Bible and the history

[PetriFB]

We can often read and hear how some researchers doubt the historicity of events mentioned in the Bible. This is especially true as comes to the initial accounts of the Fall, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and miracles that appear in the Gospels. These are issues that researchers regard as unreliable. They may deem them only legends and think that those accounts are not worth taking seriously.
We are going to study this difficult issue by looking at many examples. This study has been directed especially to people who sincerely want to study this area and struggle with this issue. In other words, it has been targeted at persons who want to know whether the events mentioned in the Bible are really historically correct.


The initial history of the Bible and mankind, archaeology

 

[Arlanbb]

We can often read and hear how some researchers doubt the historicity of events mentioned in the Bible. This is especially true as comes to the initial accounts of the Fall, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and miracles that appear in the Gospels. These are issues that researchers regard as unreliable. They may deem them only legends and think that those accounts are not worth taking seriously.
We are going to study this difficult issue by looking at many examples. This study has been directed especially to people who sincerely want to study this area and struggle with this issue. In other words, it has been targeted at persons who want to know whether the events mentioned in the Bible are really historically correct.


The initial history of the Bible and mankind, archaeology

I have gone to this website and found it amusing. I read chapter 1 and part of 2. There is no archaeology in it. It is dribble. It say that the Genesis flood happened but it does not tell when it happened, a date like 5000BC or 3000BC. Without a date there is no way we can prove if and when it happened. Whoever wrote this history had never heard of Old Jericho that was first inhabited over 11,000 years ago. A few years ago I walked on the rubble of Old Jericho. If there had been a worldwide flood it would have been washed away by the upheavel of the land in the mighty flood, but it is still here????? Why????? Because the Genesis flood never happened. :no:

 

[PetriFB]

The Bible catastrophes and floods initial history of mankind

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Unremarkable garbage.

 

[Arlanbb]

The Bible catastrophes and floods initial history of mankind

There is nothing in the above web site that tells us when the Genesis flood happened from a historical context. There is nothing that explains how Old Jericho is over 11,000 years old. The information you present has only conjecter nothing more.

 

[Perfect Circle]

There is absolutely no evidence to corroborate a fall, biblical worldwide flood, or any tower of babel... And this site does little more than regurgitate the same false information as any other biblical archaeology apologetics site.

 

[Copernicus]

The Bible is a mixture of pagan Semitic folklore and historical record. It may have been first commissioned during the brief rise of the Jewish empire under David and Solomon. It was not unusual for empires to establish a foundational mythology in those days and to set down records of historical events. Those who defend the Bible as a historical record like to see corroboration of places and events in the archaeological record, and it is not surprising that there are some. However, that does not mean that the miracles attributed to places and events actually happened as recorded. So maybe there was a figure corresponding to Moses, but he didn't actually have the same history as the ancient King Sargon. It is possible that Sargon's story and Moses' got blended together at some point. The discovery that Pontius Pilate really existed does not mean that he actually had Jesus crucified. It is just as reasonable to assume that those who developed and spread the Jesus story worked real people and places into their story in order to lend it credibility. After all, one can do the same kind of historical corroboration with religious records from other cultures, e.g. the Upanishads.

 

[slave2six]

It's really scary to me how many people there are in the world who are unable to think rationally and yet have the nerve to state a position emphatically as if certainty was enough.

Listen, no one would be happier to be wrong about the Adam/Eve thing than I would be but I have hashed it out with people way smarter than I am and all of them fall back on "it's epic poetry" or "it's allegory" or some such. Why not just out and out say it? "It's our preferred guess." No shame in that. But a guess is not something to take seriously.

 

[meogi]

Remember, the historicity of the Bible has little to no relevance to many of the claims made within it. Just like the historicity of the Illiad has little to no relevance to claims made about Achilles.

 

[logician]

Probably a good analogy is to look at the historical accuracy of other ancient religious texts.

 

[Oberon]

Remember, the historicity of the Bible has little to no relevance to many of the claims made within it. Just like the historicity of the Illiad has little to no relevance to claims made about Achilles.

Not a great comparison. Parts of the bible could be compared with the illiad. Other parts with Herodotus. Other parts with Plutarch. Other parts with the Homeric Hymns. And so forth. The bible is a full of a variety of genres with a vast degree of difference in reliability with respect to historicity.

 

[meogi]

I'm not comparing the two; historicity has nothing to say on whether Jesus could raise the dead, cure the blind, or walk on water. Just like historicity has nothing to say on if Achilles was dipped into the river Styx and only weak point was his heel.

A historically accurate archaeology discovery has little relevance to a book's claim about a person living there.

 

[Oberon]

I'm not comparing the two; historicity has nothing to say on whether Jesus could raise the dead, cure the blind, or walk on water. Just like historicity has nothing to say on if Achilles was dipped into the river Styx and only weak point was his heel.

Yes, but the NT has a lot to say about the historicity of Jesus, whereas the Illiad has zero to say about the historicity of Achilles.

