Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

[74x12]

Are you sure you're talking about Herod Antipas, and not his father Herod the Great?

I did mean Herod the Great. But that is the Herod that would have killed the babies in Bethlehem. The same one that died while they (Jesus, Joseph, Mary) were in Egypt. Antipas came later.

 

[oldbadger]

Very little does as far as I understand. Israel has been digging and found very little.

I don't think so!

Israel is full of archeology!

I remember that book written by a piano teacher which claimed that the story of Nazareth is a complete myth, all ;proven by negative archeology, when in fact it can be shown that Nazareth was almost certainly a flourishing community in the early first century.

In Britain we are still finding large ancient community centres and buildings which we never knew about , but failing to find evidence of communities which were well recorded. Time scatters evidence, somewhat.

But Nazareth is fairly well proven to have been genuine, imo.

 

[Altfish]

I don't think so!

Israel is full of archeology!

I remember that book written by a piano teacher which claimed that the story of Nazareth is a complete myth, all ;proven by negative archeology, when in fact it can be shown that Nazareth was almost certainly a flourishing community in the early first century.

In Britain we are still finding large ancient community centres and buildings which we never knew about , but failing to find evidence of communities which were well recorded. Time scatters evidence, somewhat.

But Nazareth is fairly well proven to have been genuine, imo.

I understood that there had been targeted searches for various places/items that had shown up very little evidence.
But I agree, we are back to proving a negative.

 

[oldbadger]

I understood that there had been targeted searches for various places/items that had shown up very little evidence.
But I agree, we are back to proving a negative.

Now, what evidence of a flourishing early 1st century community would archeology expect to find on (or around) Nazareth?

 

[oldbadger]

Very little does as far as I understand. Israel has been digging and found very little.

The country is full of ancient ruins, such as Jericho.

In the UK we have learned that much evidence comes out of the middens and cesspits........

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Yep......... there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the Exodus narratives.

It was the Reed Sea, a vast water complex of papyrus marshes.
Only the slaves would have worked in or ventured in such infested places.
No self-respecting Egyptian would have considered or dared to venture into those places.
Only the slaves knew the 'wades' and channels.
Only the slaves knew the effects of the spring and neap tides.
Only the slaves could predict the tidal bores and Wind blown surges.
An HAT/LAT (Highest/Lowest astronomical tide, usually Spring and Autumn equinoctial) delivers a very low water at full ebb, with the fastest flood tide causing tidal bores in wide/narrowing estuaries, leading to very high tides.
A powerful South Easterly Storm, possibly over two days, could cause a Storm Surge on top of the HAT tide + a Massive flood and possibly even a water-wall like a tsunami can produce.

I wonder how geologically stable the lower Red Sea is?

Anyway, the time, the Full Moon, the local slave knowledge......... yep..... historically the Exodus is true, based up[on the balance of probabilities. No probs there.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I don't think that the bible suggests that Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judea, Idumea and Samaria when Jesus was born, or maybe you can find a quote to support that?

But I doubt that you can.

 

[Altfish]

Now, what evidence of a flourishing early 1st century community would archeology expect to find on (or around) Nazareth?

I never mentioned Nazareth, so I don't know

 

[Altfish]

The country is full of ancient ruins, such as Jericho.

In the UK we have learned that much evidence comes out of the middens and cesspits........

Yes, but little has been found to tie that back to Biblical events.

 

[nPeace]

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

Anyone can claim something that happened in the past, is myth, just because they don't believe it.
No one saw the events described by scientist concerning the "Big Bang" to the present. Do we apply the same reasoning?
That's not the issue here.

The fact is, events, people, and time periods have been verified. No one expects miracles to leave a trail that you and other critics are looking for.

If a man changed water into wine, no one is going to find water wine and be able to say, "Aha. It's true!"
The only trail that would be left is a record of it -which we have - It is written.
If critics don't believe it, no amount of evidence will convince them.... Despite we have all the evidence available - the names of the people, the places, the time period... all fit together.

We already are aware that not every event is kept in the records of pagans, but it was recorded by the faithful.
In some cases however, there are events that are kept even though other details are omitted, as in the case of conquest of the Assyrians.
These are undeniable event recorded in the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You mean like the fact that the archaeology of Israel shows no sudden change in culture... as we would expect if the Exodus story was real?

