From Eden to Exile

"<strong>inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument </strong><br/><br/>James White famous Christian apologist gave us the above apt statement, and this book is a very very clear example of this. The authors fails to routinely and accurately engage with almost any kind of real conservative evangelical biblical scholarship holding to a maximalist view, but instead primarily interacts with the maximalism of ignorant enthusiasts who would almost all be rebuked by the staunchest of orthodox biblical scholars. Yet, the author claims to be looking at all the data and every scenario, yet as a bible student who hasn’t even finished his undergrad, I could think of several other alternatives never presented or dealt with. <br/>Again, the author claims he is not an exegete or a theologians, nor a greek and Hebrew scholar, and for that we commend him and appreciate his candid, since the rest of his book indeed demonstrates his lack of any kind of meaningful ability in these areas, yet on that basis he elects for himself the privilege of ignoring that whole side of the conversation and not diving into any of those consideration when examine the evidence, and then turns around and claims to be looking at all the evidence and trying to make the most sense out of it, while ignoring a table full of evidence and work being done from a different perspective. <br/>Elsewhere, the author is honest and forthright in saying that simply not finding any evidence of a thing is not the same as finding evidence of a thing not being, or as he puts it “the silence of evidence is not the same as evidence of silence” and he admits that in his field of archeology, not having found evidence of an event means nothing, it is always a matter of a possible “yet,” we haven’t found anything yet. Because as he admits in several places repeatedly, all the archeological data can change in an instant with one discovery. We can go from no evidence supporting a think, to one small discovery that prove it all. All of this is fair and appropriate and welcome, yet the author then turns around for several chapters to argue for the lack of evidence for things like the exodus and the conquest of Joshua, based on archeology not really finding anything. But we must reply “by what standard? I thought the absence of evidence didn’t imply evidence of absence, so by what standard do you know that we won’t find evidence of it later?” Therefore it is logically inconsistent for him to say there is not any evidence for so and so and present as if that mere lack of evidence calls into question the biblical account, that is a non sequiter, a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premises. The author regularly engages in this kind of inconsistency when it suits him to want to discount the biblical data. <br/>Further, the author never actually treat or appreciate the bible as evidence himself, it is logically inconsistent to say there is no archeological evidence or historical evidence for say the exodus when we have the OT and the various books which mention the exodus as true which itself in the manuscripts and scroll is indeed the product of both archeology and History, but the scripture are routine ignored and not counted as evidence. So back to the previous point, when he says lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack, and then says it is not believable that the exodus happened because of lack of evidence, he is double contradicting himself, because not only does he violate his principle in regards to the lack of evidence, he fails to realize that there isn’t a lack of evidence, because the bible is an archeological and historical reality, it was and has been discovered by archeology, yet that is never admitted. <br/>Lastly and most glaringly, the author speaks repeatedly of biases, pre-commitments, presuppositions, and other a priori convictions that will influence a person interpretation of the data, and he speaks very negatively on this topic particularly in regards to (almost exclusively) conservative orthodox Christian’s who are committed to the truth of the bible and work from the assumption that the bible is God’s word and tells the absolute truth. The problem is that the author almost never speaks of the same kinds of a priori convictions from anyone in the opposite side regardless of whether they are a biblical minimalist, an atheist, or anything else. In the authors mind, as it is presented in the book, it seems as if only biblical conservative that double as archeology enthusiasts and pseudo-archeologists chasing clout for selfish gain are the only two categories of individuals with a priori commitments and biases and all the academic elites involved in this field: scholars, archeologists, historians, etc are neutral third parties with no a priori convictions that will guide, influences, and at times determine their conclusions of interpretation for them before hand. This is fundamentally inconsistent, we all have presuppositions and they will influence our conclusion. Supposed neutrality is a myth and this author can’t see that."