Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[sooda]

Top Ten Signs You're a Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Critical thinking is taboo in America.

That is mostly limited to the Bible Belt and the Deep South.

 

[SkepticThinker]

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

So your best evidence is a bunch of claims. I'm not sure you're understanding this whole evidence thing and how it works. Can you explain how any of that gets you to evidence of the divinity of Jesus and of the supposed miracles he supposedly carried out?

Antony Flew becoming a theist is not evidence for your claims about Jesus being divine and performing miracles any more than me becoming an atheist after 20 years of being a Christian is evidence that Jesus didn't exist.

Because it wasn't an eclipse. An eclipse of the sun CANNOT OCCUR DURING A FULL MOON, and it was a full moon at the time of the crucifixion.

How do you know what it was? From a single source written long after the event supposedly occurred? Do you have any contemporary accounts of this blackening out of the sun? I mean, if it was so amazing, you'd think somebody else might have noticed it. Same goes for the whole "resurrection of the dead" thing. Funny how nobody else seemed to note that a bunch of dead people rose from the grave and walked around town for an afternoon, save for the Bible writers who were not even contemporary to the event.

No, I want you to do your homework for yourself so you can get up to speed on scholarly evidence.

I used to be a Christian. Quit condescending to me and back up your claims.

 

[Muffled]

.

Or so the video below claims.

The List of Nine, which supposedly verify claims made in the Bible. (The narrator provides the relevant chapters and verses.)

1) A stone that confirms that Pontius Pilatus was the Prefect of Judea.

2) A tunnel was created under the city of David to carry water.

3) A clay cylinder describes how Sennacherib laid siege against various cities

4) A stone mentioning there was an Israelite king of the house of David.

5) A stone cites Omri as the king of Israel.

6) The remnants of a house was found that verifies the town of Nazareth existed in the first century AD.

7) A clay cylinder recounts Cyrus II declaration of human rights

8) The discovery of the pool of Siloam

9) A stone tablet shows the existence of the Hittites


​

Of course our young presenter in the video conveniently ignores all the evidence that disproves the Bible's historical accuracy, but this is to be expected. When cherry picking one never picks the "bad" cherries.

In any case, even if all nine of the examples are true, one can only say, SO WHAT? What's so amazing (as the narrator would like the viewer to believe) about historical events showing up in the Bible? Heck, even if the Bible was a pure fabrication from Genesis to Revelation, the fabricator would certainly have been astute enough to include historical facts to make the thing appear genuine---it's why counterfeiters go to such extremes to make their money appear real. In this case it's like expecting the viewer to get excited because the Bible mentions the Mediterranean Sea, or that the Sun sets in the west. SO WHAT?

Nope, it's stupid stuff like this video that fill the believer with unjustified confidence in his faith. Do Christians really need to be duped so as to hold onto their faith? . . . . . . . . . . . . . maybe so, but it's not pretty.

.

I believe Christians don't depend on historicity. I believe Christians are not duped by anything.

 

[Muffled]

When I read and hear Christians trying to make their faith sound more reasonable by creating "evidence" I feel that their faith isn't strong and they're engaged in self-deception to support it.

My mind's incapable of faith in a religion, but if someone says they have it, I don't have any reason to doubt them.

I believe it is a defense when some say the Bible is mythical. However as those people point out even myths can have some historical facts but that doesn't verify the rest as historical.

 

[Muffled]

Interesting but there are other things that are so glaring and just too big that I couldn't deny the veracity and authenticity of the Bible as the word of God.

Those 9 things are tangibles that could easily be lost through time.

However historical events which occurred long after the prophecies were spoken and written are something to scratch your head into.

That is why we know that we are living in the last days.
Soon this thing will hit the fan and
no longer we would doubt anything when we see it happen before our eyes

I believe there are people who will work hard to deny any reality that has God in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it is a defense when some say the Bible is mythical. However as those people point out even myths can have some historical facts but that doesn't verify the rest as historical.

