Who will meet at Armageddon?

Armageddon, the name rolls off of the tongue so smoothly. Armageddon, where the last battle will take place. Armageddon, gives you shivers doesn’t it?

Armageddon really means the hill at Megiddo and Megiddo is the site of an ancient city in northern Israel in the Jezreel Valley at what was once the intersection of the most important roads in the near east. There is evidence that the city itself may have been destroyed and rebuilt some thirty times. Megiddo was a place of bloodshed, war and death. As recently as 1917 the British and the Turks traded blows at Megiddo.

Now abandoned, the site at Megiddo is fueling disagreements about biblical archeology and whether new discoveries are confirming or contradicting the accounts in the bible. Opinions vary on this question from virtually everything discovered confirms the accuracy of the bible to archeology indicates that the bible is, at best, exaggerations and, at worst, pure mythology.

What I find interesting is that where you appear to be in the spectrum depends upon your degree of faith to begin with. Men of faith interpret everything as confirming the truth of the bible while men of little faith interpret everything as contradicting the bible with a compromiser or two in between. Not terribly surprising when one considers that there has to be a lot of interpretation in archeology.

I’m not going to express an opinion on this controversy other than to say it seems that the majority of scholarship appears to be on the side of the bible may be exaggerating in some cases and on the side of the bible may be surprisingly accurate in others.

A recent article in the Religion & Ethics (how’s THAT for two opposites!) Newsletter highlighted a conversation including one archeologist from each position. I found the quotes from each interesting.

From Dr. Bryant Woods, a man of faith – “Well, I think that scholars are undermining the Bible in trying to show that it is not historical -- that events did not happen.”

“Trying to show?” Is the implication here that the objective is to undermine the bible? Come on Doc, you should know that supposedly one goes where the evidence takes you.

From Dr. Israel Finkelstein, a man of less faith – “That is the bad part of biblical archaeology, you know. Rushing, roaming the field with the Bible in one hand and a spade in the other. And that is passé in a way, and that was wrong. And that led us astray for almost a century, if you are asking me.”

And now here’s Doc Finkelstein accusing the other side of the same thing. I might point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with starting with a hypothesis and then looking for evidence to substantiate it.

The rubber hits the road in how honestly one interprets what one finds relative to that hypothesis. Sounds to me like both archeologists are implying that pure objectivity isn’t always the basis of interpreting the discovered information. This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. We all interpret information in ways that favor our preconceptions.

It only becomes a problem when the interpretation becomes strained or unreasonable or evidence is suppressed in order to protect a cherished point of view.

Dr. Bryant Woods – “I think for the most part a person's faith is based on personal experience more than what some scholar says at some university. But on the other hand, they do influence mainly students, I would imagine. And some professor begins to tell them, ‘You know, the Bible is full of myth and folk stories.’ They might accept that, and that would turn them away.”

If it’s the truth, shouldn’t they be provided the information regardless of the potential consequences? This almost sounds like students shouldn’t be given accurate information if it might cause a reassessment of their faith. Does faith in something that is false have any value? Why must one assume that showing that the bible may not be 100% accurate undercuts other aspects of faith?

Dr. Israel Finkelstein – “I don't want to make anybody nervous; this is not my goal. I mean, I think that there must be a complete distinction between the scientific world and faith.”

There are several implications in this short sentence. First the acknowledgement that undermining someone’s faith is not the agenda. Providing an accurate historical description, regardless of the consequences, is the agenda. Second, there is the old idea that one can compartmentalize science and religion. You can both search for scientific truth and accept religious dogma. Not that long ago I would have agreed with this observation. I no longer agree with it. A man can’t have two masters. Each of us must choose between science and religion and the day is coming, if it’s not already here, when undermining faith WILL be the agenda.

From Dr. Ami Mazar, a compromiser – “It depends on the point of view. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.”

Nice compromise Ami baby. Sometimes this is right and sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes one side is just plain wrong and the truth isn’t “somewhere in the middle.”

Dr. Bryant Wood – “The Book of Revelation says there is going to be a great final battle there -- in the end of days.”

Well, interestingly enough, I learned the other day that the bible doesn’t actually say that. It says that the armies of the Beast are gathered at Armageddon. Revelation 16:16 says “And he (the Beast I assume) gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.”

As to where the battle actually takes place it’s not all that clear. It may actually be at Jerusalem.

The Moderator – “And the battle will be fought between the believers and the nonbelievers.”

Quite possibly, but if that’s the case, then the battle has already begun.