 

[meogi]

Aye, that is true. But I still find difficulty in going from the historical existence of a person to that person having miraculous powers. It's not Jesus I have a problem with, he has great ideas about how to find joy and happiness in life; it's the idea that he was a God-human.

 

[Arlanbb]

Looks like we have lost PetriFB who started this line.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, but the NT has a lot to say about the historicity of Jesus, whereas the Illiad has zero to say about the historicity of Achilles.

Not if you believe the content of the Iliad. In that case, it has to say as much about the historicity of Achilles as the NT does about Christ.

 

[Oberon]

Not if you believe the content of the Iliad. In that case, it has to say as much about the historicity of Achilles as the NT does about Christ.

The oral-formulaic transmission of the illiad myths has little in common with the far more controlled transmission of Jesus' traditions. In addition, the final composition of the illiad is seperated by centuries from the events described, compared to the decade seperation of the gospels. The greeks themselves often doubted the historicity of Homer (let alone the figures of the Illiad) compared to early christian OR pagan lack of doubt of the historicity of Jesus.

Finally, no scholar uses the Illiad to reconstruct a historical Achilles. However, virtually every single scholar of history (classics, NT studies, biblical studies, ancient history, etc) uses the NT to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

 

[Copernicus]

The oral-formulaic transmission of the illiad myths has little in common with the far more controlled transmission of Jesus' traditions. In addition, the final composition of the illiad is seperated by centuries from the events described, compared to the decade seperation of the gospels. The greeks themselves often doubted the historicity of Homer (let alone the figures of the Illiad) compared to early christian OR pagan lack of doubt of the historicity of Jesus.

First of all, the New Testament gospels came out of an oral tradition. Paul himself admitted to having no firsthand knowledge of Christ, and his testimony is the oldest. There were many competing gospels before Irenaeus and that did not make the cut into the orthodox tradition started by him. Secondly, the scribal tradition is known to produce errors, and the oldest complete copies of the NT gospels are centuries older than the originals. Thirdly, I brought up Apollonius of Tyrana for a reason. It was to show how easy it was for ridiculous mythology to build up around a supposedly real person who was a contemporary of Jesus. It is absurd to base a solid claim of historicity on the Gospel texts alone just because they happened to have survived competing religious documents. Perhaps one can attribute the survivability of the orthodox Christian movement to the fact that it was the state religion of the political empire that dominated the entire Mediterranean region for several centuries after its inception.

Finally, no scholar uses the Illiad to reconstruct a historical Achilles. However, virtually every single scholar of history (classics, NT studies, biblical studies, ancient history, etc) uses the NT to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

Of course they do. Do you know why? IT IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS!!!! The Iliad does not have over a billion followers who spend their lives doting on the content of the story. If it did, then it would get the same credibility ratio that you assign to the Bible.

 

[Oberon]

First of all, the New Testament gospels came out of an oral tradition.

My dissertation topic is on the oral tradition in the Jesus sect. Please don't attempt to lecture me on this.

Paul himself admitted to having no firsthand knowledge of Christ, and his testimony is the oldest.

However, he does admit to receiving the tradition from Paul, as well as knowing the disciples of Jesus.

There were many competing gospels before Irenaeus and that did not make the cut into the orthodox tradition started by him.

Your evidence for this is what exactly?

Secondly, the scribal tradition is known to produce errors, and the oldest complete copies of the NT gospels are centuries older than the originals.

We VASTLY more textual attestation for the gospels than ANYTHING from antiquity. As Metzger state, the textual materials for the NT textual critic is embarrasing, when compared to other ancient documents.

Thirdly, I brought up Apollonius of Tyrana for a reason. It was to show how easy it was for ridiculous mythology to build up around a supposedly real person who was a contemporary of Jesus.

Appollonius of Tyana is most likely historical. However, a century or so seperates him from the earliest life. With Jesus we have far more, far earlier.

It is absurd to base a solid claim of historicity on the Gospel texts alone just because they happened to have survived competing religious documents.

No, it isn't. The gospels and Paul are more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for almost any figure from antiquity.

Perhaps one can attribute the survivability of the orthodox Christian movement to the fact that it was the state religion of the political empire that dominated the entire Mediterranean region for several centuries after its inception.

Perhaps. Of course, it survived as a persecuted religion for some time before this.

Of course they do. Do you know why? IT IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS!!!! The Iliad does not have over a billion followers who spend their lives doting on the content of the story. If it did, then it would get the same credibility ratio that you assign to the Bible.

First, it isn't the only source. Second, if we had early sources near to the time of Achilles to reconstruct his life, scholars would use them. We don't. However, we have them for Jesus. What is your point?

 

[slave2six]

Not a great comparison. Parts of the bible could be compared with the illiad. Other parts with Herodotus. Other parts with Plutarch. Other parts with the Homeric Hymns. And so forth. The bible is a full of a variety of genres with a vast degree of difference in reliability with respect to historicity.

...and therefore not divinely inspired...