Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Hope]

Non-believers are always claiming that the Bible is full of myths, and there isn't enough historical/archeaological evidence to back it up, so I always enjoy reading about new discoveries that totally contradict such claims.

Here is one I found:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864362/posts

Does anyone know of any specific archeaological discoveries that definitively contradict the Bible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does anyone know of any specific archeaological discoveries that definitively contradict the Bible?

Definitively? I don't know about that.

In many cases, there's lack of evidence despite some serious looking... though, as is often said, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.

The one collection of positive evidence* that I know of is from ancient Judea: all archaeological evidence so far suggests that the Jews were indigenous to Judea, and that all through when the Exodus from Egypt and the conquering of Caanan supposedly happened, the archaeological record is seamless... this suggests that the culture before was the culture after, which contradicts the hypothesis that the Jews first migrated en masse to the area from Egypt, then expanded their territory by conquest, driving out the original inhabitants.

My main source for this is The Great Transformation: the Beginnings of our Religious Traditions by Karen Armstrong, though I am citing it by memory (I returned it to the library about a year ago).



*not to impart a moral judgement on it, but just to differentiate lack of evidence for one idea with actual evidence for a contrary one.

 

[Bishka]

In my opinion, I do believe there is proof to say, yes this place as a city and yes this might of been a king; but archaeological evidence does not prove there was a Jesus Christ and that He died for us, only the Holy Spirit can do that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thought: whether or not some piece of evidence, if true, could contradict the Bible depends very much on your interpretation of it.

If you believe it to be a literal history, then there's likely quite a bit of evidence against this, especially when it comes to things like a young Earth and a global flood.

If you appreciate it in a more non-literal way, such as fables and stories intended to teach the reader lessons (whether written by God or not), then it's unlikely that any particular evidence would "contradict" the Bible... unless you did something like produce a logical proof why it's bad to love your neighbor (which I'm not holding my breath for, personally).

 

[Hope]

In my opinion, I do believe there is proof to say, yes this place as a city and yes this might of been a king; but archaeological evidence does not prove there was a Jesus Christ and that He died for us, only the Holy Spirit can do that.

I do agree that the Holy Spirit definitely supplies the best proof. Amen.

However, I still think that Christianity (and Judaism) are unique in that they are very much historical religions. Especially Christianity. Christianity stands or falls on the existence of, and resurrection of, Jesus Christ. If Jesus' bones are discovered, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be His, then my faith has no reason for existing anymore.

 

[Hope]

Definitively? I don't know about that.

In many cases, there's lack of evidence despite some serious looking... though, as is often said, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.

The one collection of positive evidence* that I know of is from ancient Judea: all archaeological evidence so far suggests that the Jews were indigenous to Judea, and that all through when the Exodus from Egypt and the conquering of Caanan supposedly happened, the archaeological record is seamless... this suggests that the culture before was the culture after, which contradicts the hypothesis that the Jews first migrated en masse to the area from Egypt, then expanded their territory by conquest, driving out the original inhabitants.

My main source for this is The Great Transformation: the Beginnings of our Religious Traditions by Karen Armstrong, though I am citing it by memory (I returned it to the library about a year ago).



*not to impart a moral judgement on it, but just to differentiate lack of evidence for one idea with actual evidence for a contrary one.

Yeah, I've heard this theory before. However, I find it interesting that there is evidence of the Jewish people living in Egypt. And they have even found the city that they built and inhabited.

I have yet to hear of anything definitive contradicting the Bible.

 

[Storm]

Christianity stands or falls on the existence of, and resurrection of, Jesus Christ.

I disagree. Even if Christ is "only" a myth, Christianity at its best is still a beautiful religion capable of nurturing the souls of its adherents.

If Jesus' bones are discovered, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be His, then my faith has no reason for existing anymore.

Why? How would the finding of His bones invalidate His teachings? Or your personal experiences of the truths His myth expresses? Your personal relationship with God? Is it so important to have a name to label these things with?

