Is the Bible Really True?

outhouse · Mar 2, 2015

KenS said:
I mentioned how science use to believe the Aborigines and even some Africans were the missing link

facepalm,,,, well that is not true.

You mentioned a racist from horse and wagon days, who made that statement, NOT all of science.

Kenny · Mar 3, 2015

outhouse said:
facepalm,,,, well that is not true.

You mentioned a racist from horse and wagon days, who made that statement, NOT all of science.

Denying history in evolution and denying history in archaeology. Did the Holocaust happen?

leibowde84 · Mar 3, 2015

Brandywine said:
Skeptics have been losing ground for a long time, practically since the higher criticism began. All their predictions regarding texts have been shown to be false. Earlier NT texts do not differ from later ones. Earlier ones do not lack the supernatural accounts of later ones. Archaeology has confirmed many things that the early skeptics mocked like the Hittite empire, the details of the city construction in the Iron Age (Hatzor and Megiddo espeically), historicity of David and Solomon, and so on.

Do you have evidence for this? Because, I can think of several discoveries that would challenge this.

leibowde84 · Mar 3, 2015

Brandywine said:
Skeptics have been losing ground for a long time, practically since the higher criticism began. All their predictions regarding texts have been shown to be false. Earlier NT texts do not differ from later ones. Earlier ones do not lack the supernatural accounts of later ones. Archaeology has confirmed many things that the early skeptics mocked like the Hittite empire, the details of the city construction in the Iron Age (Hatzor and Megiddo espeically), historicity of David and Solomon, and so on.

Read the following and let me know what you think. I'm not sure this scholar agrees with your assessment.

Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.

Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

outhouse · Mar 3, 2015

KenS said:
Denying history in evolution

Mixing different homo sapiens is not speciation.

But thanks for showing how desperate you are that you try and twist evidence to fit what ever your apologetic methodology requires, to protect faith.

Kenny · Mar 3, 2015

outhouse said:
Mixing different homo sapiens is not speciation.

But thanks for showing how desperate you are that you try and twist evidence to fit what ever your apologetic methodology requires, to protect faith.

LOL... you are too funny. Still, I respect your for your educational achievements.

Shalom.

Epictetus · Mar 4, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Read the following and let me know what you think. I'm not sure this scholar agrees with your assessment.

Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.

Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

I was going to "Like" this post, but then discovered its uncited source at The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002

Could posters who cut and paste large slabs of other people's work please cite the source each time.

Salvador · Mar 4, 2015

The shroud of Turin is photographic evidence for the resurrected Christ who did speak of Adam's, Noah's and Moses's historical existence.

leibowde84 said:
Read the following and let me know what you think. I'm not sure this scholar agrees with your assessment.

Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.

Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

outhouse · Mar 4, 2015

Salvador said:
The shroud of Turin is photographic evidence for the resurrected Christ who did speak of Adam's, Noah's and Moses's historical existence.

It is deemed a fraud by most credible sources.

leibowde84 · Mar 9, 2015

Salvador said:
The shroud of Turin is photographic evidence for the resurrected Christ who did speak of Adam's, Noah's and Moses's historical existence.

The shroud of Turin was found to be a forgery back in the late eighties. It was one of many forgeries created in the middle ages (1200-1400), and was found to have been created between the ages of 1290 - 1360 using 3 different carbon dating techniques in 3 different labs. So, the shroud of Turin does not provide any kind of evidence whatsoever other than that during the middle ages a great deal of forgeries were made and sold.

leibowde84 · Mar 9, 2015

outhouse said:
It is deemed a fraud by most credible sources.

When the only argument against a scientific finding is that the scientists all have bias or reasons to produce false data, the scientific finding is correct.