That is not a defense. That is an observation. Not all of the Bible is mythical, but many parts of it are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there are people who will work hard to deny any reality that has God in it.

And many more will work hard to deny any reality that goes against their god myths.

 

[sooda]

And many more will work hard to deny any reality that goes against their god myths.

You think they would lose their faith entirely if they don't continue with the crackpot myths?

 

[sooda]

That is not a defense. That is an observation. Not all of the Bible is mythical, but many parts of it are.

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua (Numbers), Job and Jonah are all myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua (Numbers), Job and Jonah are all myths.

Shhh . . . break it to them gently.

 

[Skwim]

I believe Christians don't depend on historicity. I believe Christians are not duped by anything.

I believe Christians and probably all other religious folk are duped by their personal needs. Surely you'd agree that the beliefs of non-Christian folk are in error, and are being duped by them. AND, they would say the same about you. So it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting.

And, of course, Christians depend on historical authenticity, as they see it. In fact, historical incidents are pretty much the basis of the Christian faith.

.

 

[RESOLUTION]

On that basis you could defend belief in fairies or ghosts or Leprechauns, or Mermaids.

WHY what would be to defend? I like yourself know these to be made up by men. We both agree so nothing to debate. If someone 'personally' believes they exist, they are under no
burden to prove it. To be honest I would not ask them to do so because it is there 'personal' belief. It requires no proof for myself because it does not affect me in anyway or my future.

Do you believe that response was actually a good response to the subject at hand. Not really.

 

[RESOLUTION]

You seem to be having a problem understanding the burden of proof.

NO as there is no burden of proof required. Personal faith requires no burden of proof for others. It is a made up thing between you atheists trying to make others answerable for your own disbelief. But we do not want, require, need or choose to prove what we personally believe to others.

If you want to claim that you believe something there is no burden of proof. You are correct in that. But if you want to pretend that your beliefs are factual then you have a burden of proof for that.

Let us make it simple... 'Personal belief only requires 'personal proof'. We don't have to pretend anything and they are factual to us they do not require any burden of proof or factual evidence to anyone outside us. So the fallacy of burden of proof does not exist outside personal belief since it is only to do with us.

For example, I could believe that topless beautiful mermaids keep the world spinning by grabbing the ocean floor and swimming. If I keep my belief personal I need not prove it to anyone. If I make the error of publicly announcing my beliefs and claiming that they are true I put the burden of proof on myself.

You just did announce it but in all honesty whatever floats your boat. But do I want proof of your belief or can I demand it...NO. Even announcing it, we know that is your personal belief. I do not
require you to prove something I can prove to myself. But the bible with my beliefs shows you a way you can too get your own 'burden of proof' if you cannot be bothered to get your own then that is your choice and no one else is going to do it for you.

A little like the joke about God and the scientist:There’s a scientist and God. And the scientist challenges God to a contest of who can make the better human being. God tells him that he’s on, at which time the scientist, in great delight, bends over to pick up some dust to make his human being. Then God says, ‘No, no … you go and find your own dust.’

The problem with humans is that they can only start from the point of what already exists. If man could create a man he could never do it by creating his own dust first.
So it is with this burden of proof excuse. It starts only with what man believes he can do for himself. But the believer starts from the point of God.
Personal faith requires only personal proof. And like the scientist you have to get your own dirt/faith arguments before you can question others. The bible is there for you to read. And like the believer you need to get your own burden of proof for others cannot give you that and it is personal and not up for proving to others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO as there is no burden of proof required. Personal faith requires no burden of proof for others. It is a made up thing between you atheists trying to make others answerable for your own disbelief. But we do not want, require, need or choose to prove what we personally believe to others.
Let us make it simple... 'Personal belief only requires 'personal proof'. We don't have to pretend anything and they are factual to us they do not require any burden of proof or factual evidence to anyone outside us. So the fallacy of burden of proof does not exist outside personal belief since it is only to do with us.