It often seems to me that Christians have an unfortunate tendency to ignore the teachings in their eagerness to revere the teacher. Whether Christ lived or didn't, was or wasn't the Son of God, the teachings are beautiful, powerful, and true. What does the history matter, compared to that?

 

[Hope]

I disagree. Even if Christ is "only" a myth, Christianity at its best is still a beautiful religion capable of nurturing the souls of its adherents.


Why? How would the finding of His bones invalidate His teachings? Or your personal experiences of the truths His myth expresses? Your personal relationship with God? Is it so important to have a name to label these things with?

It often seems to me that Christians have an unfortunate tendency to ignore the teachings in their eagerness to revere the teacher. Whether Christ lived or didn't, was or wasn't the Son of God, the teachings are beautiful, powerful, and true. What does the history matter, compared to that?

Because Christ's teachings are not the main point of Christianity, as so many assume. If they were, then, yes, you would be right. The central belief of Christianity is an event: that Jesus died for our sins, rose again, and ascended into heaven. His teachings are simply supplemental to that. Christians are not Christians because they follow teachings----they are Christians because the living Christ indwells them. See the distinction? So, if He is not historical, and His death and resurrection are not historical, then we are fools for believing in Him. Even Paul said this.

 

[Willamena]

Non-believers are always claiming that the Bible is full of myths, and there isn't enough historical/archeaological evidence to back it up, so I always enjoy reading about new discoveries that totally contradict such claims.

Can't it have both?

 

[Random]

Can't it have both?

Both what?

 

[Willamena]

Both what?

Myth and "historical archaeological" elements, at the same time even.

 

[Storm]

Because Christ's teachings are not the main point of Christianity, as so many assume. If they were, then, yes, you would be right. The central belief of Christianity is an event: that Jesus died for our sins, rose again, and ascended into heaven. His teachings are simply supplemental to that. Christians are not Christians because they follow teachings----they are Christians because the living Christ indwells them. See the distinction?

Oh, I see it. It's my biggest problem with Christianity. It should be noted, however, that not all Christians agree with you. I've known quite a few who believed the opposite.

So, if He is not historical, and His death and resurrection are not historical, then we are fools for believing in Him. Even Paul said this.

Not fools, simply in error. Paul allegedly had the advantage of knowing for a fact whether or not Jesus was historical. You don't. What's more, even if Christ did exist historically, you have no way of knowing for sure how much mythological bagage was added on to His bio by overzealous followers. Even assuming that the Resurrection and all that was historically factual, I don't see why bones couldn't be left behind.

History is a dangerously fragile foundation for Christianity.

What is foolish is to put the teachings second to the cult of personality. Aside from the lousy foundation, all too many of you completely ignore the teachings in favor of holier-than-thou posturing and proselytization. This has led your beautiful religion to be twisted, perverted to support imperialism, racism, "God Hates ****," war, genocide, and all manner of horrors in the name of sweet Christ. I can't believe He approves.

Ever heard/ read "O Lord, save me from your followers"? This world would be a much better place if its millions of Christians focused on following the way of life Christ taught, instead of worrying about the speck in their neighbor's eye.

 

[camanintx]

Non-believers are always claiming that the Bible is full of myths, and there isn't enough historical/archeaological evidence to back it up, so I always enjoy reading about new discoveries that totally contradict such claims.

Here is one I found:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864362/posts

Does anyone know of any specific archeaological discoveries that definitively contradict the Bible?

What about archaeological evidence that Nazareth never had the synagogue or cliff mentioned in Luke 4:14-29.

 

[Hope]

Oh, I see it. It's my biggest problem with Christianity. It should be noted, however, that not all Christians agree with you. I've known quite a few who believed the opposite.

Then I would wonder if they are actually Christians "in name only."

Not fools, simply in error. Paul allegedly had the advantage of knowing for a fact whether or not Jesus was historical. You don't. What's more, even if Christ did exist historically, you have no way of knowing for sure how much mythological bagage was added on to His bio by overzealous followers. Even assuming that the Resurrection and all that was historically factual, I don't see why bones couldn't be left behind.

