Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

I apologize for interrupting an interesting debate, but sadly our spiritual community has had it's own struggles.

I might personally feel comfortable living and working in Sri Lanka, but I don't think non-Buddhists would feel comfortable at all there. Especially anyone of the Abrahamic religious stripe.

Look at the varying Buddhist cultures that have established feudal systems that have oppressed millions, militarism that has struck fear, and even the "warrior-monk" systems that have considered compassionate murder as a means to "conflict resolution."

The West is famous for idealizing Buddhism as this religion/philosophy that has left a nearly spotless record with it's adherents. As much as my ego would like to believe that were the case, it is simply untrue.

A better example for this argument would very likely be the Jainists. AFAIK, their record IS nearly spotless.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Autodidact]

Hope:

The Bible seems to have a mixed record with respect to archeology: some parts are confirmed by archeological finds, and other parts disconfirmed. It seems to me that if you are willing to rely on archaeologists and archeological methods, you have to accept both. If you count the hits and not the misses, you're not really being consistent.

 

[Storm]

I apologize for interrupting an interesting debate, but sadly our spiritual community has had it's own struggles.

I might personally feel comfortable living and working in Sri Lanka, but I don't think non-Buddhists would feel comfortable at all there. Especially anyone of the Abrahamic religious stripe.

Look at the varying Buddhist cultures that have established feudal systems that have oppressed millions, militarism that has struck fear, and even the "warrior-monk" systems that have considered compassionate murder as a means to "conflict resolution."

The West is famous for idealizing Buddhism as this religion/philosophy that has left a nearly spotless record with it's adherents. As much as my ego would like to believe that were the case, it is simply untrue.

A better example for this argument would very likely be the Jainists. AFAIK, their record IS nearly spotless.

Thank you, Mystic.

FTR, I don't idealize your religion's history, I just think it's done about as well as such a major religion can hope to do. I chose it as a comparison because
1) I know more about it
2) I believe Christ and the Buddha to be of the same nature, with largely the same mission
3) It's a major world faith. It includes many, highly diverse paths and has an ancient history.

Buddhism has had just as much oppurtunity for religious atrocity as Christianity, but IMO it's done a much better job of avoiding it. I believe that's because of the aforementioned emphasis on the Buddha's teachings as opposed to the Buddha Himself, which makes it a good comparison for this topic.

 

[summia]

Non-believers are always claiming that the Bible is full of myths, and

Nay! not the Muslims says that it is full of myths coz it contains some Teachings of Taurah and Injeel, but which portrion, Allah Almighty knows the best!

coz Bible has changed, and there is no doubt almost all Christians say that they wrote their Bible and more over they also claim that It is permitted in Christianity...
While I was reading the Atricle of the OP, I read the reference form Jermiah.
And therez click in my mind about the verse, Herez...

"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' ​

(From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"​

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"​

See clearly it is mentioned in Jermiah about writting the scripture!
But come to the topic now, I know it is not a Part of discussion!

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?

Whats the wonderful in this discovery of tablet???
I can't understand!
Although there is in Quran about the Mummey of Pharaoh will be sign for the after generation and we find the mummy in egypt and it is wellknown fact about his mummy never buried.

​

 

[Hope]

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.

My apologies. I didn't mean to be condescending at all. Far from it. I was merely pointing out that anyone who accepts only part of the character of Jesus as revealed in Scripture is basically believing in a Jesus of their own invention. Thus, "of the imagination," or imaginary.

Admittedly, yes, we are all "guessing," so to speak. But we Christians at least don't have the lattitude to believe anything we wish to believe. It's very clear in Scripture what we're supposed to believe.

 

[Hope]

Hope:

The Bible seems to have a mixed record with respect to archeology: some parts are confirmed by archeological finds, and other parts disconfirmed. It seems to me that if you are willing to rely on archaeologists and archeological methods, you have to accept both. If you count the hits and not the misses, you're not really being consistent.

I do try to be consistent!

The whole point of this thread was to try to discover if there really are definitive finds that convincingly contradict the Bible. So far I've only seen people put forth a few things that aren't that convincing. I'm not looking for generalized statements, but specific findings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The whole point of this thread was to try to discover if there really are definitive finds that convincingly contradict the Bible.

