Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Hope]

Oh, and to all those going all moral and philosophical in this discussion of the Flood, please let's bring the thread back on topic. This thread is not about one's personal reasons for not wanting to believe in Biblical events---that has nothing to do with the evidence, and if you'd like to have such a discussion, we can do that in another thread. I'm just here to discuss the evidence for and against. Thanks.

 

[yossarian22]

Do you know of any other ancient myths that give dates?? This is a non-issue.

Exactly my point. You claim that because flooding is seen in a huge variety of cultures world wide, there must have been a world wide flood.
Statistically, it would be odd if most cultures didn't have a major flood story

I don't know how you can read those stories and be intellectually honest enough with yourself to still believe that. But suit yourself. I presented the evidence....that's all I can do.

Where would the water come from? Where would it go? Why are there still fish? The salt levels of the oceans would drop to the point that the salt water fish would die, but it would still bill salty enough to kill freshwater fish.

 

[Smoke]

I never understand how using modern (at least relatively speaking) fairy tales as proper analogies for ancient myths works.

What part is hard to understand?

Besides what are the elements that these fairy tales have in common? Besides the very vague element of a damsel in distress? You'd have to be more specific.

​

The common elements of these flood stories are so specific as to make it unlikely someone just made it up and then passed it along to the rest of the human race. It is more farfetched to believe in that idea than to believe that perhaps there really was a worldwide flood, that wiped out all of the population on earth except one family, and when that family began to multiply after the flood, their descendants carried with them the basic story of the flood as they dispersed across the globe, and as each generation moved farther away from the actual event, the story got changed, except for its most basic, common elements.

So, even supposing that all these legends sprang from a single, actual event -- something that seems unlikely to be true in the first place -- which one is factual? Considering the wide variation, is it really likely that any of them, including the biblical account, records actual facts in any significant detail?

Almost all cultures have myths about talking animals; do you think it likely that animals could talk in ancient times? Many royal houses have had myths of being descended from gods; do you think those are likely to be true?

Not yet. I'll get there.....I'm concentrating on one thing at a time here.

Well, this thread was supposed to be about archaeological evidence. Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on topics where there is some archaeological evidence, rather than arguing from the perceived similarities between myths?

 

[Smoke]

Oh, and to all those going all moral and philosophical in this discussion of the Flood, please let's bring the thread back on topic. This thread is not about one's personal reasons for not wanting to believe in Biblical events---that has nothing to do with the evidence, and if you'd like to have such a discussion, we can do that in another thread. I'm just here to discuss the evidence for and against. Thanks.

Good advice. Let's get back to archaeology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, even supposing that all these legends sprang from a single, actual event -- something that seems unlikely to be true in the first place -- which one is factual? Considering the wide variation, is it really likely that any of them, including the biblical account, records actual facts in any significant detail?

I've always had a feeling that I was descended from Frost Ogres.

 

[Hope]

Good advice. Let's get back to archaeology.

I'd be more than happy to.

Also, please specify which ancient cultures you're talking about.


Since floods do happen, even major ones, I'd expect that there would be plenty of "the day the big flood hit" stories all over the world.

I posted the myths about the flood in response to these requests.

 

[Smoke]

I've always had a feeling that I was descended from Frost Ogres.

YmirGF actually is one!

 

[Smoke]

So, for starters, how about these problems, mention in a review of Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed?

• 
  [*]According to the Biblical chronology, Abraham and the patriarchs of Genesis were active roughly 2000 BCE. The stories make repeated mention of camel caravans. However, archaeology has shown that camels were not domesticated until much later; camel caravans were no earlier than 1000 BCE.
  [*]There is no evidence for the Exodus as the Bible describes it. The Bible does not give an exact date for the Exodus, nor refer to the pharaoh of the time by name. There is a stele of Pharaoh Merneptah mentions a people named Israel living in Canaan by 1200 BCE, so the Exodus should have occurred some time before that. However, there is no Egyptian documentation of any large group of slaves of any ethnicity leaving Egypt during a likely time frame. The population of Egypt was not over 5 million at the time, and it is out of the question that nearly 1 million people could leave without some kind of record or evidence.
  [*]There is no evidence for a swift, decisive military conquest of Canaan by Israelites by 1200 BC. And it does seem implausible that a ragtag group of slaves, however numerous, could have managed a well coordinated attack on an entire region after 40 years of wandering in the desert.
  [*]According to the bible, King David and his son Solomon reigned over a large territory, from Mesopotamia to Egypt, and had the wealth to build impressive temples and palaces. This monarchy would have had to have ruled in the range of 1000 to 900 BCE or so. Yet archaeologists have not found any monumental architecture at all dating to this time in Judah. Apparently Jerusalem was a rather small village at the time.

