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

[Kenny]

Biblical scholars and biblical-age historians are very different though.

Biblical scholars start with an assumption that the bible is divine and pay no attention to history. They follow only church approved historical facts and spend time pouring over scripture for interpretation.
While definitely useful for biblical interpretation it's only useful from the point of view of a believer.
So it's not history. The Roman Catholic Church started a historical mandate with one of their creeds - the bible is literal and the exact words god wanted to appear in print. Any history that makes Christianity seem like a false or pagan cult was put there by the devil.
There was an actual Latin term for this "diabli in historiam" or whatever......

However one does not need engage with alternative non-RCC history if they don't want.
But biblical scholars and the "field" of biblical history are completely at odds.

Biblical history shows that many Chinese took the Lord's Supper with water and not grape juice. Perhaps you are looking at what was and not why it was.

If the music brought the anointing on the life of a prophet, there is absolutely nothing to say it has stopped.

 

[PruePhillip]

Biblical scholars and biblical-age historians are very different though.

Biblical scholars start with an assumption that the bible is divine and pay no attention to history. They follow only church approved historical facts and spend time pouring over scripture for interpretation.
While definitely useful for biblical interpretation it's only useful from the point of view of a believer.
So it's not history. The Roman Catholic Church started a historical mandate with one of their creeds - the bible is literal and the exact words god wanted to appear in print. Any history that makes Christianity seem like a false or pagan cult was put there by the devil.
There was an actual Latin term for this "diabli in historiam" or whatever......

However one does not need engage with alternative non-RCC history if they don't want.
But biblical scholars and the "field" of biblical history are completely at odds.
Bible history is a relatively new field. In the early 1900s William F. Albright was practically thrown off the Earth for finding some pagan/Egyptain connections to Christianity.

In the 1970s Thomas Thompsons Ph.D work on Moses and the Patriarchs (that archeology did not support them) was so earth-shattering his PhD guy (who was a bishop) refused to ratify his PhD.
He had to work in Canada. Now his work is accepted as solid fact.

So this is a very new historical science that people were just not ready for. All secular biblical historians take sooooooo much personal attacks still.

What are you trying to say? That the Bronze Age account of cultural practices was wrong?
That there was no invasion of Canaan? That there weren't the 12 tribes of Israel? That there
was no Assyrian conquest? No Babylonian captivity? No House of David? No Isaiah? What
exactly don't people believe?

 

[joelr]

That's false analogy. About 1900 the prevailing mindset was that the bible
was totally wrong about everything. These days scientists have a more
nuanced view of it. One archeologist said of the bible, "It isn't history but
it isn't myth either." And I like that. So much has been uncovered since
1900.

Well the leading biblical archeologist shows the bible is not historical:
Biblical Archeology — NOVA | PBS

Some (a little) of the mythic structure explained:

24:35

Jesus scores 18/22 on Rank-Raglan mythotype scale

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype.html

and is a blatant synchronization of other pagan myths
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier


Besides we aready know that the source of these myths are
Zoroastrianism to which I just gave a clear example of.

It is exactly as myth as Odin and his demi-god son Thor (Earth mother/Sky father)
or Zeus and his virgin born son Hercules.

Myth is a good thing however. It's how wisdom is passed on.

 

[joelr]

Biblical history shows that many Chinese took the Lord's Supper with water and not grape juice. Perhaps you are looking at what was and not why it was.

If the music brought the anointing on the life of a prophet, there is absolutely nothing to say it has stopped.

Had Jesus appeared to the Chinese as well as all other cultures at the same time we would be onto something.
Alas, no biblical events like the sun going out for a day or anything appear ever in any other historical records. As if it were just a local myth...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical scholars and biblical-age historians are very different though.

