Here’s a link to a short essay that outlines the basic “techniques” for pseudo-archaeological analysis. While the essay notes the flawed thinking of Glenn Beck in regard to the Newark Earthworks, the essay ought to be a cautionary piece for all Christian Middle Earth researchers who are prone to same basically the same things about lost tribes and the presumed need for nephilim descendants to explain such mounds. Again, this is a basic survey of how real archaeologists expose flawed thinking. The Moundbuilder issue, with all its racially-charged messaging (i.e., Native Americans were too backward or stupid to build these things on their own), has gotten considerable attention from real archaeologists. They could shoot all sorts of holes in the sort of North American nephilim moundbuilder thinking many readers will be familiar with. Doing pseudo-archaeology and thinking poorly don’t build a reputation for honesty and careful research, something Christians should want.
American Moundbuilders and Earthworks: Textbook Pseudo-Archaeology
我只是来看一看，好久没来了~
Thanks for that. I have a peverse interest in pseudoarchaeology. I like the way entire narratives are created from virtually nothing to explain apparent anomalies.
I once read Graham Hancock’s Supernatural in which he spends a good chunk of the book berating David Lewis-Williams for not taking magic mushrooms. He felt that not doing so was keeping Lewis-Williams from discovering the revelation that cave drawings are the result of meetings with inter-dimensional beings who kick started mans technological and creative impulses. While Graham Hancock’s Supernatural encourages its readers to take a psychadelic trip to find the truth, your Supernatural pretty much explains the situation, no freaky mushroom trips necessary.
yep!
挺好的，祝你快乐
Next up that info chain (as mentioned in the article).
http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2016/12/seven-warning-signs-pseudoarchaeology/
…under “4”
{ 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
Bob Park would remind us that “data is not the plural of anecdote.” …}
Reading through both of these readable and we’ll defined articles I found myself, at each point, thinking, “Man, How many times have I seen this comedy tap-dance?”.
Thanks for continuing to point down rabbit holes what got big, fat rabbits in them.
Best.
you’re welcome!
Article has some truth but, . . . embrace the history, ignore the spectacular.
Some guy measuring ley lines is probably bunk, but people all over the world having similar stories to tell needs to be heeded. Peer review is great, careful research is too, but truth is not found only in government accredited institutions. This article reeks of elitism. It is like saying, the only real news is NBC, CBS, and ABC and Fox News is bias against liberals! What about the bias from the other side? All the mainstream media and all the major newspapers share the same viewpoint, does that make them the sole proprietors of truth? Because they are all united with one world view are we just supposed to go along?
Who are these academics to say the Indians made the mounds when the native themselves have told us, “No, it was done by a people before us.” I have personally went to serpent mound to asks this. The Indians deny making it. Grudgingly, the academics are moving to a people before them, but admit they don’t know anything about them. Why can’t I try to fill in the blanks with testimony and some historical research? It is only okay if you have a PHD and call it a hypothesis I guess.
Same thing at Cohokia. Mounds made by a people earlier than the present natives, academics don’t know hardly anything about them. You can go right now and see a glass case full of 20 pound spear points. They are labeled ceremonial. Well if you were maybe 8, 9 feet tall it no longer has to be ceremonial, does it?
The only real racism I am finding is that a bunch of white people from Europe came to North America and began lecturing brown people on what they may or may not have built and who they say built them. We took their land, we should tread lightly in taking their history too.
According to Bill Cooper’s book on Daniel, Babylonian text about Nebuchadnezzar mention his sickness, apparently the same madness the Bible alludes too. After the sickness King Nebby started praising God and seem to have changed, even repented. Those around him were discussing replacing him, because he was acting like a religious fanatic, like he had been off to a week of church camp! In the Babylonian text it uses a word for god like el or equivalent, something more general. Guess what the “scholars” did in their translations of these text into English? They changed the word to Marduk, as they thought the more general term for God was too confusing. So now if you read their translation, you do not get the historical hint that King Nebby may have found the one true god of Israel.
Yes, there is a lot of bad archeology out there because they are not trained, but at least they don’t superimpose 19th century modernity upon every thing they see and call it science. Yes these guys have bias, we all do, but at least I can go to the New York Times and search for articles on giant bones and verify them myself. Any news archive site allows this, and yes, many of the articles end with a visit from the “Smithsonian” with the evidence never to be saw again. You can check this yourself.
Why is testimony being ignored. Isn’t testimony what the gospels offer? Do I need an academic to tell me the Bible is trustworthy before I believe it? If Apaches, Aborigines and Babylonians say there was a flood and I have sedimentary rock layers all over the earth, do I need to wait for Michael Heiser to verify this for me? At what point do I need stop asking for permission from a government accredited academic?
Have you seen “The Principle” yet, or are you just going to go by what people say about the “The Principle?”
When the video came out of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, the media distracted people by claiming the video was edited! No matter how many complete sentences came out their mouth on video, I wasn’t suppose to believe what I was seeing. Now we are told the Russians stole the election by hacking the DNC. Even if Vladimir Putin did hack em, was there anything released that wasn’t true? What I am trying to demonstrate, is that the elites get to define what is science and what is not on a technicality. They are not always right, especially if they have an antichristian world view.
It is finally conceded the Vikings were here first before Columbus, some people knew that a long time ago.
Now could someone help me find my tin foil hat, the academics are trying to erase my mind with ley line energy.
I haven’t read your full book yet, at this time I only have access to the free sample. So forgive me if this is later explained. But in the third chapter of your book “The Unseen Realm” you tell about a passage in the bible describing an event where god essentially authorizes one of his council to lie to the prophets of king Ahab in order to get him to follow through with his plans ultimately leading to his death. Now I’m sure this man was wicked and needed to be brought down…but for god to approve of a plan where his own messengers are dishonest, doesn’t that imply that god himself has sinned?
His messenger wasn’t dishonest. He deceived Ahab. God uses deception himself to judge evil (e.g., 1 Sam 16; Joshua 8). God is also under no ethical duress to make sure evildoers aren’t deceived.
You can’t presume to have higher ethical standards than God. Since God is the author of the law / holiness, he gets to decide how evil is judged. If God deems deception a worthy tool for judging evil, then by definition it isn’t wrong — unless you have some other (higher?) standard than God himself.