures? Moses according to scholars had a stuttering problem which is why his brother Aaron stood in his place to speak yet we credit Moses with the law. I would like to know what is true.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
He probably looked like a Palestinian Jew of that time. I am still not understanding the contradiction you are referring to.

The contradiction as it is presented in today's terms. The contradiction that the earth is 3,000 plus years old. The Exodus story etcetera. I'm referring to certain archeological discoveries that challenge doctrine.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
So you prefer to not know the actual history of biblical figures? Moses according to scholars had a stuttering problem which is why his brother Aaron stood in his place to speak yet we credit Moses with the law. I would like to know what is true.

Yeah, those details don't interest me. The Law was given so that mankind would be aware of sin; that's about all I need to know to make sense out of that story.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, those details don't interest me. The Law was given so that mankind would be aware of sin; that's about all I need to know to make sense out of that story.
By the way, you are using maximum utility idea of truth here. ;):p
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I'd say that everyone who is educated in history of man's origins is affected by it, if they believe what science tells us regardless of religion. Truth is, plenty of people in history have been black but are now ambiguous because of the time they lived in race was irrelevant it wasn't mentioned what "color" they were.

But when we have pictures, we find some interesting ones, like the head of the top banking family

Another-new-Medici.jpg
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
"How does anthropology/archeology affect Judeo-Christian Islamic beliefs?"

It forces the more intellectually honest adherents of each faith to embrace the human origins of their scripture and, having done so, to deeply appreciate the extent to which modern scholarship can enhance one's understanding of the text.

There are many examples of such a response, including TheTorah.com and the Plaut Commentary.
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Yeah, those details don't interest me. The Law was given so that mankind would be aware of sin; that's about all I need to know to make sense out of that story.

But what if Moses did not exist in Egypt? What if the story of Exodus was a tale to ignite the spirit of Judaism as a culture? What if the Biblical Jesus didn't really exist and that, the parable of Jesus' tale is actually a fictional tale of another progressive Jewish Rabbi by another name? These things perplex me.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
"How does anthropology/archeology affect Judeo-Christian Islamic beliefs?"

It forces the more intellectually honest adherents of each faith to embrace the human origins of their scripture and, having done so, to deeply appreciate the extent to which modern scholarship can enhance one's understanding or the text.

There are many examples of such a response, including TheTorah.com and the Plaut Commentary.

Even at the expense where it could challenge the very doctrine itself?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I see no problem. Our story is from India (and some from Central Asia). If humanity started from Africa, well and good - they had to start somewhere.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"How does anthropology/archeology affect Judeo-Christian Islamic beliefs?"
People believe what they want to believe; what's comfortable for them; what's advantageous. Almost everyone cherry picks religious doctrine for the bits that support the status quo and current social values, and many dismiss scientific truth as well, when it's inconvenient.

Science' focus is on objective truth; on empirical evidence, not on promoting social agendas or tribal solidarity. Science gathers evidence and let's the chips fall where they will.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The contradiction as it is presented in today's terms. The contradiction that the earth is 3,000 plus years old. The Exodus story etcetera. I'm referring to certain archeological discoveries that challenge doctrine.
Oh, now I see what you were talking about. You were referring to the Young Earth Creationists. Well, I agree they have got plenty of problems understanding the real world.
 
Top