 

[Hope]

Exactly my point. You claim that because flooding is seen in a huge variety of cultures world wide, there must have been a world wide flood.
Statistically, it would be odd if most cultures didn't have a major flood story

You missed my point. My point was that myths do not need dates to line up in order to prove or disprove their original source was factual. Myths are not science. They merely point the way to something. Such as the myth of King Arthur pointing to a real man. Maybe your definition and understanding of myths are different than mine.

Statistically speaking, it would be odd if so many cultures had such similar flood stories if the stories hadn't originated from a common source. Any culture can have flood stories----it's the nature of the flood stories that we are discussing, not the fact that there are flood stories.

Where would the water come from? Where would it go? Why are there still fish? The salt levels of the oceans would drop to the point that the salt water fish would die, but it would still bill salty enough to kill freshwater fish.

I've already explained the water part. Here's a good article I found answering your questions about the fish:

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

 

[yossarian22]

You missed my point. My point was that myths do not need dates to line up in order to prove or disprove their original source was factual. Myths are not science. They merely point the way to something. Such as the myth of King Arthur pointing to a real man. Maybe your definition and understanding of myths are different than mine.

Myths need hard evidence to prove that they started off as an actual vent. Atlantis, for instance, is supported by many myths in many different cultures, but it does not mean if it was true.

Statistically speaking, it would be odd if so many cultures had such similar flood stories if the stories hadn't originated from a common source.

In modern times yes, but the spread of information was slow due to high travel times and was often stopped by areas which with current technology were impassable, like an ocean or a large desert.

Any culture can have flood stories----it's the nature of the flood stories that we are discussing, not the fact that there are flood stories.

Places flood. Its a fact of life. The presences of flood stories does not prove or even hint at a massive global flood.

I've already explained the water part. Here's a good article I found answering your questions about the fish:

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Wow, such an impeccable and obviously unbiased source, but if I must...
1. Their salinity argument is "Salmon and other fish move from salt to freshwater, so the other fish can adapt". Sorry, but this does not explain the presence of fish who are very sensitive to the water's salinity content.
2. Their temperature argument is "Fish can take a large variety of temperatures" Yep, for a short period of time. Its why you don't see tropical fish taking vacations in the south pole.
3. turbitdity "Some species of fish can survive being heavily coated with dust" Bully for those species. It does not account for the presence of fish who are very sensitive.
4. "It is possible for massive fresh water floods to for a blanket of fresh water of salt water." This would kill more fish then it helped. The fish in the freshwater blanket would have little to no food and be unable to dive to get some. Also, the presence of a massive flood of freshwater is broken because the fresh water would drag mega-tons of dirt into the ocean, raising its salinity massively.
5. This Mt. St. Helen's argument is idiotic and contradictory to the extreme. THey acknowledge that the local fish died out, and the fish are not back. Why are there so many unique species of fish then?

 

[Hope]

Places flood. Its a fact of life. The presences of flood stories does not prove or even hint at a massive global flood.

I give up. I don't think I can state any more clearly what I've already said, in various ways, over and over. I cannot force anyone to see the obvious.

Wow, such an impeccable and obviously unbiased source, but if I must...
1. Their salinity argument is "Salmon and other fish move from salt to freshwater, so the other fish can adapt". Sorry, but this does not explain the presence of fish who are very sensitive to the water's salinity content.
2. Their temperature argument is "Fish can take a large variety of temperatures" Yep, for a short period of time. Its why you don't see tropical fish taking vacations in the south pole.
3. turbitdity "Some species of fish can survive being heavily coated with dust" Bully for those species. It does not account for the presence of fish who are very sensitive.
4. "It is possible for massive fresh water floods to for a blanket of fresh water of salt water." This would kill more fish then it helped. The fish in the freshwater blanket would have little to no food and be unable to dive to get some. Also, the presence of a massive flood of freshwater is broken because the fresh water would drag mega-tons of dirt into the ocean, raising its salinity massively.
5. This Mt. St. Helen's argument is idiotic and contradictory to the extreme. THey acknowledge that the local fish died out, and the fish are not back. Why are there so many unique species of fish then?

Well, I tried. I don't think the article was any more biased than anything you read by evolutionists.

 

[yossarian22]

I give up. I don't think I can state any more clearly what I've already said, in various ways, over and over. I cannot force anyone to see the obvious.
Well, I tried. I don't think the article was any more biased than anything you read by evolutionists.

Beh. If you turn out to be correct, I will eat my (figurative) hat.

 

[Hope]

So, for starters, how about these problems, mention in a review of Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed?

• 
  [*]According to the Biblical chronology, Abraham and the patriarchs of Genesis were active roughly 2000 BCE. The stories make repeated mention of camel caravans. However, archaeology has shown that camels were not domesticated until much later; camel caravans were no earlier than 1000 BCE.

