Green Gaia
Veteran Member
As of yet there is no evidence of the Biblical account of the destruction of these cities either....
-
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!
Is the bible historically accurate?
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, "Whoopdy do. Archeologists found something!" The Illiad and the Odyssey are archeologically and historically accurate to a degree too...does this make them the inspired word of god?
The bible was written by people of the time. If they didn't know their way around their own country, it would be even more reason to set the bible aside :retarded: ...then again, my sense of direction is atrocious--I would like to think that people like what I write anyhow!
The general consensus I get from people here who don't believe in the bible, is not that the bible is completely false. I think many people would agree with me (at least to a point) that it is perfectly possible Jesus lived and preached (just wasn't the son of god, o' course), and that even the most mythical tales could have some basis in reality. Soddom and Gomorrah, for example--city burnings happen all the time; it's not unusual for superstitious natives to make up wild stories about them.
In closing, archeological evidence helps to prove the time the bible was written in, and perhaps by whom, but it doesn't do squat for all the 'divine inspiration' stuff.
The bible was written by people of the time. If they didn't know their way around their own country, it would be even more reason to set the bible aside :retarded: ...then again, my sense of direction is atrocious--I would like to think that people like what I write anyhow!
The general consensus I get from people here who don't believe in the bible, is not that the bible is completely false. I think many people would agree with me (at least to a point) that it is perfectly possible Jesus lived and preached (just wasn't the son of god, o' course), and that even the most mythical tales could have some basis in reality. Soddom and Gomorrah, for example--city burnings happen all the time; it's not unusual for superstitious natives to make up wild stories about them.
In closing, archeological evidence helps to prove the time the bible was written in, and perhaps by whom, but it doesn't do squat for all the 'divine inspiration' stuff.
linwood
Well-Known Member
linwood said:
Like the finding of Jericho...it is there but it was in no way a great city with towering walls nor was it there at the time the Bible says the Israelites destroyed it.
It was essentially a little camp of sheperds.
Here`s a story on Biblical archeology
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html
Please cite your source for this archeological evidence.true blood said:
true blood
Active Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
I lost my source but it is well known in archeological circles that the Dead Sea region has been searched for many years. Gen. gives the location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side are six river valleys flowing into the Dead Sea. On five of these valleys five cities have been discovered. The northern most is Bab edh-Drha. Dr. Willian Albright, renown archeologist, searched here for Sodom and Gomorrha in 1924. More digging was done in 1965, 1967 and 1973 by Dr. Bryant Wood, in which the other cities were discovered and Bab edh-Drha has been concluded to be Sodom.
As with Jericho, several archeologist have studied this site. Carl Watzinger 1907-1909, John Garstang in 1930, Kathleen Kenyon in 1950s. In response to a previous poster referring to Jericho as being a little camp of shepards, these archeologist who studied the site would disagree. Jericho has been found with a system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a wall 15 feet high. At the top of this wall was an eight foot wall supported from behind by an earthen rampart. Further more, structures were found behind this wall and then another wall surrounded the rest of the city. The remarkable thing is these city walls have been found to have fallen inward, not outward. A thick layer of soot indicates the city was destroyed by fire and every room was filled with bricks. Also large amounts of grain has been found at the site. All these details are consistant with biblical account.
I agree with Cerd with her statement that archeology does not prove divine inspiration of the Bible but rather the historic accuracy but I do not think divine inspiration is the topic of this thread. It's impossible to prove divine inspiration let alone an invisible God. But discoveries like the Hittites and the House of David have silenced many critics.
That is a remarkable sentence that pretty much sums up everything worth saying about your presumed "facts".true blood said:
How on earth did the discovery of the Hittites silence critics?true blood said:
The Tanach is an admixture of myth, folklore, politics and poetry. That it would reference real cities or peoples (often anachronistically) proves absolutely nothing. All available evidence argues against a Young Earth Creation, the Global Flood, long-lived Patriarchs, and the Exodus/Conquest.
So many people here want concrete "PROOF" for everything.