You are not paying attention. Yes, for personal faith no burden of proof is needed. I agreed with that. But when you publicly state your beliefs you need something more than a simple "I just believe". The proper response when someone makes such a claim in mixed company is "That nice dear, now go play with the other children". If you want to be taken seriously you need to be able to support your beliefs.

You just did announce it but in all honesty whatever floats your boat. But do I want proof of your belief or can I demand it...NO. Even announcing it, we know that is your personal belief. I do not
require you to prove something I can prove to myself. But the bible with my beliefs shows you a way you can too get your own 'burden of proof' if you cannot be bothered to get your own then that is your choice and no one else is going to do it for you.

Again "That's nice dear . . ."

A little like the joke about God and the scientist:There’s a scientist and God. And the scientist challenges God to a contest of who can make the better human being. God tells him that he’s on, at which time the scientist, in great delight, bends over to pick up some dust to make his human being. Then God says, ‘No, no … you go and find your own dust.’



The problem with humans is that they can only start from the point of what already exists. If man could create a man he could never do it by creating his own dust first.
So it is with this burden of proof excuse. It starts only with what man believes he can do for himself. But the believer starts from the point of God.
Personal faith requires only personal proof. And like the scientist you have to get your own dirt/faith arguments before you can question others. The bible is there for you to read. And like the believer you need to get your own burden of proof for others cannot give you that and it is personal and not up for proving to others.

Such a weak joke, and you don't see how it fails.

And no one is claiming that man made man. We know that man is the product of evolution. Now there may be a God out there, but even you have to admit that man is the product of evolution, if you learn enough and can be honest with yourself. Tell me, can God lie? If you say "Yes" then there is no reason to believe the Bible. If you say "No" then the Bible cannot be interpreted literally.

 

[Skwim]

Let us go to the basics about the Bible:

THE BIBLE IS the “book of books.” Even though there are many “sacred books” used by different religions, the Bible is above all these “sacred books.” The Bible is unique, possessing characteristics and attributes that cannot be found in any books of different religions. What is the uniqueness of the Bible that makes it different from other religious books?

The Bible is Unique in Writing

The 66 books of the Bible were written at different times and under various circumstances. The Bible is unique in writing because it is the only book that was:

1. Written in the span of 1500 years:

· The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, was written c.1447-1407 BC, and the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written approximately c.90-100 AD. Thus, the Bible was written in a span from 1447 BC to 100 AD.

2. Written in three languages:

· Hebrew. Most of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew.
· Aramaic. Small fractions of the Old Testament (like fractions of Daniel and Ezra) were written in Aramaic.
· Greek. The whole New Testament was generally written in Koine Greek, or common Greek.

3. Written by more than forty authors from different walks of life, including:

· A “son of the daughter of Pharaoh,” and a political leader, judge, and trained in the civilization of Egypt (Moses);
· A military leader (Joshua);
· A king, poet, musician, shepherd and warrior (David);
· A herdsman (Amos);
· A prime minister (Daniel);
· A king and philosopher (Solomon);
· A priest and scribe (Ezra).
· A cupbearer to a pagan king (Nehemiah);
· A physician and historian (Luke);
· A fisherman (Peter);
· A Pharisee (Paul);

4. Written in different times:


· In the time of the Exodus (the writngs of Moses)
· In times of war and conquest (the writings of Joshua)
· During the establishment and expansion of the kingdom (the writings of David)
· In times of peace and prosperity (the writings od Solomon)
· During the Babylonian captivity (the writings of Daniel)
· During the Roman period (the New Testament books)


5. Written in different places:

· In the wilderness (the Torah);
· In a dungeon (Jeremiah);
· On a hillside and in a palace (Daniel);
· Inside prison walls (Epistles of Paul);
· While traveling (Acts);
· While in exile on the island of Patmos (Revelation).

6. Written in a wide variety of literary style:

· Historical narrative;
· Biography;
· Autobiography;
· Poetry;
· Song;
· Didactic treatise;
· Memoirs;
· Personal correspondence;
· Satire;
· Law;
· Prophecy;
· Parable; and
· Allegory.