Biblical scholars start with an assumption that the bible is divine and pay no attention to history. They follow only church approved historical facts and spend time pouring over scripture for interpretation.
While definitely useful for biblical interpretation it's only useful from the point of view of a believer.
So it's not history. The Roman Catholic Church started a historical mandate with one of their creeds - the bible is literal and the exact words god wanted to appear in print. Any history that makes Christianity seem like a false or pagan cult was put there by the devil.
There was an actual Latin term for this "diabli in historiam" or whatever......

However one does not need engage with alternative non-RCC history if they don't want.
But biblical scholars and the "field" of biblical history are completely at odds.
Bible history is a relatively new field. In the early 1900s William F. Albright was practically thrown off the Earth for finding some pagan/Egyptain connections to Christianity.

In the 1970s Thomas Thompsons Ph.D work on Moses and the Patriarchs (that archeology did not support them) was so earth-shattering his PhD guy (who was a bishop) refused to ratify his PhD.
He had to work in Canada. Now his work is accepted as solid fact.

So this is a very new historical science that people were just not ready for. All secular biblical historians take sooooooo much personal attacks still.

I would tend to disagree about your definition of biblical scholars. There are quite a few biblical scholars that are far from being Christian. What you described were apologists.

 

[joelr]

What are you trying to say? That the Bronze Age account of cultural practices was wrong?
That there was no invasion of Canaan? That there weren't the 12 tribes of Israel? That there
was no Assyrian conquest? No Babylonian captivity? No House of David? No Isaiah? What
exactly don't people believe?

For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. Abraham might have lived around 1800 B.C.E. This is the dawn of written history or prehistory, when the archeological evidence can't easily be correlated with any external evidence, textual evidence—even if we did have it.

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.


The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.


The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.


Does archeology have evidence of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians?
When it comes to destructions that might be illuminated by archeology, none would be more important than the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of direct archeological evidence because we have never been able to excavate large areas in Jerusalem. The late Israeli archeologist Yigal Shiloh found a huge accumulation of debris on the east side of the Temple Mount, cascaded down the hill. So there is some evidence, not yet well-published. Of course, the Temple Mount has never been excavated and never will be.

That doesn't mean that that the destruction didn't take place and that it wasn't a watershed event. One would have thought at that time that it was the end of the people of Israel—with elites carried away into captivity and ordinary people impoverished. It would have seemed to have been the end, but it was rather the beginning. Because it was in exile, precisely, that those who wrote the Bible looked back, collected the archives they had, rethought it all, reformulated it, and out of that intellectual reconstruction comes early Judaism.



"out of that intellectual reconstruction comes early Judaism."

"intellectual reconstruction"

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

 

[PruePhillip]

Well the leading biblical archeologist shows the bible is not historical:
Biblical Archeology — NOVA | PBS

Some (a little) of the mythic structure explained:

24:35

Jesus scores 18/22 on Rank-Raglan mythotype scale

Rank-Raglan mythotype

and is a blatant synchronization of other pagan myths
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier


Besides we aready know that the source of these myths are
Zoroastrianism to which I just gave a clear example of.

It is exactly as myth as Odin and his demi-god son Thor (Earth mother/Sky father)
or Zeus and his virgin born son Hercules.

Myth is a good thing however. It's how wisdom is passed on.

I won't look at the video. The reason is that if I show links to pro-biblical discoveries
you won't look at them either.
Twenty years ago no scholars believed in King David. Okay? Now we have evidence
for him. So the scholars were wrong and I see no evidence of them saying that. But,
the stories of David's dealings with God cannot be examined, but his writings about
the coming Messiah (Psalm 24, 69 and 110 for instance) suggest he had a revelation
that no ordinary king would have.

 

[joelr]

I would tend to disagree about your definition of biblical scholars. There are quite a few biblical scholars that are far from being Christian. What you described were apologists.

Maybe.
What
Ph.D R. carrier says about the field of biblical historicity is that the overwhelming consensus is for historicity and against divinity.
Although Carrier himself has done a 6 year historicity study and supports mythicism 3/1.