Each book of the bible was written by a different writer, for different groups of people, for different reasons/needs, at different times. If the historical happenings of the times played a part in the message the book was trying to convey, then it may have been written about accurately. People of the time of the "historical events" were more concerned about surviving than recording history. Today, we know the importance of recording history accurately but that was not the point back then. There was no play by play!
BTW - it's a known fact that the Egyptians were known for "editing" their history if it didn't speak in their favor. They just left it out! I don't think the Egyptians wanted the world to know that their pharoah, the entire army and priesthood was lost in the sea chasing a bunch of Jews! That would make them vulnerable to all the surrounding conquering nations - an open door to conquer Egypt! It would make sense that they would edit that! Anyway....
Many of the books were written many, many years after an event and the writer was divinely inspired to convey a MESSAGE that God wanted the people to know. God used the writers intellect and style to convey the message. It doesn't mean that the event didn't happen, it just means the message was more important to God's purpose.
At the beginning of each book in the bible there is an introduction that gives the reader an idea of the reasons that book was written. It can bring a little better focus if that is read first. Proper exegesis is also important - to interpret what the text says not what you think it says for your own agenda.
And, mixed up in all of this is - FAITH! Why would it matter if there was a real town named Jerhico? Why would it matter if it's walls were burnt down or not? It doesn't matter if there are no concrete written (official government) documents to prove Jesus' existence (other than the Apostles and/or Josephius). That's not the purpose of the book! Go beyond PROOF! Have a little faith and listen to what God is trying to tell you!
Each book of the bible was written by a different writer, for different groups of people, for different reasons/needs, at different times. If the historical happenings of the times played a part in the message the book was trying to convey, then it may have been written about accurately. People of the time of the "historical events" were more concerned about surviving than recording history. Today, we know the importance of recording history accurately but that was not the point back then. There was no play by play!
BTW - it's a known fact that the Egyptians were known for "editing" their history if it didn't speak in their favor. They just left it out! I don't think the Egyptians wanted the world to know that their pharoah, the entire army and priesthood was lost in the sea chasing a bunch of Jews! That would make them vulnerable to all the surrounding conquering nations - an open door to conquer Egypt! It would make sense that they would edit that! Anyway....
Many of the books were written many, many years after an event and the writer was divinely inspired to convey a MESSAGE that God wanted the people to know. God used the writers intellect and style to convey the message. It doesn't mean that the event didn't happen, it just means the message was more important to God's purpose.
At the beginning of each book in the bible there is an introduction that gives the reader an idea of the reasons that book was written. It can bring a little better focus if that is read first. Proper exegesis is also important - to interpret what the text says not what you think it says for your own agenda.
And, mixed up in all of this is - FAITH! Why would it matter if there was a real town named Jerhico? Why would it matter if it's walls were burnt down or not? It doesn't matter if there are no concrete written (official government) documents to prove Jesus' existence (other than the Apostles and/or Josephius). That's not the purpose of the book! Go beyond PROOF! Have a little faith and listen to what God is trying to tell you!
Pah
Uber all member
The problem, DianJo, if there is error or myth in one part of the Bible, then there may be error and myth in many parts. I would be difficult to tell the difference by a reader.
I don't see that as a problem if you focus on the message.
But let me say also, that there are better sources than Josephius. His annotation is a forgery. Other contemporaries at least do not have that problem but they only mention Christianity not Christ. The Gospels also come into a fair share of scholary doubt with only a few of Pauls epistles widely accepted. Paul's were the earliest written and those were about 30 years after the ascention. Paul was not a witness to the historical Christ and it seems that, due to the dating of all the other New Testament books, were any of the anonymous authors.
Again, it is the message that seems important and you have that.
-pah-
I don't see that as a problem if you focus on the message.
But let me say also, that there are better sources than Josephius. His annotation is a forgery. Other contemporaries at least do not have that problem but they only mention Christianity not Christ. The Gospels also come into a fair share of scholary doubt with only a few of Pauls epistles widely accepted. Paul's were the earliest written and those were about 30 years after the ascention. Paul was not a witness to the historical Christ and it seems that, due to the dating of all the other New Testament books, were any of the anonymous authors.
Again, it is the message that seems important and you have that.