Brandywine · Mar 9, 2015

I didn't re-post your reply concerning the evidence for the Exodus and the destruction of Ai and Jericho because of its length, but I will try to answer it. Those three events are very hard to date. There are people who disagree as to the dating by as much as 1,000 years. Also, the actual numbers of the children of Israel who left Egypt during the Exodus are very much open to debate. The reason this is so is because the ancient Hebrews were (#1) very bad with large numbers, and (#2) the way they wrote numbers is very easy to miscopy. Bible Chronology is really tough. No one really has any idea how many children of Israel left Egypt or when. The worlds that translators chose to indicate thousands are used to simply mean large groups in other contexts. You can play Ussher's game with the years in the Old Testament, but past the early Kingdom it is very hard to do with any precision. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we don't really know even where to look. There are 4 major theories regarding the route of the Exodus. On some of these routes are evidence of thousands of people moving through the area, but since we don't know when the Exodus took place, its very hard to say if these camps might represent the old Israelites on their way to Canaan. The dating of the Exodus also influences when we expect to find the destruction of Ai and Jericho. Trying to match up Egyptian history with Canaanite history has produced some real conundrums, but when you consider how long ago that was, it is really more surprising what we think we know than what we don't know. There is an amazing degree of corroboration between the Biblical account and archaeological discoveries, especially in the past 50 years work--and especially from the Babylonian conquest down to the present. But I believe that Ai, Jericho, and the Exodus are going to represent especially difficult problems due to the vagueness of the Biblical account and the remoteness historically of the events.

outhouse · Mar 9, 2015

Brandywine said:
There are people who disagree as to the dating by as much as 1,000 years

And none of those have credibility at all.

Brandywine said:
the area, but since we don't know when the Exodus took place

We know it did not take place, and that the book is theological in nature.

They gave up trying to prove it was historical a long time ago. You only have Christian and Jewish apologist on pipe dreams at the moment. No credible work is focused there at all.

Brandywine said:
No one really has any idea how many children of Israel left Egypt or when. The

I do.

None. Israel did not exist until after the bronze age collapse when displaced Canaanites started to settle the highlands over a 200 year period. At this time they were known as proto Israelites.

Israelites really did not begin culturally until after 1000 BC and they never were some orthodox culture. There were many different Semitic cultures wide spread with many different polytheistic beliefs, that centered around Canaanite mythology and small family of deities.

Brandywine · Mar 9, 2015

outhouse said:
And none of those have credibility at all.

They gave up trying to prove it was historical a long time ago. You only have Christian and Jewish apologist on pipe dreams at the moment. No credible work is focused there at all.
.

Your answer is a cousin of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. By making such statements as "no credible work is focused there at all," you simply make your own evaluation of the credibility of the work the arbiter of its existence. Its fallacious, and therefore impossible to answer.

outhouse · Mar 9, 2015

Brandywine said:
Your answer is a cousin of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. By making such statements as "no credible work is focused there at all," you simply make your own evaluation of the credibility of the work the arbiter of its existence. Its fallacious, and therefore impossible to answer.

It is impossible to answer with credibility. But factually is not a fallacy in any way.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel

Brandywine · Mar 9, 2015

outhouse said:
It is impossible to answer with credibility. But factually is not a fallacy in any way.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel

Wikipedia is your source?

outhouse · Mar 9, 2015

Brandywine said:
Wikipedia is your source?

Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802862600.

Walton, John H. (2003). "Exodus, date of". In Alexander, T.D.; Baker, David W. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. InterVarsity Press.

Sparkes, Kenton L. (2010). "Genre Criticism". In Dozeman, Thomas B. Methods for Exodus. Cambridge University Press.

What are yours, is the question??????????????????????

outhouse · Mar 9, 2015

Do you understand what mythology is?

Kenny · Mar 9, 2015

Brandywine said:
Your answer is a cousin of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. By making such statements as "no credible work is focused there at all," you simply make your own evaluation of the credibility of the work the arbiter of its existence. Its fallacious, and therefore impossible to answer.

So true. He is always right and not matter what archaeological evidence you give, no matter what scientific discovery is found, he is always right.

Kenny · Mar 9, 2015

Brandywine said:
Wikipedia is your source?

It's his favorite.

However, if you use a source that also has footnotes, it isn't admissible evidence. The sources are not credible.

Is the Bible Really True?

Atheistically

Face to face with my Father

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Atheistically

Face to face with my Father

Member

RF's Swedenborgian

Atheistically

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Atheistically

Member

Atheistically

Member

Atheistically

Atheistically

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father