Then the title of the thread is clearly deceitful since it suggests a discussion of archaeological evidence for the Bible. Shifting the burden of proof here is simply disingenuous.

We also have the problem of what constitutes "convincing". If you reject Geology, Biology, and Archeaology, then it is hard to imagine anything being deemed convincing save for those speculations and rationalizations that serve your presuppositions. But the fact remains that there is an overwhelming consensus among geologists against the Flood, there is an overwhelming consensus among biologists against the existence of fowl before the advent of land-based insects, and you can walk through the halls of the Israeli Museum, Jerusalem, for as long as you wish without detecting the slightest hint of the Exodus-Conquest.

 

[anders]

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).

I'd say that lack of evidence where evidence should have been found is evidence. Two million people and huge amounts of livestock for forty years in a desert with ideal conditions for things to be preserved--and despite intense searching, guided by geographical references in the Bible, not even a lost sandal, a burial, or animal bones have been found.

But the fact remains that there is an overwhelming consensus among geologists against the Flood, there is an overwhelming consensus among biologists against the existence of fowl before the advent of land-based insects, and you can walk through the halls of the Israeli Museum, Jerusalem, for as long as you wish without detecting the slightest hint of the Exodus-Conquest.

The Flood is, apart from tons of other impossibilities, another good example of lack of (geological) evidence which should have been there all over the globe.

For a collection of cases where archaeologists find the Bible wrong or severly challenged, I.Finkelstein, N.A.Silberman: The Bible Unearthed is entertaining and educatiing.

 

[Tiberius]

Here is one I found:

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

That only proves one small part of the Old testament. I won't say that the OT has NO historically accurate information, but I don't see how we can claim that one small piece of correct information means the entire OT is accurate. it's like claiming the entire TV series of M*A*S*H is completely accurate just because that "korea" place they mentioned actually exists.

...archaeological evidence does not prove there was a Jesus Christ and that He died for us, only the Holy Spirit can do that.

This is circular logic. The holy spirit tells us that the Bible is correct, and the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit exists.

 

[Hope]

Then the title of the thread is clearly deceitful since it suggests a discussion of archaeological evidence for the Bible. Shifting the burden of proof here is simply disingenuous.

I wasn't intentionally being "deceitful" or "disingenuous." I wrote the title before I wrote the rest, thinking, in my own mind at least, that there was nothing contradictory. Sorry if you feel that way.....but those are your own conclusions.

Is there any way I can change the title of the thread? If that would make you feel better, then I would gladly change it.

We also have the problem of what constitutes "convincing". If you reject Geology, Biology, and Archeaology, then it is hard to imagine anything being deemed convincing save for those speculations and rationalizations that serve your presuppositions. But the fact remains that there is an overwhelming consensus among geologists against the Flood, there is an overwhelming consensus among biologists against the existence of fowl before the advent of land-based insects, and you can walk through the halls of the Israeli Museum, Jerusalem, for as long as you wish without detecting the slightest hint of the Exodus-Conquest.

Again, you are leveling harsh accusations against me and jumping to conclusions. I do not reject geology, biology, and archeaology. Nor do most Christians. And you are also assuming that Christians are the only ones with presuppositions. That is flat-out false. Both sides have presuppositions which lead to speculations and rationalizations. To deny so is to be totally unrealistic.

I've read arguments from both sides regarding the Flood, and to be quite honest, those who deny the evidence for a Flood have far more explaining to do than those who see what is plainly before them. Just a couple examples: not only are marine fossils repeatedly found in mountaintops, but almost every ancient culture around the world has a flood story. And I've read some of these flood stories. It's remarkable how similar most of them are. What is the probability that such similar flood stories would arise all over the globe, unless such a flood actually happened?

I will admit the lack of evidence for the Israelites' conquest, but so far that is the only thing people are really suggesting as convincing evidence contradicting the Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, you are leveling harsh accusations against me and jumping to conclusions. I do not reject geology, biology, and archeaology.