History is a dangerously fragile foundation for Christianity.

What is foolish is to put the teachings second to the cult of personality. Aside from the lousy foundation, all too many of you completely ignore the teachings in favor of holier-than-thou posturing and proselytization. This has led your beautiful religion to be twisted, perverted to support imperialism, racism, "God Hates ****," war, genocide, and all manner of horrors in the name of sweet Christ. I can't believe He approves.

Ever heard/ read "O Lord, save me from your followers"? This world would be a much better place if its millions of Christians focused on following the way of life Christ taught, instead of worrying about the speck in their neighbor's eye.

I agree that, unfortunately, many have done horrific things in the name of Christ. I wish it weren't true. But Christianity is not the only religion to have such baggage. Look at the Islamic radicals.

But the problem with your reasoning is that, like so many people, you "believe" in an imaginary Jesus. Just as imaginary as the Jesus the Crusaders believed in. There are two extremes: those who ignore the Biblical Jesus who preached love, mercy, and forgiveness, and commit violent and unloving acts in His name; then those who ignore the Biblical Jesus who claimed He was God, the only way to heaven, and declared judgement and hell on those who rejected Him. Jesus was not so "sweet" as you make Him out to be.

On the contrary, if the Bible is to be believed, He was the most fascinating, multi-faceted human in history. Loving, gentle, meek, and compassionate, but also fierce, revolutionary, and confrontational. He wasn't crucified for being "sweet" and "nice."

So, a lot is at stake. I maintain that Christians are fools if the Jesus of the Bible is a myth. History is not a fragile foundation. On the contrary, it's the strongest foundation to have.

 

[Hope]

What about archaeological evidence that Nazareth never had the synagogue or cliff mentioned in Luke 4:14-29.

Provide me a source for this evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about archaeological evidence that Nazareth never had the synagogue or cliff mentioned in Luke 4:14-29.

I've also seen a claim (on TV - can't remember the show) that on what's normally considered to be the site of Nazareth (because there was a town called Nazareth there, later) was a necropolis - a cemetery - in around the purported time of Jesus. As such, it would have been considered "unclean" under Mosaic Law, and no Jewish town would have coexisted with it.

However, this was presented more in the light of "Biblical historians are looking in the wrong place", not "there is no Nazareth, so the Bible is wrong".

 

[Storm]

Then I would wonder if they are actually Christians "in name only."

I can tell you that's not the case. They just think it's more important to live according to His teachings than, for instance, be baptised 5 times.

I agree that, unfortunately, many have done horrific things in the name of Christ. I wish it weren't true. But Christianity is not the only religion to have such baggage. Look at the Islamic radicals.

I didn't mean to imply that you were alone. My apologies if it sounded that way.

OTOH, look at the Buddhists - they put the emphasis on the teachings, rather than the teacher, and their history is relatively benign. No Crusades or Inquisitions to my knowledge.

But the problem with your reasoning is that, like so many people, you "believe" in an imaginary Jesus.

No, I don't. I believe in a historical Christ. I have a personal relationship with Him, and believe Him something much "more" than a human. I just have very different beliefs regarding the nature of that something.

Just as imaginary as the Jesus the Crusaders believed in.

.... Now I'm confused. The Crusaders had an unbalanced view, but I wouldn't presume to call it "imaginary." What exactly do you mean? I don't want to jump to conlusions.

There are two extremes: those who ignore the Biblical Jesus who preached love, mercy, and forgiveness, and commit violent and unloving acts in His name; then those who ignore the Biblical Jesus who claimed He was God, the only way to heaven, and declared judgement and hell on those who rejected Him. Jesus was not so "sweet" as you make Him out to be.

Oh, I don't think he was saccharine. I just have a different view, again, of what He meant by that.

On the contrary, if the Bible is to be believed, He was the most fascinating, multi-faceted human in history. Loving, gentle, meek, and compassionate, but also fierce, revolutionary, and confrontational. He wasn't crucified for being "sweet" and "nice."

You're putting far too much importance on that one word. I didn't say "nice" at all, and it wasn't what I meant. Think "sublime" instead.

