• 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!

ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So someone wrote a fictional savior deity story and used a real public figure in the story?
How does that support the bible?
As to archeology:

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. In the following interview, Dever describes some of the most significant archeological finds related to the Hebrew Bible, including his own hot-button discovery that the Israelites' God was linked to a female goddess called Asherah.

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.
I like to point out to my undergraduate students that the Bible is not history; it's his story—Yahweh's story, God's story. [Yahweh is an ancient Israelite name for God.]

Even if archeology can't prove events of the Bible, can it enhance our understanding of the Bible?
Archeology is almost the only way that we have for reconstructing a real-life context for the world out of which the Bible came, and that does bring understanding. When you think of how little we knew about the biblical world even 100 years ago and what we know today, it's astonishing.


The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.
Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

Q: Let's turn to one of the most vivid figures in the Bible, Moses. Who is the Moses of the Bible, and could there have been such a person?

Meyers: The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.

Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place.
Informative... but what point are you making?

I have perused your quote but don't find anything objectionable.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There are many works of fiction based around real places and real people. Do you believe that the book "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" must be true just because Abraham Lincoln actually existed?
There are many works that are non-fiction based around real placed and real people. When does reality become reality?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Who are y'all talking about?
I've never heard anybody with any credibility say anything like that.

Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that at all.

Are you guys sure that anybody ever claimed this? Or did some Christian website claim that somebody said it, and you just believed them?
Tom

Some live corroboration:

#51
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Reminds me of my grand nephew. He keeps bringing me copies of his Spider-Man comics and pointing out how it talks about a real place called New York and how they actually have pictures that depict REAL buildings and bridges that exist in this REAL city called New York. He also keep trying to claim that those true realities depicted in his comics means that Spider-Man and all of his fantastical abilities are REAL as well.

Of course, he's only eight years old, so at least HE has an excuse.
I KNOW!! That's why I don't believe there was a George Washington. It's just a grown up comic book. :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Amazing. I know how you feel.

When I read Homer and the detailed description of Greece and Troy, I also feel a huge need to believe in Zeus.

Ciao

- viole
I'm glad you believe in something :) Even if it is just parroting overused statements.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I admit it. I'm a sucker for a good headline. So, OK. Let's go and see what new nonsense KenS has dug up this time (archeology pun intended).

First thing, as I often do, is to check out the link to get an idea of the validity of the source (or, in the case of some people, the absurdness of the source).

FOX NEWS?!? That put new meaning to ROFLMAO.



But, being curious, I also read the NYT version. They made it clear that it was a rather cheap ring, not one worthy of actually belonging to a Roman official. Even one as relatively obscure os Pilate.
LOL.... yes... if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

I can tell you REALLY are a researcher. WOW!! I had to actually use 3 WHOLE SECONDS to find a different source.

Pontius Pilate’s Name Is Found on 2,000-Year-Old Ring

;) Does that make you feel better?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
In many cases, actually, yes I do. I have a good grounding in history, and know something about the world. I've read novels set in the city that I call my home, and have personal, on the ground knowledge of the veracity of many of the places and events mentioned. And even so, I do not think that the inclusion of all those "factually true" places and events makes the story being told true in and of itself -- even though they do provide "corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

(The quote is from Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta "The Mikado.")

You are quite intelligent. I respect you for that. Doesn't change what was found but I do honestly respect you.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The ring may belonged to Pontius Pilate, but the ring itself only verify Pilate being around as governor of Judaea. Josephus said as much that Pilate was governor at the time of Tiberius being emperor.

The ring don't prove anything in regarding to the gospels or letters, not the story of Jesus' life, eg his miracles, his death and resurrection. The ring don't verify anything regarding to Pilate being connected to Jesus.

I think you are overestimating the discovery of the ring, by reading too much into it.
True , true. My point is simply every month another discovery and another confirmation. When you add the totality of what is found, the case grows stronger that there might be more veracity in what was written that what some people have thought.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
For instance, Genesis was most likely written by some unknown authors of 7th to 6th centuries BCE, which is the early Iron Age (1050 to 500 BCE, while late Iron Age is from 499 to 30 BCE, when Egypt fell to Octavian, better known as Augustus Caesar).

