Archaeology and the Bible

[Kenny]

Because they are speaking to the end premise of the book. It's entirely possible for true events to be used in a work of fiction.

But to think that different authors will say the same thing and, in some cases, not know what the other wrote--I would be hard pressed that so many authors decided to build the fictional story with more fiction.

 

[Debateable]

Of course... you can't substantiate your position.

But if it is true, historical references will confirm it.

I can substantiate my position just as much if not more than you can.

 

[metis]

But to think that different authors will say the same thing and, in some cases, not know what the other wrote--I would be hard pressed that so many authors decided to build the fictional story with more fiction.

But at least in some cases it may be that they were based on the same oral tradition since the books, such as the gospels, were not written until decades after the fact.

However, what's interesting is that the synoptic gospels, although similar in most of the narratives, are still not really carbon-copies of each other. That leads me to believe that the authors probably injected some other sources as well rather than each being copied just from one source ("Q"). IOW, it could be like "OK, here's what I heard from Joe, but I picked up something a bit different from Jane, so I'll put hers in because she's cuter".

 

[Debateable]

But to think that different authors will say the same thing and, in some cases, not know what the other wrote--I would be hard pressed that so many authors decided to build the fictional story with more fiction.

It was an oral history passed down. Everyone in the region knew of it. That's no miracle.

Here's a test for you. Go to the area of the New Testament that talks about the crucifixion and resurrection and read through all 4 accounts. Write down the major points that each said happened. I think you will find it astounding how little they agree on just about anything. The keystone for Christianity couldn't be shrouded in any more doubt. The only real agreement is he died and he came back. They don't even come close to agreeing on how long he was dead before he arose, where he showed up at and who he spoke to. Those are some pretty critical details that have MAJOR discrepancies.

This isn't even to mention the fact that there are multiple figures in history that have nearly the exact same story of Jesus before Jesus lived.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Having some historical references doesn't make it true. Nobody would argue that the Bible is all fiction, ...

Many have come close. More precisely, they argue that the Tanakh was a late, post-exilic fabrication of little value in seeking to understand so-called biblical history.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Funny how often the alleged "stories and legends" some claim the Bible contains, are confirmed in great detail by archeological discoveries. Far from "distorted", these accounts are accurate history, IMO. It would be strange, indeed, if Pharaoh's army drowned in a sea of reeds. As Exodus 15:4,5 describes; "Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has cast into the sea, And his finest warriors have sunk into the Red Sea. The surging waters covered them; down into the depths they sank like a stone." Hardly a sea of reeds, IMO.

Well, let's not go too far, but you do have a point....To a point.

What is easy to forget for us nontheist types sometimes is that there is history to be gleaned from these old books. I tend to view the it like the Viking sagas...History grossly exaggerated into legend.

 

[Kenny]

Here's a test for you. Go to the area of the New Testament that talks about the crucifixion and resurrection and read through all 4 accounts. Write down the major points that each said happened. I think you will find it astounding how little they agree on just about anything. The keystone for Christianity couldn't be shrouded in any more doubt. The only real agreement is he died and he came back. They don't even come close to agreeing on how long he was dead before he arose, where he showed up at and who he spoke to. Those are some pretty critical details that have MAJOR discrepancies.

This isn't even to mention the fact that there are multiple figures in history that have nearly the exact same story of Jesus before Jesus lived.

I thought we were talking about the Tannakh? Did you want to start a new story-line?

You might want to read Cold Case Christianity to answer the above statements. It validates your statements which supports my position.

 

[Debateable]

I thought we were talking about the Tannakh? Did you want to start a new story-line?

You might want to read Cold Case Christianity to answer the above statements. It validates your statements which supports my position.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with the Tannakh. I'm sure it's much like the other religions/gods of this world. 100% man made with some actual world events sprinkled in.

Given that there has been an estimated 28,000,000 other gods throughout history, the likelihood that this is THE ONE is next to zero.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Admittedly I'm not familiar with the Tannakh.

That is remarkable.

BTW, it's spelled Tanakh (or, somewhat idiosyncratically. TaNaKh).

Given that there has been an estimated 28,000,000 other gods throughout history, the likelihood that this is THE ONE is next to zero.

That statement is mathematical drivel. Beyond that, it has little relevance to this thread.

 

[Sapiens]

This has been addresses an inordinate number of times. Despite incessant and shallow attempts to ridicule it, the Exodus Narrative remains powerful and there is good reason to believe that it has historical roots.

What good reason would that be? It seems that the arguments against it having occurred are far more reasonable.

Ok... Let me see if I understand correctly...

Although we have the following archaeological discovery of the Elba Tablets:

The Ebla Tablets - Sodom and Gomorrah - Former Things - Biblical Archaeology and The Bible

And, although it lists all the cities correctly as what was written in the account in Genesis and verifies the geopolitical condition of that time...

I am to assume that it was some guy who wanted to invent a story (although no one was buying stories) and just happened to write everything correctly and invented Abraham while he was at it?

Most likely folk tales compressed with actual geography.

There's no army that is there in the red sea or mass grave lying at its bottom. Just some chariots (parts) had been found near its shoreline.

No chariot parts, just echinoderms.

There are two ways to address the Exodus: as history

1. there are the various adolescent/sophomoric efforts to mock/dismiss the Charlton Heston Exodus, and
2. there are the many (often competing) efforts to determine the extent to which the book of Exodus informs our understanding of Israelite ethnogenesis.

Whatever rocks your boat ...

Show me the firepits, the kitchen middens, the burials. Two million people make a real mess.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok... Let me see if I understand correctly...

