1. 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!

Featured Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by LiveByFaithNotSight, Oct 23, 2018.

  1. LiveByFaithNotSight

    LiveByFaithNotSight The Art Of Conversing

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    158
    Ratings:
    +67
    Religion:
    Christian One of Jehovah Witness
    #1 LiveByFaithNotSight, Oct 23, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    3,765
    Ratings:
    +964
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Good post. This is only a smattering of archaeological support for the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    23,084
    Ratings:
    +10,511
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    By "The Bible," are you referring to places and events that would have been common knowledge, or to the religious mythology itself?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    27,426
    Ratings:
    +10,707
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    No it doesn't. There's nothing in archaeology that supports Bible narratives as to the validity of any events that it contains.

    Since nobody knows who wrote or when it was ever made, provides reasonably strong evidence that it's pretty much a redacted work where everything is made to fit together to make it appear like some prophecy was fulfilled. There is no chronological record or artifacts of each book being progressively older respectively . Archaeology has none of that.
     
  5. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    10,072
    Ratings:
    +7,564
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Very little does as far as I understand. Israel has been digging and found very little.
     
  6. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,454
    Ratings:
    +7,768
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    46,072
    Ratings:
    +19,014
    Religion:
    Love
    There was a pretty decent assertion that crossing the "Red" sea was really the "Reed" sea a while ago because the wind patterns can push back the water exposing dry land. But that, of course, illustrates that taking the Bible as literal history is a mistake in at least almost all cases.
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,176
    Ratings:
    +1,733
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    There is a lot of archaeological findings that do support the Bible narratives, both of real people and events, and dates.
    More Evidence

    While we have evidence written on both soft and hard materials...
    Many critics continue to oppose this evidence - making claims that they cannot prove, and therefore has no validity.,

    Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered
    Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research.

    Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."


    Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia
    The oldest manuscripts discovered yet, including those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, date to about the 2nd century BCE. The common traditional dating of the Pentateuch suggests it was written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE. Some secular scholars, who tend to suggest latter dates, believe that there was a final redaction between 900-450 BCE. The traditional view is that all five books were written in immediate succession, but some scholars believe that Deuteronomy was written later than the other four books. Religious and secular scholars generally agree that the other books of the Bible were written at a latter date than the Pentateuch.

    A significant number of apocryphal works was written in the Second Temple Period (530 BCE — 70 CE); see also Second Temple Judaism.

    It seems apparent that these critics are the ones doing the editing - reading the texts, and then dating them after the events.

    What these critics would have you believe is that events took place, at a period of history between conquering nations nations - Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Moab, Ammon, etc. etc. Persia... and others, and a people came along and recorded all these events accurately to the T.
    So that later, in our time, when archaeologist dig in these places, they find these precise details etched in stone. :dizzy:

    Who ever here of such genius?
    Whoever wrote these text should have a monument erected with the inscription - "The Only Super Cons In History".

    It is evident that these critics will go down fighting to the very end, despite the extent of the evidence. If the evidence does not include every single piece of narrative... there is no evidence, that will do it for some. :(
     
    #8 nPeace, Oct 24, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  9. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    56,755
    Ratings:
    +14,947
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Archaeology supports certain elements of the Bible - e.g. the existence of certain kings, cities, and states - but also refutes certain important elements of the Bible - e.g. a global flood and a literal exodus from Egypt.

    Archaeology is silent on most of what the Bible describes.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,814
    Ha ha ha. Clearly you are not a student of music.
     
  11. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    27,555
    Ratings:
    +9,260
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    The various books use History in their themes, and they are written long before modern archeology begins to unravel the lost knowledge of the past, but History shows that several Bible stories are written as antagonists of the stories and myths of the Egyptians and Babylonians. Gilgamesh, a story lost for a long time and now known again, informs that the story of Noah with peace as its theme is a converted version of another story glorifying battle prowess. The Egyptian Pharaohs spread the belief that a strong people ought to oppress surrounding peoples. The Babylonians worshiped Marduk, who was the monotheistic god of might is right. In many books the Bible makes no mention of Babylon's actual gods but alludes to them as it does to Babylon's kings. Babylon is famed as a great city, and historically it is. The Bible's prophets protest against it as a terrible place, but without history its terror is obscure. What was the problem with Babylon? Now we know; but the Bible's stylistic allusions were never enough to inform us. There was once a great sucking void caused by a lack of historical reference. All we knew were the stories in the Bible. We knew the stories, and so we accepted them as trite History, but they were not. They were moral stories making use of historical themes.
     
  12. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,814
    Does science support music? What an odd question.

    Here i have 5 species of guitars and i would say science and religion both have played roles in their evolution! The vest guess we have are these creatures date baxk 1 milion years when some ancestor took a srick and beat it on a log in ryrhmm to their heart beat

    Now science is new and a very young phenomenolgy talking about a much much older phenomenolgy. So can a young phenomenolgy actually be objective from an old phenomonolgy seems to be the question? No.
     
  13. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    31,045
    Ratings:
    +13,892
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    The main intent of the Bible, namely teaching that God created all and that he sets for us morals to follow cannot be objectively ascertained. However, one can ascertain it for themselves through faith, which by definition is not always reliant on objectivity.
     
  14. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    21,977
    Ratings:
    +16,572
    Religion:
    None
    Yes there are places mentioned in the bible that archeology confirms existed. And there are people in the bible that history confirms lived.

    There are places mentioned in harry potter that exist.

    Throwing in a little reality helps to make a story more believable
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    27,426
    Ratings:
    +10,707
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Well archeology does support references concerning a number of dates, places, and times. However nothing concerning actual events as it applies to biblical characters in the context they are potrayed. Dates are off such as Herod supposedly killing off all the newborn and Pontius Pilates position in government during the time Christ was allegedly alive.

    There no doubt the archaeological value of the Bible as an ancient mythological work of literature.
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,176
    Ratings:
    +1,733
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    If you check the reference I posted you should see that actuals events with regard to Biblical characters are verified.

    Dates may be off where secular history cannot be verified to be accurate. I don't find your information correct however.
    Perhaps you have a source with that information?
    See Herod - Wikipedia
     
  17. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    3,765
    Ratings:
    +964
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    It seems to me you've been listening to the wrong "experts" and let them do the thinking for you. An "expert" is presenting more than just facts. He is presenting opinion. This opinion can be based on the facts but also can be based on his/her own bias and assumptions.

    Therefore when saying that archaeology doesn't support the Bible you should be looking at the actual facts and not just the interpretation of the facts by so called "experts" who wouldn't give any credence to the Bible even if they thought they could because they're afraid of ridicule.
     
  18. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    27,426
    Ratings:
    +10,707
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    All Wikipedia does is reference the Bible by which Herod Antipas is best known for.

    The Bible is not a valid source for archaeological information aside from the mythology surrounding Herod.

    I don't think there is too much information on Herod himself and the algorithms of Google makes it a very difficult find without the mythology from the Bible that is attached to him....

    BBC - Religions - Christianity: King Herod


    Same goes for Pontius Pilate....


    Historical Notes: Pontius Pilate: a name set in stone
     
  19. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    3,765
    Ratings:
    +964
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    You've clearly never read Josephus who talks about Herod extensively and in a good way. He actually praises Herod a lot. But also shows many of his failings and faults.
     
  20. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    27,426
    Ratings:
    +10,707
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Are you sure you're talking about Herod Antipas, and not his father Herod the Great?
     
Loading...