• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nature of the Bible....question

SonOfNun

Member
[FONT=TREBUCHET, ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=+1]EXODUS AND DESERT WANDERING[/SIZE]
"When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land Philistines, although that was near; For God said: "Lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt." (Exodus 13:17)
Prof. Malamat explains the reason for this detour: At that time in Egyptian history, and lasting for only about 200 years, there was a massive, nearly impenetrable network of fortresses situated along the northern Sinai coastal route to Canaan. Yet these same defenses were absent near Egypt's access to southern Sinai -- because the Egyptians felt the southern route was certain death in the desert.
Therefore, when Moses tells the Israelites to encamp at a site that will mislead Pharaoh, the Egyptians will conclude that the Israelites "are entangled in the land, the wilderness has closed in on them" (Exodus 14:3). This, according to Malamat, "reflects a distinctly Egyptian viewpoint that must have been common at the time: In view of the fortresses on the northern coast, anyone seeking to flee Egypt would necessarily make a detour south into the desert, where they might well perish."
More evidence comes from an ancient victory monument called the "Elephantine Stele." Here is recorded a rebellion in which a renegade Egyptian faction bribed Asiatics living in Egypt to assist them. Although the rebellion ultimately failed, it does confirm that in the same time period when the Israelites were in Egypt, the Egyptians would very likely say, "Come let us deal wisely with them, for if war befalls us, they may join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land" (Exodus 1:10). "That is precisely what happened in the episode recorded in the Elephantine Stele," Malamat asserts.
Biblical criticism comes from the late archaeologist Gosta Ahlstrom. He declares: "It is quite clear that the biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the 10th century BCE, and they certainly didn't know anything of the geography of Palestine in the Late Bronze age," the time of the desert wandering and subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan. Ahlstrom's proof? He cites the biblical listing of cities along the alleged route that the Israelites traveled immediately before reaching the Jordan River -- Iyyim, Divon, Almon-divlatayim, Nevo, and Avel ****tim (Numbers 33:45-50), and reports that most of these locations have not been located, and those that were excavated did not exist at the time the Bible reports.
karnak_240x206.jpg
In the meantime, writings from the walls of Egyptian Temples say differently. It is well known that Egypt had much reason to travel to Canaan in those days; trade, exploitation, military conquest. These routes are recorded in three different Egyptian Temples -- listed in the same order as provided in the Bible, and dated to the exact period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.
Another piece of outside verification is an ancient inscription housed in the Amman Museum. Dating to the 8th century BCE (at least), it was found in the Jordanian village of Deir Alla, which was Moabite territory in biblical times. This inscription tells of a person by the name of Bilaam ben Beor, known to the locals as a prophet who would receive his prophecies at night. These features match precisely the Bilaam described in the Bible (Numbers 21) -- his full name, occupation, nighttime prophecies. And of course, Bilaam was a Moabite.
[/FONT]
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."
So let's turn to the evidence.

This is a classic abuse of sources that we see done by biblicist propagandists. Yes, Dever is an archaeologist, but he is not out to prove the Bible to be true. His goal is to use archaeology to interpret the Bible and not vice-versa, so his interpretation of the evidence rarely, if ever, supports the Bible.

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Dever

"I am not reading the Bible as Scripture.... I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a 'maximalist.'"[2]

His book, no doubt, may do you lots of good- Dever, William G. (2001), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel, Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4794-3
 

SonOfNun

Member
[SIZE=+1]rdent revisionist Dr. Philip Davies strove valiantly to claim that the readings are ambiguous. However, in the words of Anson Rainey: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]"As someone who studies ancient inscriptions in the original, I have a responsibility to warn the lay audience that the new fad (revisionism) represented by Philip Davies and his ilk is merely a circle of dilettantes. Their view that nothing in the biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period, especially their denial of the existence of the united monarchy, is a figment of their vain imagination. The name 'House of David' in the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions sounds the death knell to their specious conceit. Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the (revisionist) school. They have nothing to teach us."[/SIZE]​
 

SonOfNun

Member
Need I say more... there is plenty of evidence that the bible is more then just a bunch of myths! Weather you chose to except it or not is your own problem.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Need I say more... there is plenty of evidence that the bible is more then just a bunch of myths! Weather you chose to except it or not is your own problem.

The Bible may well be more than just a bunch of myths, but you only demonstrated how to thoughtlessly cut and paste from websites whose authors don't know diddly poo about the Bible or archaeology. You've mindlessly followed their errors and hope that we will do the same.:cover:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Here is another good quote from Dever:

"Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence."[3]
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Try reading Gottwald (The Tribes of Yahweh, 1979). The peasant revolt theory makes far, far more sense than the theories of earlier scholars. (Even John Bright finally flipped and bought into Gottwald's theory.)
 