Although we have the following archaeological discovery of the Elba Tablets:

The Ebla Tablets - Sodom and Gomorrah - Former Things - Biblical Archaeology and The Bible

And, although it lists all the cities correctly as what was written in the account in Genesis and verifies the geopolitical condition of that time...

I am to assume that it was some guy who wanted to invent a story (although no one was buying stories) and just happened to write everything correctly and invented Abraham while he was at it?

You're missing the point, Ken. Homer wrote about Troy -- and guess what, even though everybody thought it was mythical, Troy existed. You can even tell there were wars there, just like Homer said. But the existence of Troy is hardly the proof of the existence of everything else Homer wrote about -- including Zeus and Athena and Achilles who was immune to hurt from having been dipped in the river Styx (from Hades). In the same way as we do today (like E.L. Doctorow in Ragtime) ancient writers wrote about people and places they knew -- and then ADDED THE STUFF THEY WANTED TO TELL to suit their own purposes. The existence of 5 cities of the plains no more proves that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt than the existence of Troy proves the Cyclopes or Circe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This has been addresses an inordinate number of times. Despite incessant and shallow attempts to ridicule it, the Exodus Narrative remains powerful and there is good reason to believe that it has historical roots.

What good reason would that be? It seems that the arguments against it having occurred are far more reasonable.

Against "it"? What, precisely, is "it"?

Would you, for examle. argue against the proposition that a people named Israel existed prior to 1200 BCE. Or that a group referred to as "Hebrews" played a formative role in Israel ethnogenesis? Or that these YHWH-centric folk originated from the south. Or that unique cultural markers were introduces into the highlands circa 1300 BCE?

 

[Debateable]

That is remarkable.

BTW, it's spelled Tanakh (or, somewhat idiosyncratically. TaNaKh).

That statement is mathematical drivel. Beyond that, it has little relevance to this thread.

I simply spelled it the way KenS did.

Mathematical drivel huh? It's an estimate.

Estimating N from religions
Adherents.com claims to have figures for 4,200 religious groups currently existing on Earth.

Using the ratio of current population to the total number of people who have ever lived, we get an estimate of 63,000 religious groups throughout human history. (Only Homo sapiens' religions are being considered. It may well be that other hominids believed in god or gods, but it would be pure guesswork to estimate the number of gods they believed in.)

The modern dominant (that is, have the most adherents) religions are monotheistic, but they are few in number. Wikipedia lists 309 Hindu deities. The ancient Hittites claimed to have 1000 deities in their pantheon. So for a rough estimate of the average number of deities per religion, we'll take the average of these 3 figures, giving 440 deities per religion.

This gives an estimate of N = 28,000,000.

 

[Kenny]

Admittedly I'm not familiar with the Tannakh. I'm sure it's much like the other religions/gods of this world. 100% man made with some actual world events sprinkled in.

Given that there has been an estimated 28,000,000 other gods throughout history, the likelihood that this is THE ONE is next to zero.

Unless it is, THE ONE!

 

[Kenny]

BTW, it's spelled Tanakh (or, somewhat idiosyncratically. TaNaKh).

You don't know how much I appreciate that info. I have looked it up on the internet and it seem like there is a plethora of spellings and I could never figure out which one was correct.

 

[Kenny]

You're missing the point, Ken. Homer wrote about Troy -- and guess what, even though everybody thought it was mythical, Troy existed. You can even tell there were wars there, just like Homer said. But the existence of Troy is hardly the proof of the existence of everything else Homer wrote about -- including Zeus and Athena and Achilles who was immune to hurt from having been dipped in the river Styx (from Hades). In the same way as we do today (like E.L. Doctorow in Ragtime) ancient writers wrote about people and places they knew -- and then ADDED THE STUFF THEY WANTED TO TELL to suit their own purposes. The existence of 5 cities of the plains no more proves that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt than the existence of Troy proves the Cyclopes or Circe.

I understand what you are saying. But, IMV, it still isn't applicable.

If I find a history book that talks about the Civil war, I just can't throw it in the garbage just because Homer wrote about Troy and used real cities.

 

[leibowde84]

I am always amazed how many times archaeology confirms what was written in the Tannakh.

Once again, another stone is turned and another discovery is found:

"The palace was built for the Assyrian King Sennarcherib, expanded by his son Esarhaddon, and renovated by his grandson King Ashurbanipal, according to the Telegraph, which notes that the palace was partly destroyed during the sack of Nineveh in 612 B.C. Sennacherib’s invasion of the ancient kingdom of Judah is extensively documented in the Bible. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal are also mentioned in scripture, although feature less prominently."

Biblical king's palace uncovered beneath shrine destroyed by ISIS

Why does this amaze you? I would assume that those who wrote the Tannakh would have gotten the history, landmarks, kings, etc. right. But, that in no way supports the claims regarding God or supernatural events.

 

[Valjean]

You don't know how much I appreciate that info. I have looked it up on the internet and it seem like there is a plethora of spellings and I could never figure out which one was correct.

I'd say the correct one would be in the original Hebrew script.
Transliteration can be a pretty subjective art.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I
Mathematical drivel huh? It's an estimate.

No, it's a demonstration of complete ignorance on what likelihood/probability means. You're not helping yourself here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You don't know how much I appreciate that info. I have looked it up on the internet and it seem like there is a plethora of spellings and I could never figure out which one was correct.

It is an acronym for Torah - Nevi'im - Ketuvim.

In Hebrew, Ketuvim (or writings) is spelled with a kaf which is typically transliterated as Kh (see here).