No other book religious or secular was written in the span of 1,500 years, by forty men from every walks of life, in different places and times, and in a wide variety of literary style. These make the Bible unique from any other book.


The Bible is Unique in Transmission

The Bible is unique even in terms of its transmission. How unique is the Bible in terms of transmission? Since time immemorial, the Bible was copied, first by priests or temple scribes, then by professional scribes – the Sopherim, the Talmudists, and the Masoretes. The Bible is the only book having tens of thousands of manuscripts or copies by hand.

The Old Testament

The Old Testament has about 12,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments, including the Geniza manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scroll:


“Even though the Old Testament does not boast of the same quantity of manuscripts (MSS) as the New Testament, the number of manuscripts available today is quite remarkable. Several reasons have been suggested for the scarcity of early Hebrew manuscripts. The first and most obvious reason is a combination of antiquity and destructibility; two – to three thousand years is a long time to expect ancient documents to last. Nonetheless, several lines of evidence support the conclusion that their quality is very good. First, it is important to establish the quantity of manuscripts available. There are several important collections of Hebrew manuscripts today. The first collection of Hebrew manuscripts, made by Benjamin Kennicott (1776-1780) and published by Oxford, listed 615 manuscripts of the Old Testament. Later, Giovanni de Rossi (1784-1788) published a list of 731 manuscripts. The most important manuscript discoveries in modern times are those of the Cairo Geniza (1890s) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947 and following years). In the Cairo synagogue attic, a geniza, or storehouse, for old manuscripts was discovered. Two hundred thousand manuscripts and fragments (Kahle, CG, 13 and Wurthwein, TOT, 25), some ten thousand of which are biblical (Goshen-Gottstein, BMUS, 35), were found.”1


The New Testament

The New Testament has about 25,000 manuscripts:


“There are now more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other versions (MSS), and we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestations. In comparison, Homer’s Iliad is second, with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.”2

As compared to other Greek documents of antiquity, the New Testament has about 5,686 Greek manuscripts, while second to it is Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 manuscripts.

The earliest preserved text of the New Testament (almost the whole New Testament) dated c.250 AD, only 150 years away from the New Testament (written c. 50-100 AD). The earliest fragments of the New Testament (the Gospel according to John) dated 120 AD, only 20 years away from the writing of the said book (John was written about 90-100 AD), while the earliest copies of Homer’s Iliad are dated 400 BC, a 400 year gap from the writing of Iliad (800 BC).

Thus, no other document of antiquity can equal the existing quantity of the manuscripts (MSS) of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments). This also makes the Bible unique from not only any religious books, but even from any documents of antiquity.

------

If you would question the credibility of the book,
we couldn't really move forward.
Might as well read something else
maybe from George R. R. Martin

Too bad none of these "basics" lend any credibility to its claims. That was your purpose in posting them was it not?

.

 

[OtherSheep]

The List of Nine, which supposedly verify claims made in the Bible.
.

Here's 6 more:

"1. Names like Abraham and Jacob were in common use among the Amorites in northern Mesopotamia about 2000 B.C. and later.
2. Mari was the center of a vast network of trade routes ranging from Crete to Elam, from Cappadocia to Megiddo. Merchants constantly traveled these routes from one end to the other. Seen in this context, Abraham’s journey from Ur to Haran, then to Canaan and Egypt, is not as improbable as the critics once thought.
3. Abraham’s relationship with Hagar (Genesis 16) and Jacob’s with Bilhah (Genesis 30) can be better understood by a comparison with a marriage contract from Nuzi, in which the wife was required, if she proved to be barren, to provide a substitute for her husband.
4. Abraham’s reluctance to drive out Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 16:6) is understandable in the light of Nuzi customs governing such relationships.
5. Another Nuzi tablet revealed the adoption by a childless couple of a servant born in their house. He became the heir if he cared for them in their old age (see Genesis 15:2-3).
6. Jacob’s relationship with Laban (Genesis 29) becomes more understandable when compared to other tablets from Nuzi.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Were They Real People? | Grace Communion International

Note: 1. Amorites aren't Semites; 2. Mari was Hurrian; 3-6 are Hurrian texts.