SonOfNun

Member
Look... I don't think he was trying to say that the bible was 100% correct... But I think he still thought that the bible was a credible document. In the end it doesn't really matter.. what I was trying to get across was that the bible is more then just a bunch of myths. there is a lot of evidence supporting the bible. Archeology is still a young science and there is a lot still to be left said.. All I have is that in the past scientists have mocked and criticized the bible, but, they have had to step back and acknowledge that does have some credibility.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the first sensible thing you've said in a while.

The Bible is more than just a bunch of myths. But it is also myth, and tradition, and sometimes conflicting information. Just because one part is factual does not make all parts factual. Similarly, just because one part is not factual does not discredit the whole thing. There is evidence supporting the Bible. But there is also credible evidence that does not support the Biblical record.

Archaeologists do not try to mock the Bible. Rather, they hope to debunk the Bible, so that we can arrive at the truth. so what if the Israelites never conquered Canaan? Does that change anything about the Israelites? Washington never chopped down a cherry tree. Does that change anything about Washington?
 

SonOfNun

Member
This is the first sensible thing you've said in a while.

The Bible is more than just a bunch of myths. But it is also myth, and tradition, and sometimes conflicting information. Just because one part is factual does not make all parts factual. Similarly, just because one part is not factual does not discredit the whole thing. There is evidence supporting the Bible. But there is also credible evidence that does not support the Biblical record.

Archaeologists do not try to mock the Bible. Rather, they hope to debunk the Bible, so that we can arrive at the truth. so what if the Israelites never conquered Canaan? Does that change anything about the Israelites? Washington never chopped down a cherry tree. Does that change anything about Washington?

Look, just because it seems like it is wrong doesn't mean it is. I personally feel that it is 100% correct, but I do except that as just my opinion and so far all I have seen is a bunch of speculations and theories, even if they are very thought out. I have seen enough evidence for me to prove that the OT is valid. I think that the more people will uncover and find the more it will help prove that the bible is right... and if it doesn't then so be it... may the truth shine through.. But God (Jesus) said,"I am the way the truth and the light, no man comes to the father but by me".
 

anders

Well-Known Member
rdent revisionist Dr. Philip Davies strove valiantly to claim that the readings are ambiguous. However, in the words of Anson Rainey:
"As someone who studies ancient inscriptions in the original, I have a responsibility to warn the lay audience that the new fad (revisionism) represented by Philip Davies and his ilk is merely a circle of dilettantes. Their view that nothing in the biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period, especially their denial of the existence of the united monarchy, is a figment of their vain imagination. The name 'House of David' in the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions sounds the death knell to their specious conceit. Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the (revisionist) school. They have nothing to teach us."
It should be mentioned that the Tell Dan interpretation 'House of David' is contested. This reading relies on the supposition that we in this one only case can disregard the absence of a word dividing incision. At a quick glance, the Wikipedia article seems to have a balanced view. The Mesha stela is even more non-conclusive.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Look, just because it seems like it is wrong doesn't mean it is. I personally feel that it is 100% correct, but I do except that as just my opinion and so far all I have seen is a bunch of speculations and theories, even if they are very thought out. I have seen enough evidence for me to prove that the OT is valid. I think that the more people will uncover and find the more it will help prove that the bible is right... and if it doesn't then so be it... may the truth shine through.. But God (Jesus) said,"I am the way the truth and the light, no man comes to the father but by me".

I didn't say the OT wasn't valid. It's exceptionally valid, for what it is. It's a collection of written tradition -- not a textbook.
 

SonOfNun

Member
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn005/gn005f02.htm
Suddenly, as David and his men finished climbing the last hill, there it was, the mighty fortress of Jebus, later called Jerusalem. It was not then under Israelite control, but, as in the days of Joshua, the city was a stronghold of the Jebusites.
What chance did David have of conquering the city? Perhaps the reply of the Jebusites can give the best indication. They taunted him: "'You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you,' thinking, 'David cannot come in here'" (2 Samuel 5:6). They were so confident of their impenetrable stronghold, they shouted to David they would not even put their best men on the walls to defend the city, but would man them with the weakest and most sickly among them.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
However, the archaeological record indicates very, very strongly that there is no support for the great strength and totality of David's kingdom. The Biblical accounts appear to greatly exaggerate the Davidic kingdom.
 
Top