So, a lot is at stake. I maintain that Christians are fools if the Jesus of the Bible is a myth.

And I maintain that it's a myth whether or not it's based in history. But I'm admittedly weird that way, so I'll let it go. Suffice to say that "myth" is a word I use with reverence, not contempt.

History is not a fragile foundation. On the contrary, it's the strongest foundation to have.

It can be, but not in Christianity's case, IMO. There's too little historical documentation, and as you yourself have pointed out, it would take very little to destroy your faith.

 

[Hope]

I can tell you that's not the case. They just think it's more important to live according to His teachings than, for instance, be baptised 5 times.

I said nothing about baptism. My point was how can one honestly call themselves a Christian if they don't believe the claims Jesus made about Himself and the event of His death and resurrection? Anyone can follow His teachings. Heck, Ghandi probably followed the teachings of Jesus better than most Christians do. But he wasn't a Christian, now was he? I could go into a whole other tangent on how this very important distinction sets apart Christianity from most other religions. We can do that in another thread if you like.

I didn't mean to imply that you were alone. My apologies if it sounded that way.

OTOH, look at the Buddhists - they put the emphasis on the teachings, rather than the teacher, and their history is relatively benign. No Crusades or Inquisitions to my knowledge.

No, I don't. I believe in a historical Christ. I have a personal relationship with Him, and believe Him something much "more" than a human. I just have very different beliefs regarding the nature of that something.

.... Now I'm confused. The Crusaders had an unbalanced view, but I wouldn't presume to call it "imaginary." What exactly do you mean? I don't want to jump to conlusions.

It was imaginary because it was unbalanced. As is your view. Although, I prefer your imaginary Jesus over theirs, of course.

Oh, I don't think he was saccharine. I just have a different view, again, of what He meant by that.

You're putting far too much importance on that one word. I didn't say "nice" at all, and it wasn't what I meant. Think "sublime" instead.

And I maintain that it's a myth whether or not it's based in history. But I'm admittedly weird that way, so I'll let it go. Suffice to say that "myth" is a word I use with reverence, not contempt.

It can be, but not in Christianity's case, IMO. There's too little historical documentation, and as you yourself have pointed out, it would take very little to destroy your faith.

All fair enough.

 

[Storm]

I said nothing about baptism. My point was how can one honestly call themselves a Christian if they don't believe the claims Jesus made about Himself and the event of His death and resurrection? Anyone can follow His teachings. Heck, Ghandi probably followed the teachings of Jesus better than most Christians do. But he wasn't a Christian, now was he?

Baptism was just an example.

The Christians I'm referring to didn't disbelieve the things you're talking about. They just believe that the philosophy is more important than the cosmology. They believe that it's more important to adhere to the morality than the dogma. And, yes, they believe that Ghandi was a better Christian than Falwell, for instance. They're not non-Christians, they're Christians with a different perspective.

I could go into a whole other tangent on how this very important distinction sets apart Christianity from most other religions. We can do that in another thread if you like.

Up to you.

It was imaginary because it was unbalanced. As is your view. Although, I prefer your imaginary Jesus over theirs, of course.

Well, that's just being condescending. It's like the fundy atheists who say that God-belief is delusional. When it comes to the nature of God, we're all just guessing. Your guess is no better than mine, or theirs. None of us has proof. You had faith, so did they. Me, I just have ideas.

As for my ideas regarding Jesus, please refrain from jumping to conclusions. I've barely touched on the subject so as to avoid completely hijacking your thread. You might well consider them blasphemous.

 

[Mike182]

Non-believers are always claiming that the Bible is full of myths, and there isn't enough historical/archeaological evidence to back it up, so I always enjoy reading about new discoveries that totally contradict such claims.

Here is one I found:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864362/posts

Does anyone know of any specific archeaological discoveries that definitively contradict the Bible?

i don't know about claiming there is not enough historical/archaeological evidence to back it up, i think it is more along the lines of historical/archaeological evidence not having the capacity to justify belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and transcendental being.