I would have to disagree with this statement.

It is the oldest manuscript found? Yes... but there is nothing to say it wasn't written when God told Moses "Write this down".
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I apologize for being a bit sharp with my earlier remark.

My point was, the argument that the bible is true because some claims in it are shown to be true is a non-sequitur ─ rather like saying elephants must be white since their tusks are white. The bible is written by various humans at various times at various places for various human purposes. Each of its books is to be read like any other ancient document. ─ what, when, where, who, why?
I agree that just because there is an actual place mentioned, doesn't make it true. There has to be much more. But, my point was simply that more and more discoveries confirm what is written and when you do find confirmations, it does add validity to what was written.

If a witness gives his testimony and more and more facts are verified according to what he said, it doesn't add validity to what he is saying.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Was there a real question that Pontius Pilate existed? My understanding was there was some historical record that he was a real person in history.

Never said that anyone questioned it. But did you notice the reaction it received?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Why is it so important to prove the historicity of the Bible? If it turns out to be a work of fiction, does that negate people's beliefs? Is their faith that weak that they need hard archaeological evidence? Isn't it sufficient that it may have some universal truths and lessons?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
True , true. My point is simply every month another discovery and another confirmation. When you add the totality of what is found, the case grows stronger that there might be more veracity in what was written that what some people have thought.
Josephus never wrote of Jesus’ life, and nothing about his ministry.

The only things he mentioned, are about other Christians, not Jesus himself. For instance, the only mention of “Jesus” is James, Jesus’ brother.

There are more about John the Baptist in Josephus’ history than there are about Jesus. Josephus write about John’s execution, but it has nothing to with him being a prophet or about Christianity or about Jesus.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I agree that just because there is an actual place mentioned, doesn't make it true. There has to be much more. But, my point was simply that more and more discoveries confirm what is written and when you do find confirmations, it does add validity to what was written.

If a witness gives his testimony and more and more facts are verified according to what he said, it doesn't add validity to what he is saying.

And nobody here for a second has
ever thought to dispute this news of
the stunningly OBVIOUS!!

Now, for confirmation of anything that
has a supernatural taint: nothing.

If you like more and more ever day,
check the data that shows no 6 day
poof, no flood, no adam and eve, no
nothing about "god" anything.

All you have in your bible that is at
least sometimes and partly correct
is just ordinary stuff about a vanished
time and culture. The most overrated,
overstudied stuff, ever.

Why bother with it?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Josephus never wrote of Jesus’ life, and nothing about his ministry.

The only things he mentioned, are about other Christians, not Jesus himself. For instance, the only mention of “Jesus” is James, Jesus’ brother.

There are more about John the Baptist in Josephus’ history than there are about Jesus. Josephus write about John’s execution, but it has nothing to with him being a prophet or about Christianity or about Jesus.
And understandably so.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And nobody here forva second has
ever thought to dispute this news of
the stunningly OBVIOUS!!

Now, for confirmation of anything that
has a supernatural taint: nothing.

If you like more and more ever day,
check the data that shows no 6 day
poof, no flood, no adam and eve, no
nothing about "god" anything.

All you have in your bible that is at
least sometimes and partly correct
is just ordinary stuff about a vanished
time and culture. The most overrated,
overstudied stuff, ever.

Why bother with it?

Because you saying "no" doesn't make it so.

And "6 days" can be viewed in a multiplicity of ways.

And I could just as easily say "No Audie - only computer generated responses" - but that wouldn't make it so.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I would have to disagree with this statement.

It is the oldest manuscript found? Yes... but there is nothing to say it wasn't written when God told Moses "Write this down".
There about absolutely zero evidence of any OT writing in the Bronze Age.

The oldest materials found is the badly fragmented Silver Scrolls found in the Ketef Hinnom cavethat served as a tomb. The scrolls and other artefacts have been dated to roughly about late 7th century or early 6th century BCE.

The readable fragments contain passage from Numbers 6, regarding to the Priestly Blessings.

Do a google on Ketef Hinnom or on Silver Scrolls.

No other evidences were found that relate to OT writings.

If you have something (writings) older than the reign of King Josiah of Judah, then please presented them, because I am open to any discovery that are new.

Show me what you have.
 
Top