No actual Jesus historicity study has been done by a PhD since 1926 and Carrier points out several assumptions that were held that have turned out false. Hence his conclusion for mythicism. I've watched all of his debates with some impressive scholars, secular and apologist.

I believe he's easily won every debate. I believed in historicity as well until I read Carrier's book, 700 page, well sourced - On the Historicity of Jesus. His blog addresses all reviews and criticisms. He responds to all points.

 

[joelr]

I won't look at the video. The reason is that if I show links to pro-biblical discoveries
you won't look at them either.
Twenty years ago no scholars believed in King David. Okay? Now we have evidence
for him. So the scholars were wrong and I see no evidence of them saying that. But,
the stories of David's dealings with God cannot be examined, but his writings about
the coming Messiah (Psalm 24, 69 and 110 for instance) suggest he had a revelation
that no ordinary king would have.

If you can't look at scholarship then it's assumed you can't debunk it so we both agree that the gospels are highly mythic in nature.

I just answered all your questions with archeology, the OT is mythical in nature.
The fact that someone wrote a prediction and later people used that prediction to construct a savior deity is the answer of a crazy person.
Personal beliefs are one thing but I don't hear any comments about all of that archeology showing the OT is not history? The NT is pagan plus re-writes of Moses and Elija.

There are no pro-biblical discoveries that support divinity or supernatural happenings.

As to David:
The Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase ביתדוד‬, bytdwd, which most scholars translate as "House of David".[71] Other scholars, such as Anson Rainey have challenged this reading,[72] but it is likely that this is a reference to a dynasty of the Kingdom of Judah which traced its ancestry to a founder named David.[71] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David in two places, although this is less certain than the mention in the Tel Dan inscription.[73]


There was possibly a King David. Do you not realize that all myths contain some elements of reality? Like ancient Israelites can't construct myths without putting the names of a few actual leaders in it?
It isn't King David who is confirmed mythology, it's Moses and the Patriarchs.

Paul was a real person as well. But the mythology is not real.


In fact if you bother to read what a biblical archeologist has to say you will see he mentions the King David find?!

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible


"However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David."


and

"in the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale."


So this KD thing you keep going on about, your not representing the facts as they are but cherry picking, as if the biblical King David was real. No, that's not what's being said.

"It was very small-scale.""

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe.
What
Ph.D R. carrier says about the field of biblical historicity is that the overwhelming consensus is for historicity and against divinity.
Although Carrier himself has done a 6 year historicity study and supports mythicism 3/1.

No actual Jesus historicity study has been done by a PhD since 1926 and Carrier points out several assumptions that were held that have turned out false. Hence his conclusion for mythicism. I've watched all of his debates with some impressive scholars, secular and apologist.

I believe he's easily won every debate. I believed in historicity as well until I read Carrier's book, 700 page, well sourced - On the Historicity of Jesus. His blog addresses all reviews and criticisms. He responds to all points.

Richard Carrier was the man I was thinking of when I wrote my previous post.

 

[joelr]

Richard Carrier was the man I was thinking of when I wrote my previous post.

Carrier is good. I've been listening to people try to debunk him in debates. Anytime a new Carrier debate comes online I'll check it out. I'm open to different arguments.

 

[joelr]

but his writings about
the coming Messiah (Psalm 24, 69 and 110 for instance) suggest he had a revelation
that no ordinary king would have.

Well I can show sources for why someone in those times would predict a savior deity, so it isn't out of the ordinary at all? Why would you even think that it's out of the ordinary?

But you don't look at sources. So that's weird? State a premise but then refuse to hear evidence to counter it?
What's the point of writing it at all?
There were savior deities all the way back into Egypt that we know about that were similar to Jesus. So predicting that your religion was going to have one is very ordinary.
Judaism was one of the last religions to switch to the savior deity. Not the first?

Also I welcome any evidence. Did I not just look up King David?

