Brian2
Veteran Member
I think it was around 2200 BC give or take.
-
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!
Historicity of Bible
- Thread starter PearlSeeker
- Start date
I think it was around 2200 BC give or take.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Which is the first problem, the Philistines did not live in the Levant until the 12th century BC.
The Philistines were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan from the 12th century BC until 604 BC, when their polity, after having already been subjugated for centuries by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, was finally destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Philistines - Wikipedia
leroy
Well-Known Member
I don’t know much about Abraham, but when it comes to the new testament (Gospels for example) it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that:
1 There were written by people who were well informed, (they had access to good reliable information) we don’t know who the authors where, but we know that they were very well informed.
2 they intended to tell the truth, the authors where not lying, they didn’t intended to write science fiction, they intended to write what actually happened.
From 1 and 2 it follows inductively that the documents are historically reliable and accepted as true.
You don’t have to accept miracles, but you do have to accept that events that where interpreted as miracle occurred.
lukethethird
unknown member
And yet the NT appears to be written for theological purposes.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Can you give evidence that Jesus was placed in a tomb?
Let's assume little or none. What might one reasonably infer from this?
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
According to literal biblical chronology Abraham's journey was around 2000 BC. The problem is that no archeological connection was found (and there should be).
Details in the narrative (camels, products of Arabian trade, Philistines, mention of Gerar... ) point to a time many centuries later (8th and 7th century BC) than reported in Bible.
Details in the narrative (camels, products of Arabian trade, Philistines, mention of Gerar... ) point to a time many centuries later (8th and 7th century BC) than reported in Bible.
They were well informed about Christian stories, beliefs, and teachings, most certainly. These are after all their own creation stories of the Christian faith.
First, telling the truth though stories, even parables or fictions, is still telling the truth, even if some of the details are not factually true. Truth in the gospels is in the meaning. That's where the focus is.
Secondly, "they intended to write what actually happened"? Really? Only Luke says that, and it is a literary device, not his declaration that he was a bonafide historian. His two part gospel of Luke/Acts is not comparable to actual historians of his day.
Aside from that, can you show me where it says that in the other gospels? You can't just assume this like that. The gospel writers were not historians, and no, Matthew didn't walk around writing stuff down as Jesus spoke, like I saw in that series The Chosen. Great series, but take things like that as Dallas Jenkin's "artistic licence". That's not what really happened.
Sorry, no it doesn't.
Sorry to be late to this thread but being in a different time zone can have its disadvantages......
Anyhow......Abraham is a good subject for discussion considering that his descendants are still alive and living in the world to this day, and that his lineage was an important record leading to the Messiah. It was part of Jesus’ credentials that he be Jewish, and able to trace his family line back to Abraham. The Jews kept accurate records, but when the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, those records were destroyed, but Messiah’s lineage was preserved in the scriptures.
The reason that I believe Abraham was such an important figure in history is because three major religions in the world base their faith on his existence, which to me is proof enough that this man lived.....and in all the places where scripture places him and his descendants.
None of those religions really agree on much except for Abraham being the one who was chosen by God to bring his people into existence and to give them his laws. And the only reason for that was to give his Messiah prophesied proof about where he was to come from. God chose the most faithful man in existence as the progenitor, (at the time of the Patriarchs)...the only man in scripture to be called “Jehovah’s friend”.
Two of these religions base their religious beliefs on Abraham’s son Isaac, whist the other one bases their religion on Abraham’s other son, Ishmael. Why would three competing religions base their faith on the same ‘fictitious’ man?
In the Bible, God reveals so many things that confirm aspects that are historical, such as locations that still exist...cities and rivers, landmarks and rulers that are historical. Babylon for example goes back before Abraham and his lineage in Jewish genealogical records goes back to Adam.
Since faith is not based on history, but can sometimes be used to confirm it, I personally do not depend on the often flawed records of history to provide me with “proof” for Abraham’s existence (or much else for that matter). The history of the Jews was recorded “warts and all”, and Abraham is named as their father. If people need to use history to discredit the Bible, then perhaps we need to read history through the eyes of those conquered people whose land was stolen from them by nations who still exist and who still report that history in a very distorted way.