If the indigenous Canaanites were pushed out by the Israelites, the archaeological record would show an abrupt change in culture: artifacts would suddenly go from "Canaanite-style" to "Israelite-style." Instead, what we see is gradual change over time, which is strong evidence that the people who became the Israelites were there in Israel all along and didn't suddenly come in from outside.

 

[74x12]

You mean like the fact that the archaeology of Israel shows no sudden change in culture... as we would expect if the Exodus story was real?

If the indigenous Canaanites were pushed out by the Israelites, the archaeological record would show an abrupt change in culture: artifacts would suddenly go from "Canaanite-style" to "Israelite-style." Instead, what we see is gradual change over time, which is strong evidence that the people who became the Israelites were there in Israel all along and didn't suddenly come in from outside.

You're forgetting that the Israelites were in Canaan first and then moved to Egypt. They never assimilated into Egyptian culture because they settled in their own cities in Egypt separate from Egyptian cities. This was likely because the Egyptians considered herds of sheep to be disgusting for some reason.

Their culture should be similar to the Canaanite culture. Closer to the Syrian culture however.

Besides, I maintain the archaeologists are slightly off on their dating of when the Exodus occurred. I believe it happened 150-200 years before what they say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're forgetting that the Israelites were in Canaan first and then moved to Egypt.

No, I'm not.

They never assimilated into Egyptian culture because they settled in their own cities in Egypt separate from Egyptian cities. This was likely because the Egyptians considered herds of sheep to be disgusting for some reason.

So then the archaeological record should show two discontinuities:

- the first when the Israelites were removed and the Canaanites moved into their place.
- the second when the Israelites returned, displacing the Canaanites.

... but we don't see two discontinuities. We see zero.

Their culture should be similar to the Canaanite culture. Closer to the Syrian culture however.

Besides, I maintain the archaeologists are slightly off on their dating of when the Exodus occurred. I believe it happened 150-200 years before what they say.

Which archaeologists claim that the Exodus even happened, let alone put a date on it?

 

[74x12]

So then the archaeological record should show two discontinuities:

- the first when the Israelites were removed and the Canaanites moved into their place.
- the second when the Israelites returned, displacing the Canaanites.

... but we don't see two discontinuities. We see zero.

You're forgetting the Israelites were nomadic tent dwellers in Canaan before they went to Egypt. if they did live in a house from time to time it would likely be one they had purchased from the Canaanites.

Which archaeologists claim that the Exodus even happened, let alone put a date on it?

They do not claim the Exodus happened, but they do place a time when the Exodus was "supposed" to happen (according to them, if the Bible is true) around the reign of Ramses II. There is no archaeological evidence it happened int his period. In fact it's basically completely refuted.

However there is archaeological evidence to believe it happened some time in the middle Kingdom period instead. In fact much evidence.

Even Jericho for example was deemed not to fit the Biblical account of this destruction by Israelites simply because it happened before the time period the archaeologists believed would fit the Bible. However, they could easily be wrong about their dating method. Once you change the dates then the Bible fits the archaeological evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

I never mentioned Nazareth, so I don't know

Fair enough.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but little has been found to tie that back to Biblical events.

Nor can it until technology advances even further.
I the UK we have trouble in discovering some evidence of known settlements, even castles, from circa 1000 years ago. What chance have biblical events got?

And so 'no evidence' doesn't mean 'no truth'. It's as easy as that.

 

[oldbadger]

You're forgetting the Israelites were nomadic tent dwellers in Canaan before they went to Egypt. if they did live in a house from time to time it would likely be one they had purchased from the Canaanites.

Finding historical evidence of itinerant peoples is extremely hard. In the UK our archeologists have recently found an enormous Roman villa, never before known about for sure. Such findings are only being found now with new digital technology, but to find evidence of roamers is very difficult.

 

[oldbadger]

You mean like the fact that the archaeology of Israel shows no sudden change in culture... as we would expect if the Exodus story was real?

What kinds evidence for change in culture were you thinking of?.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're forgetting the Israelites were nomadic tent dwellers in Canaan before they went to Egypt. if they did live in a house from time to time it would likely be one they had purchased from the Canaanites.

No, I'm not. Even nomadic people leave archaeological evidence.

They do not claim the Exodus happened,

Right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However there is archaeological evidence to believe it happened some time in the middle Kingdom period instead. In fact much evidence.

What evidence?