 

[Bear Wild]

That's false analogy. About 1900 the prevailing mindset was that the bible
was totally wrong about everything. These days scientists have a more
nuanced view of it. One archeologist said of the bible, "It isn't history but
it isn't myth either." And I like that. So much has been uncovered since
1900.

The bible is mostly myth that revolve especially with later stories with some historic people and events. Looking for it to be an historical record is to miss what the bible teaches those that follow the Jewish faith.

 

[Shad]

Carrier is good. I've been listening to people try to debunk him in debates. Anytime a new Carrier debate comes online I'll check it out. I'm open to different arguments.

No he isn't. Even scholars like Ehrman have criticized Carrier as a mythicists.

 

[Bear Wild]

No he isn't. Even scholars like Ehrman have criticized Carrier as a mythicists.

I have read several of Ehrman's works. Interesting objective perspective on historical biblical events.

 

[Shad]

I have read several of Ehrman's works. Interesting objective perspective on historical biblical events.

His books are a good read. Although I am not a fan of his blog as often it becomes host to personal spats including ones with Carrier.

 

[joelr]

No he isn't. Even scholars like Ehrman have criticized Carrier as a mythicists.

That actually makes no sense?
You mean criticized Carrier because he was a mythicist or criticized his work as a mythicist?

I follow both and Ehrman refuses to answer Carriers criticisms yet Carrier always answers on his end. Carrier has proven Ehrman is using false information in all sorts of ways and he proves each one.
Ehrman will not respond and he will not debate Carrier.
It takes a lot of reading and time to understand what Ehrman is lying about but he has not been able to answer to Carriers issues with him.

Ehrman on Historicity Recap • Richard Carrier
Carrier completely smashed Ehrman here and exposed him as a liar.

Carrier breaks down many of Ehrman's mis-use of facts here:

but it's not an official debate obviously.

Carrier actually responds to criticism and when wrong admits his error:
List of Responses to Defenders of the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier

I like when stuff is debunked because if I use it in a debate I want to know that it's a solid fact.

Also, I've watch probably 20 hours of Carrier debate scholars, he's air tight. Some people have accused him of lying and I traced it and found that he wasn't. I asked him for a source once by messenger because I believed some argument I saw and Carrier provided me with a source.


"I was certain this would be a great book, the very best in its category. And I said this, publicly, many times in anticipation of it. It’s actually the worst. It’s almost as bad, in fact, as The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy (and I did not hyperlink that title because I absolutely do not want you to buy it: it will disease your mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion). I was eagerly hoping for a book I could recommend as the best case for historicity (but alas, that title stays with the inadequate but nevertheless competent, if not always correct, treatment in Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus). I was also expecting it to be a good go-to rebuttal to the plethora of bad mythicism out there, so I could just refer people to this book every time they ask me why (for example) Freke & Gandy suck.

But I cannot recommend books that are so full of errors that they will badly mislead and miseducate the reader, and that commit so many mistakes that I have to substantially and extensively correct them. Did Jesus Exist? ultimately misinforms more than it informs, and that actually makes it worse than bad. Like the worst of mythicist literature, you will come away after reading it with more false information in your head than true, and that makes my job as a historian harder, because now I have to fix everything he screwed up. This is why I don’t recommend anyone ever read bad mythicist literature, because it will only fill your head with nonsense that I will have to work harder to correct. Ehrman’s book ironically does much the same thing. Therefore, it officially sucks."

 

[Shad]

That actually makes no sense?
You mean criticized Carrier because he was a mythicist or criticized his work as a mythicist?

His work leading to the conclusion of being a mythicist

I follow both and Ehrman refuses to answer Carriers criticisms yet Carrier always answers on his end. Carrier has proven Ehrman is using false information in all sorts of ways and he proves each one. Ehrman will not respond and he will not debate Carrier.

It takes a lot of reading and time to understand what Ehrman is lying about but he has not been able to answer to Carriers issues with him.

Ehrman does on his blog. Debating is not required.

Carrier actually responds to criticism and when wrong admits his error:
List of Responses to Defenders of the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier

Ehman responded to the book years ago.