FWIW....here is the story of Abraham from the Bible’s perspective, which is the only source I trust...
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000060
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes so what?
leroy
Well-Known Member
1: Multiple independent sources: You have Paul + the 4 gospels … you have 5 independent sources that confirm this event. Even if you what to argue that Mathew and Luke Copied from mark you still have 3 independent sources.
2: Explanatory Power: If Jesus was not buried, it remains inexplicable why where early Christians making a big of deal out of the empty tomb
3: consistency with previous knowledge: the tomb described corresponds to the tomb that a rich Jew would have.
4: Embarrassment: The guy who ended up giving Jesus an honorable burial, was a member of the jewish Sanhedrin
Do you have any evidence for the claim that Jesus was not buried?
leroy
Well-Known Member
They were well informed about Jesus, his life and the stuff that was happening around during that time.
We know this because most of the testable historical/demographical/geographical /political details described in the gospels are accurate.
The main reason for why I would make that claim is that the gospels are full of embarrassing details.
1 Jesus was crucified (rather than having an honorable death)
2 women are the most important witnesses for the empty tomb
3 Jesus had limited knowledge
4 his brothers where not followers
5 he didn’t meet the messianic expectations (he didn’t defeated or even fought agaisnt the enemies, the romans,
Anyone who had both the means and the intend to write whatever they wanted to meat their theological purposes would have had omitted those details.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
So you have claims made in an ancient book by unknown people 30 years after the event and can you show where Paul the only named source claims he saw the tomb, he is just reciting what others have said.
No it is quite explainable, in order to suggest he had risen from the dead you need to be able to state where the body was alleged to be. It is required by the narrative they were promoting.
And why would the story writers not want to be consistent whilst witting the story many years after the events.
What embarrassment to who? This embarrassment argument is almost never used outside of the New Testament, historians do not want to say what was and what is not embarrassing in another time.
Yes we have the historical fact that the romans left the body of a crucified man to decay on the cross as part of the punishment and ritual humiliation that was crucifixion. They were then thrown in a communal grave.
We have no tomb.
We have no independent witnesses to the tomb.
Remember we are discussing the historicity of the Bible, not what you believe, historians do not include the tomb as part of the historicity of Jesus. There is not enough evidence to justify the claim.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
So what does history have to do with theology and vice versa?
Last edited:
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Bible is a religious teaching book, not a history book
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Since the Bible is not historically accurate you have no choice but to live in ignorance then, why do you chose to live in ignorance?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Archeological history doesn't discredit the Bible. It just shows the texts were not written as history (and were never meant to be). They were stories. Not conveying historical truth. A story is not meaningless. It just conveys a different truth/meaning/teaching. Story of Abraham and patriarchs is a great story about faith, freedom, identity...
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
The same applies to enlarged (hi)story, legend, parable...
Yes, it is a great story......but who said it can't be true just because archeologists are not terribly good at interpreting their evidence, nor it seems are they acquainted with nations (like Egypt) who only recorded their victories but never their defeats or embarrassments. Like I said, I have little faith in historians who seem to be more interested in telling their own stories or misinterpreting evidence as factual history, when it never was, rather than allowing God to tell his own story.
The Bible does not need to tell us about fictitious people because its not a novel...it is factual to me, telling one story of mankind's history with God from Genesis to Revelation.....what it tells you is your business.
If there is a God, you seem to display little faith in him.....but that too is your business and you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.
I see the Bible as "inspired of God".....and if you don't think it is...what is that to me?
I am not one to hang off the words of men like I hang off the words of God....you cannot compare authors IMO, nor were the historians there to witness what they try to write about. God has witnessed everything....so why would he inspire men to write fiction? Truth is so much more interesting.
What was the point of the candid nature of the Bible in recording the faults and flaws in people's characters? These were human beings just like us who had personal encounters with the Creator.....we can learn so much from them, especially when we are nearing the final judgment on this world......or is that just a story too....?
Won't it be interesting to find out?