That is precisely what you do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've read arguments from both sides regarding the Flood, and to be quite honest, those who deny the evidence for a Flood have far more explaining to do than those who see what is plainly before them. Just a couple examples: not only are marine fossils repeatedly found in mountaintops, but almost every ancient culture around the world has a flood story. And I've read some of these flood stories. It's remarkable how similar most of them are.

Please provide your examples of marine fossils found on mountaintops.

Also, please specify which ancient cultures you're talking about.

What is the probability that such similar flood stories would arise all over the globe, unless such a flood actually happened?

Since floods do happen, even major ones, I'd expect that there would be plenty of "the day the big flood hit" stories all over the world.

I've got one of those myself, but it only happened three years ago.

 

[Centi]

Not an expert but I dont think my local old Norse culture has any mentioning about any flood.

Humans are however made from two trees. The sons of Bor made us from these two trees. Bors dad (Bure) was made from a rock. His body was shaped by a cow called Audhumbla, well the cow first licked the shape of Bures head, his body was shaped the second day. The cow was made from the drops of frost created in the great rift called Ginnungaga.

The old Norse religion really had all the answers, can't believe people don't accept it as the truth. I mean where ever you go in the country side you see cows! Where do people think they come from? Some old guy snapping his fingers or something? Crazy...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Jericho

 

[slabbey06]

Jericho

Elaborate?

 

[camanintx]

I've read arguments from both sides regarding the Flood, and to be quite honest, those who deny the evidence for a Flood have far more explaining to do than those who see what is plainly before them. Just a couple examples: not only are marine fossils repeatedly found in mountaintops, but almost every ancient culture around the world has a flood story. And I've read some of these flood stories. It's remarkable how similar most of them are. What is the probability that such similar flood stories would arise all over the globe, unless such a flood actually happened?

Flooding is a common occurrence so should it surprise anyone that almost every ancient culture has flood stories? The question is, do they all relate to the same flood event. Since Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea, finding fossils there does not prove a global flood event.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea, finding fossils there does not prove a global flood event.

OTOH, finding fossils of predominantly European and African species along the slim eastern edge of the Americas (and American species along the slim western edge of Europe and Africa) strongly hints that the continents were apart, came together, and then separated again, which itself hints at an age of the Earth that's long enough to allow this whole process to happen at least once, if not multiple times.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Elaborate?

The best archaeological analysis of Jericho indicates that it wasn't even inhabited during the 'conquest.'

Jericho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Atechi]

Again, you are leveling harsh accusations against me and jumping to conclusions. I do not reject geology, biology, and archeaology. Nor do most Christians. And you are also assuming that Christians are the only ones with presuppositions. That is flat-out false. Both sides have presuppositions which lead to speculations and rationalizations. To deny so is to be totally unrealistic.

How old do you hold the world to be? Do you accept Evolution? How about the fact that there is proof that people exisited in Africa before the Land of Milk and Honey (arabian pensulia), the fact that ancient summerian language is not the Mother Tongue, precluding the Tower of Babel.

I've read arguments from both sides regarding the Flood, and to be quite honest, those who deny the evidence for a Flood have far more explaining to do than those who see what is plainly before them. Just a couple examples: not only are marine fossils repeatedly found in mountaintops, but almost every ancient culture around the world has a flood story. And I've read some of these flood stories. It's remarkable how similar most of them are. What is the probability that such similar flood stories would arise all over the globe, unless such a flood actually happened?

Alright lets look at the story of the flood. The ancient people alll lived around a river of some kind or another, of course these rivers would flood, and the flooding stories would come. Noah put in a pair (two total each) of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean animals and birds (fourteen total each). Assuming that god did step in and stop the lions and other apex predators from eating the other small animals of prey: The Ark was 300 Cubits by 50 Cubits by 30 Cubits at 428.1mm per cubit in modern standard dimensons the ark was 128.43M x 21.405Mx12.843M for a total volume of 35305.97401845M, or less than a cubic kilometer. In this, just with birds we are talking abuot fitting 140,000 and thats only species that are alive today. The idea that a man can fit the entire world's population into something that isn't a cubic kilometer isn't just silly its down right ridicilous.

 

[rojse]

I wonder what would have happened in the Ark when Noah brought the termites on board.