 

[sooda]

Here's 6 more:

"1. Names like Abraham and Jacob were in common use among the Amorites in northern Mesopotamia about 2000 B.C. and later.
2. Mari was the center of a vast network of trade routes ranging from Crete to Elam, from Cappadocia to Megiddo. Merchants constantly traveled these routes from one end to the other. Seen in this context, Abraham’s journey from Ur to Haran, then to Canaan and Egypt, is not as improbable as the critics once thought.
3. Abraham’s relationship with Hagar (Genesis 16) and Jacob’s with Bilhah (Genesis 30) can be better understood by a comparison with a marriage contract from Nuzi, in which the wife was required, if she proved to be barren, to provide a substitute for her husband.
4. Abraham’s reluctance to drive out Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 16:6) is understandable in the light of Nuzi customs governing such relationships.
5. Another Nuzi tablet revealed the adoption by a childless couple of a servant born in their house. He became the heir if he cared for them in their old age (see Genesis 15:2-3).
6. Jacob’s relationship with Laban (Genesis 29) becomes more understandable when compared to other tablets from Nuzi.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Were They Real People? | Grace Communion International

Note: 1. Amorites aren't Semites; 2. Mari was Hurrian; 3-6 are Hurrian texts.

Does this look accurate to you?

 

[OtherSheep]

Does this look accurate to you?

Amorites were tall Nordic-looking red-heads who built stone circles. If it looks like a Celt and acts like a Celt... ... No, I don't think that map works. Amorites aren't Hamitic. True, the showed up in those places, but timing is everything. We have the pics of Amorites courtesy of the Egyptian Monuments... and so we know they lived in southern Palestine. The when of it has been obliterated by the name games people play.

Speaking of the white races of the Near East, have you ever seen that blue-eyed priest of Mari statue? It probably shows up in the following website... which is the best place to go for all pics Sumerian.

Sumerian war chariots reconstructed

Don't those guys look like Hittites... who are wearing what some people call the Phrygian cap. Hats are useful determinatives, but some people don't see what isn't pointed out to them. For instance, at the conquest of a Hurrian Temple, the Assyrians are wearing snake-headed hats... which look like curls hanging way up over the owner's head... but if you look at them close-up, you can see the shape of the head. Some professor wrote a paper on the Snake Worship coming from Babylon, which is why it made an impression on me, given the background of Assyria and Akkad. Do you suppose the Assyrians were part of the sea peoples?

 

[sooda]

Amorites were tall Nordic-looking red-heads who built stone circles. If it looks like a Celt and acts like a Celt... ... No, I don't think that map works. Amorites aren't Hamitic. True, the showed up in those places, but timing is everything. We have the pics of Amorites courtesy of the Egyptian Monuments... and so we know they lived in southern Palestine. The when of it has been obliterated by the name games people play.

Speaking of the white races of the Near East, have you ever seen that blue-eyed priest of Mari statue? It probably shows up in the following website... which is the best place to go for all pics Sumerian.

Sumerian war chariots reconstructed

Don't those guys look like Hittites... who are wearing what some people call the Phrygian cap. Hats are useful determinatives, but some people don't see what isn't pointed out to them. For instance, at the conquest of a Hurrian Temple, the Assyrians are wearing snake-headed hats... which look like curls hanging way up over the owner's head... but if you look at them close-up, you can see the shape of the head. Some professor wrote a paper on the Snake Worship coming from Babylon, which is why it made an impression on me, given the background of Assyria and Akkad. Do you suppose the Assyrians were part of the sea peoples?

Thos chariots look heavy.. like war chariots.. and those aren't horses.. What's an onager?

Assyrian sea people? That never occurred to me.

Snake worship was pretty popular and widespread.. all over the Levant, Arabian peninsula and Indus Valley.

It never occurred to me that the Amorites were Hamitic.