Also, I've watch probably 20 hours of Carrier debate scholars, he's air tight. Some people have accused him of lying and I traced it and found that he wasn't. I asked him for a source once by messenger because I believed some argument I saw and Carrier provided me with a source.

Debate does not equate truth nor result in it as it is not a method of research. An audience of layman accepting a view is irrelevant.

"I was certain this would be a great book, the very best in its category. And I said this, publicly, many times in anticipation of it. It’s actually the worst. It’s almost as bad, in fact, as The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy (and I did not hyperlink that title because I absolutely do not want you to buy it: it will disease your mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion). I was eagerly hoping for a book I could recommend as the best case for historicity (but alas, that title stays with the inadequate but nevertheless competent, if not always correct, treatment in Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus). I was also expecting it to be a good go-to rebuttal to the plethora of bad mythicism out there, so I could just refer people to this book every time they ask me why (for example) Freke & Gandy suck.

Ehrman criticized this book as well in a reply to Carrier's own book. The one you think Ehrman never talked about.

But I cannot recommend books that are so full of errors that they will badly mislead and miseducate the reader, and that commit so many mistakes that I have to substantially and extensively correct them. Did Jesus Exist? ultimately misinforms more than it informs, and that actually makes it worse than bad. Like the worst of mythicist literature, you will come away after reading it with more false information in your head than true, and that makes my job as a historian harder, because now I have to fix everything he screwed up. This is why I don’t recommend anyone ever read bad mythicist literature, because it will only fill your head with nonsense that I will have to work harder to correct. Ehrman’s book ironically does much the same thing. Therefore, it officially sucks."

Did Jesus Exist is not a mythicist book. Carrier is considered the mythicist as he doubts there was historical Jesus. I question your grasp of the content here as you are blasting the one you supported a few comments ago.

 

[PruePhillip]

The bible is mostly myth that revolve especially with later stories with some historic people and events. Looking for it to be an historical record is to miss what the bible teaches those that follow the Jewish faith.

In part I agree with your assessment.
Remember, society went from saying (pre 1600's) that the bible in "inerrant"
to ca 1900's to it being totally fabricated by a bunch of Canaanites in Babylon.
The bible IS an historic account of a people. Gradually the veil is being lifted
on these people. The divinity in the bible is an issue of faith - you can't say its
myth but it has characteristics (limited) of mythology. Thus its best to say "I
suspect there really WAS a person called Moses, but I find aspects of his
story to be unlikely."
And finally, the bible is written in theological language. Thus God sends the
Assyrians against Israel - when in fact the Assyrians were simply creating
an empire. Still true, but seen with different eyes. And there's the Creation
Story of Genesis 1 I mentioned - theologically written but conforming to the
current understanding of the early earth.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well I can show sources for why someone in those times would predict a savior deity, so it isn't out of the ordinary at all? Why would you even think that it's out of the ordinary?

But you don't look at sources. So that's weird? State a premise but then refuse to hear evidence to counter it?
What's the point of writing it at all?
There were savior deities all the way back into Egypt that we know about that were similar to Jesus. So predicting that your religion was going to have one is very ordinary.
Judaism was one of the last religions to switch to the savior deity. Not the first?

Also I welcome any evidence. Did I not just look up King David?

That another culture would approximate points of the bible doesn't invalidate the
bible. There are simply so many religions out there that some are going to get
closer than others. Some even have a god son. Interestingly, the Jews were not
amongst those.

What is interesting about David was that he wasn't of the Levites (still with us to
this day) but he was a King. A King God didn't want (!) and also, a King from who's
line Jesus would come. But this King, in his downfall, suffering and rejection, saw
the Messiah - something his famous wise son Solomon never saw.

Yeah, I should take on board other sources. It's why I am here, it's just that over
the years I have listened to, and read, so many points - I would spend time just
nutting out what authors were AVOIDING or MISREPRESENTING, and was tiring.