-pah-
Absolute rubbish.DianJo said:
No evidence. None. Zip. None among the Egyptians. None among the various peoples with highly interdependent diplomatic relationships with the Egyptians. No weakening of the Egyptian Dynasty. No disruption of trade. No famine resulting from the plagues. No evidence of a couple of million Jews wandering in the desert.
The Exodus is an absurdity, and to argue that the Egyptians hid the evidence is no less so. It betrays a near pathetic ignorance of Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian history.
meogi
Well-Known Member
And if moses never existed, what becomes of the pentateuch?
But I`m all with DianJo`s view on faith... that`s what a religion is, you don`t need evidence to support it. You need evidence (or miss-evidence as the case may usually be) to convince other people to believe in faith.
But I`m all with DianJo`s view on faith... that`s what a religion is, you don`t need evidence to support it. You need evidence (or miss-evidence as the case may usually be) to convince other people to believe in faith.
true blood
Active Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
The Hittites played a major role in Old Testament history. They interacted with figures such as Abraham up to Solomon. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East. Prior to the late 19th century nothing was known of the Hittites outside of the Bible, therefor many critics alleged that they were an invention by Biblical authors. Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written however discoveries have confirmed these rites and ceremonies. Also the Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations that they had conquered. Dozens of these have been found and translated and now provide a better understanding of Old Testament treaties. It has helped confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study like language, religious, social and political practices of ancient Middle East.
King David's existance was also questioned by critics because no evidence existed of him outside the bible until as recent as 1993. Now many critics reconsider their view of the Davidic kingdom. Dallas Morning News, 6 August 1993, check it out. Translation teams have been carefully translating ancient writings.
All the events of the bible took place at a certain time, in a particular culture, influenced by a particular social and political structure. Archaeology gives insight to these areas as well as supplement topics outside of the bible. Most of what we know of all ancient religions, pagan, politics, social, kingdoms and empires come from archaeological findings and since christianity is based on actual events the field plays a key role.
Is it possible for you to be any more vague? Reread what you wrote. You have managed to say absolutely nothing of substance. You have suggested not a single piece of probative evidence. Ironically, what we know of the Hittites creates very real difficulties for a large number of Exodus/Conquest proponents.true blood said:
Tell me, true blood, when was this Exodus of yours, and where is your evidence?
true blood
Active Member
It's obvious you're hostile to a biblical worldview and are quite skeptical, so be it, it doesn't matter with me. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. No God, no wisdom. The point of this thread is the historical accuracy of the bible and archaeology has proved many events. I'm not saying archaeology has proven divine inspiration of the bible, but rather the events. Get the difference? Also there are limits to archaeology, it cannot recreate the process under study. The evidence left behind must be studied, interpreted, revised, and reinterpreted when new evidence is found. Every conclusion must be re-evaluated after more discoveries. What's interesting is no discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. What do you have to say about that? But alas only a fraction of sites have been surveyed, and only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated, and only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined and only a small part of what is examined is actually published. Tick, tock...only time will tell but so far the bible has proven to be an accurate and trustworthy source of history.
Actually, I'm not at all hostile to the bible.true blood said:
Confucians? Daoists? Buddhists?true blood said:
You have asserted this more than once but have yet to offer a shred of proof. In fact, to the extent that archaeology can prove anything, it has proved the Exodus/Conquest narrative to be myth.true blood said:
Faust
Active Member
True Blood writes that no discovery has ever controverted a single bible reference.
Then why does the Bible contain stories of cities that did not exist until after the time period and stories about cities that did not exist until well after the time frame of the narrative. Also stories that include domesticated camels 900 years before the domestication of the camel?
Try reading "Don't Know Much About The Bible" by Kenneth C. Davis.
It is very informative, very well written, and references all of the info. it contains to other verified scholarly works.
Then why does the Bible contain stories of cities that did not exist until after the time period and stories about cities that did not exist until well after the time frame of the narrative. Also stories that include domesticated camels 900 years before the domestication of the camel?
Try reading "Don't Know Much About The Bible" by Kenneth C. Davis.
It is very informative, very well written, and references all of the info. it contains to other verified scholarly works.