Is the bible historically accurate? (Jesus, exodus, creation, genesis)

[Pah]

The problem, DianJo, if there is error or myth in one part of the Bible, then there may be error and myth in many parts. I would be difficult to tell the difference by a reader.

I don't see that as a problem if you focus on the message.

But let me say also, that there are better sources than Josephius. His annotation is a forgery. Other contemporaries at least do not have that problem but they only mention Christianity not Christ. The Gospels also come into a fair share of scholary doubt with only a few of Pauls epistles widely accepted. Paul's were the earliest written and those were about 30 years after the ascention. Paul was not a witness to the historical Christ and it seems that, due to the dating of all the other New Testament books, were any of the anonymous authors.

Again, it is the message that seems important and you have that.

-pah-

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by DianJo

BTW - it's a known fact that the Egyptians were known for "editing" their history if it didn't speak in their favor. They just left it out! I don't think the Egyptians wanted the world to know that their pharoah, the entire army and priesthood was lost in the sea chasing a bunch of Jews! That would make them vulnerable to all the surrounding conquering nations - an open door to conquer Egypt! It would make sense that they would edit that! Anyway....

Absolute rubbish.

The event is suppose to take place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effect on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society.

-- Egypt, Cannan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford

No evidence. None. Zip. None among the Egyptians. None among the various peoples with highly interdependent diplomatic relationships with the Egyptians. No weakening of the Egyptian Dynasty. No disruption of trade. No famine resulting from the plagues. No evidence of a couple of million Jews wandering in the desert.

The Exodus is an absurdity, and to argue that the Egyptians hid the evidence is no less so. It betrays a near pathetic ignorance of Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian history.

[meogi]

And if moses never existed, what becomes of the pentateuch?

But I`m all with DianJo`s view on faith... that`s what a religion is, you don`t need evidence to support it. You need evidence (or miss-evidence as the case may usually be) to convince other people to believe in faith.

[true blood]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

How on earth did the discovery of the Hittites silence critics.

The Hittites played a major role in Old Testament history. They interacted with figures such as Abraham up to Solomon. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East. Prior to the late 19th century nothing was known of the Hittites outside of the Bible, therefor many critics alleged that they were an invention by Biblical authors. Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written however discoveries have confirmed these rites and ceremonies. Also the Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations that they had conquered. Dozens of these have been found and translated and now provide a better understanding of Old Testament treaties. It has helped confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study like language, religious, social and political practices of ancient Middle East.

King David's existance was also questioned by critics because no evidence existed of him outside the bible until as recent as 1993. Now many critics reconsider their view of the Davidic kingdom. Dallas Morning News, 6 August 1993, check it out. Translation teams have been carefully translating ancient writings.

All the events of the bible took place at a certain time, in a particular culture, influenced by a particular social and political structure. Archaeology gives insight to these areas as well as supplement topics outside of the bible. Most of what we know of all ancient religions, pagan, politics, social, kingdoms and empires come from archaeological findings and since christianity is based on actual events the field plays a key role.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by true blood

...
All the events of the bible took place at a certain time, in a particular culture, influenced by a particular social and political structure. Archaeology gives insight to these areas as well as supplement topics outside of the bible. Most of what we know of all ancient religions, pagan, politics, social, kingdoms and empires come from archaeological findings and since christianity is based on actual events the field plays a key role.

Gore Vidal gets bits and pieces of history right but I don't beleive some of his charaters actually existed or said what he wrote.

-pah-

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by true blood

The Hittites played a major role ...

Is it possible for you to be any more vague? Reread what you wrote. You have managed to say absolutely nothing of substance. You have suggested not a single piece of probative evidence. Ironically, what we know of the Hittites creates very real difficulties for a large number of Exodus/Conquest proponents.

Tell me, true blood, when was this Exodus of yours, and where is your evidence?

[true blood]

It's obvious you're hostile to a biblical worldview and are quite skeptical, so be it, it doesn't matter with me. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. No God, no wisdom. The point of this thread is the historical accuracy of the bible and archaeology has proved many events. I'm not saying archaeology has proven divine inspiration of the bible, but rather the events. Get the difference? Also there are limits to archaeology, it cannot recreate the process under study. The evidence left behind must be studied, interpreted, revised, and reinterpreted when new evidence is found. Every conclusion must be re-evaluated after more discoveries. What's interesting is no discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. What do you have to say about that? But alas only a fraction of sites have been surveyed, and only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated, and only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined and only a small part of what is examined is actually published. Tick, tock...only time will tell but so far the bible has proven to be an accurate and trustworthy source of history.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by true blood

It's obvious you're hostile to a biblical worldview and are quite skeptical, so be it, it doesn't matter with me.

Actually, I'm not at all hostile to the bible.

Originally Posted by true blood

No God, no wisdom.

Confucians? Daoists? Buddhists?

Originally Posted by true blood

The point of this thread is the historical accuracy of the bible and archaeology has proved many events.

You have asserted this more than once but have yet to offer a shred of proof. In fact, to the extent that archaeology can prove anything, it has proved the Exodus/Conquest narrative to be myth.

[roli]

Is this an active thread

[Faust]

True Blood writes that no discovery has ever controverted a single bible reference.
Then why does the Bible contain stories of cities that did not exist until after the time period and stories about cities that did not exist until well after the time frame of the narrative. Also stories that include domesticated camels 900 years before the domestication of the camel?
Try reading "Don't Know Much About The Bible" by Kenneth C. Davis.
It is very informative, very well written, and references all of the info. it contains to other verified scholarly works.