mickiel
Well-Known Member
Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability, criticisms that are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources, that could confirm the Biblical record. Since the bible is an obvious religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from non-biblical sources, and I agree with that demand. The demand is simply, in other words, the Bible is Quilty until proven innocent.
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though most of those documents have a religious element. So I want to " Dig into Archaeology", and hope to show its amazing finds already recorded in our history, which I think gives the Bible reliability. The Faith the book produces is a " Mercurical thing", as are its record of Miracles", so Faith and Miracles are things which I think need not be placed alongside proven historical relevance, because most believers accept them blindly. I hold no intrest in being blind, and hold no problem with accepting what I can see and understand to be true history. Because I know the bible can stand on its own in that area as well, needing no Faith or Miracles to confirm its relevance.
I like showing the " Burial sites" of actual biblical people that we have found. That is extremely relevant in my view. If the person didnot exist, there would be no burial site. Jesus himself has two sites claiming to be the location of his tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb. The Garden tomb, identified in the late 1800's, lacks the historical credibility of the Sepulchre, which is located in the old city of Jerusalem. In the 4th century, Constantine sopposedly located the tomb site beneath a second century Roman temple. He constructed a church over it. This church has been restored and maintained ever since. I don't see Constantine as the kind of man who would have done this to a forgery.
Jesus lived and preached in Jerusalem, we still to this day have a real city of Jerusalem, and in it, two possible tomb sites, one of which I think is real.
But what other burial sites have been found?
And I want to go into that.
Peace.
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though most of those documents have a religious element. So I want to " Dig into Archaeology", and hope to show its amazing finds already recorded in our history, which I think gives the Bible reliability. The Faith the book produces is a " Mercurical thing", as are its record of Miracles", so Faith and Miracles are things which I think need not be placed alongside proven historical relevance, because most believers accept them blindly. I hold no intrest in being blind, and hold no problem with accepting what I can see and understand to be true history. Because I know the bible can stand on its own in that area as well, needing no Faith or Miracles to confirm its relevance.
I like showing the " Burial sites" of actual biblical people that we have found. That is extremely relevant in my view. If the person didnot exist, there would be no burial site. Jesus himself has two sites claiming to be the location of his tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb. The Garden tomb, identified in the late 1800's, lacks the historical credibility of the Sepulchre, which is located in the old city of Jerusalem. In the 4th century, Constantine sopposedly located the tomb site beneath a second century Roman temple. He constructed a church over it. This church has been restored and maintained ever since. I don't see Constantine as the kind of man who would have done this to a forgery.
Jesus lived and preached in Jerusalem, we still to this day have a real city of Jerusalem, and in it, two possible tomb sites, one of which I think is real.
But what other burial sites have been found?
And I want to go into that.
Peace.