Ok. I'll start with this bit. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I never knew about this particular problem. But it's been refuted:

What? No Camels?

 

[Smoke]

But it's been refuted:

What? No Camels?

That article overstates the case for an early date; however, you'll note that Finkelstein said there were no camel caravans at the time of Abraham.

 

[Hope]

• 
  [*]There is no evidence for the Exodus as the Bible describes it. The Bible does not give an exact date for the Exodus, nor refer to the pharaoh of the time by name. There is a stele of Pharaoh Merneptah mentions a people named Israel living in Canaan by 1200 BCE, so the Exodus should have occurred some time before that. However, there is no Egyptian documentation of any large group of slaves of any ethnicity leaving Egypt during a likely time frame. The population of Egypt was not over 5 million at the time, and it is out of the question that nearly 1 million people could leave without some kind of record or evidence.
  [*]There is no evidence for a swift, decisive military conquest of Canaan by Israelites by 1200 BC. And it does seem implausible that a ragtag group of slaves, however numerous, could have managed a well coordinated attack on an entire region after 40 years of wandering in the desert.

While I can't argue about all the details of these objections, it is important to note that many of these objections are only raised due to late dating of the exodus. If one dates the exodus of Israel at the same time as the expulsion of the Hyksos mentioned by the Egyptians, then many of these objections are then removed. Even Genesis contains an interesting verse: "A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock." ~Genesis 12:38

"Mixed multitude" definitely implies that the Israelites were not the only group of people leaving Egypt. So it's highly probable that the expulsion of the Hyksos coincided, or was one and the same, as the expulsion of Israel.

I hate to keep posting links, but it's too much good stuff to try to cram on here, so here's another site that goes into more detail about the relationship between Egypt and Israel, and also briefly touches on the conquest of Canaan:

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

 

[Atechi]

I give up. I don't think I can state any more clearly what I've already said, in various ways, over and over. I cannot force anyone to see the obvious.

The ark is less than a kilometer in total dimensons. It couldn't possibly of held all the animals alive Today, let alone the all the ones that have gone extinct in the intervening years. Let alone the fact that humankind came into being at the end of an ice age, Of course all early people had a flood story. The question is, why dont' all flood stories mention a ship that saved people?

Well, I tried. I don't think the article was any more biased than anything you read by evolutionists.

Yeah your right, it isn't any more biased, aside from the fact that isn't peer reviewed, isn't put under scrunity for authentication. Its accepted as fact from some omnibenevolent being who enjyos drowning children and babies.

 

[Hope]

That article overstates the case for an early date; however, you'll note that Finkelstein said there were no camel caravans at the time of Abraham.

I don't think the article overstates its case at all. It's very fair. I think Finkelstein might be the one overstating a bit. And I don't see how he can convincingly prove there were no caravans at the time. All in all, the no-camel theory is a bit weak in my opinion.

 

[Hope]

The ark is less than a kilometer in total dimensons. It couldn't possibly of held all the animals alive Today, let alone the all the ones that have gone extinct in the intervening years. Let alone the fact that humankind came into being at the end of an ice age, Of course all early people had a flood story. The question is, why dont' all flood stories mention a ship that saved people?

It didn't hold all the animals that are alive today.

Most of the flood stories do mention a boat or some type of vessel that saved a few people. Maybe you could read the actual stories and see for yourself.

Yeah your right, it isn't any more biased, aside from the fact that isn't peer reviewed, isn't put under scrunity for authentication. Its accepted as fact from some omnibenevolent being who enjyos drowning children and babies.

Not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that.

 

[Smoke]

"Mixed multitude" definitely implies that the Israelites were not the only group of people leaving Egypt. So it's highly probable that the expulsion of the Hyksos coincided, or was one and the same, as the expulsion of Israel.

But Israel wasn't expelled. Israel escaped, against the wishes of Pharaoh, who pursued them and died in the Red Sea. Ahmose I, on the other hand, lived another decade after the expulsion of the Hyksos. If we could prove that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same, that would disprove the Bible, not confirm it.

 

[Hope]

• 
  [*]There is no evidence for a swift, decisive military conquest of Canaan by Israelites by 1200 BC. And it does seem implausible that a ragtag group of slaves, however numerous, could have managed a well coordinated attack on an entire region after 40 years of wandering in the desert.

Just a few things I thought I'd point out about this statement. First of all, does the Bible explicitly say the conquest was swift and decisive?

Secondly----you're right. It is implausible that a ragtag group of slaves (ex-slaves, rather) could have managed the attacks they did. But does implausible equal impossible? No. Also, according to the Bible, the Israelites themselves considered the task daunting. Remember the guys who came back trembling in fear after spying out the land? But that's what makes the story all that more beautiful. God displayed His power through this underdog group of people.