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

[Kenny]

Conversely, the more of these that contradict the Bible, the more the Bible becomes unreliable. Sadly for Christian claims, this category far outweighs the other.

I have waited for the converse. Isn't that a shoe brand?

 

[PruePhillip]

Conversely, the more of these that contradict the Bible, the more the Bible becomes unreliable. Sadly for Christian claims, this category far outweighs the other.

Just been reading this...
Great Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: The Mari Archive

The value of the Mari texts for Biblical studies lies in the fact that Mari is located in the vicinity of the homeland of the Patriarchs, being about 200 mi (320 km) southeast of Haran. It thus shares a common culture with the area where the Patriarchs originated. Some documents detail practices such as adoption and inheritance similar to those found in the Genesis accounts. The tablets speak of the slaughtering of animals when covenants were made, judges similar to the judges of the Old Testament, gods that are also named in the Hebrew Bible, and personal names such as Noah, Abram, Laban and Jacob. A city named Nahur is mentioned, possibly named after Abraham’s grandfather Nahor (Gn 11:22-25), as well as the city of Haran where Abraham lived for a time (Gn 11:31-12:4). Hazor is spoken of often in the Mari texts and there is a reference to Laish (Dan) as well. A unique collection of 30 texts deals with prophetic messages that were delivered to local rulers who relayed them to the king.

The findings at Mari show that the Patriarchal narratives accurately reflect the socioeconomic conditions of that time and place.

 

[ecco]

PruePhillip previously:

Well the bible says there was a Roman governor called Pilate. It's an unusual
name but yes, history shows, there really was a Pilate. So that supports the
bible story.
And no-one believed there was a town called Nazareth, but eventually it was
found. So yes, history proved the town existed.
And people didn't believe there was a King David. But now we have the evidence
there was a house of David.
And people didn't believe there was a racial group called Jews, but yes, now DNA
shows the Jews are a distinct people.
And people said in David's day there was no nation with its own literature and
government. But yes, we have found there was in fact a nation at 1000 BC.​

What's your point?

The point is people think the bible is fiction, like the pantheon
of Greek gods. The bible makes a claim to history, and bit by
bit this history is emerging.

None of your above claims indicate the veracity of the stories in the bible.

For example: Nazareth.
It means nothing that there is/was a town called Nazareth. The fact that it existed/exists does nothing to validate the stories that use it as a setting.

In New York State there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. It was used as the focal point of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. That Sleepy Hollow exists does not mean that Ichabod Crane ever existed.

For example: Pilate.
It may well be true that a Roman Government official by that name existed. But, outside of the Bible, there is nothing to support his involvement with a Jesus Christ.

George Washington was a real person but there is nothing to substantiate the story that he ever threw a coin over the Potomac.

Even in fiction, authors will often use the names of real persons and locales.


As more research is done, more evidence is accumulated to show the Bible to be fiction. One of the biggest and best known of these is The Exodus. Even Jewish scholars, who really wanted it to have been a real event, have come to the realization that it never happened.

So, your above list of "real things mentioned in the Bible" is pointless.

 

[PruePhillip]

PruePhillip previously:

Well the bible says there was a Roman governor called Pilate. It's an unusual
name but yes, history shows, there really was a Pilate. So that supports the
bible story.
And no-one believed there was a town called Nazareth, but eventually it was
found. So yes, history proved the town existed.
And people didn't believe there was a King David. But now we have the evidence
there was a house of David.
And people didn't believe there was a racial group called Jews, but yes, now DNA
shows the Jews are a distinct people.
And people said in David's day there was no nation with its own literature and
government. But yes, we have found there was in fact a nation at 1000 BC.​

None of your above claims indicate the veracity of the stories in the bible.

For example: Nazareth.
It means nothing that there is/was a town called Nazareth. The fact that it existed/exists does nothing to validate the stories that use it as a setting.

In New York State there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. It was used as the focal point of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. That Sleepy Hollow exists does not mean that Ichabod Crane ever existed.

For example: Pilate.
It may well be true that a Roman Government official by that name existed. But, outside of the Bible, there is nothing to support his involvement with a Jesus Christ.

George Washington was a real person but there is nothing to substantiate the story that he ever threw a coin over the Potomac.

Even in fiction, authors will often use the names of real persons and locales.


As more research is done, more evidence is accumulated to show the Bible to be fiction. One of the biggest and best known of these is The Exodus. Even Jewish scholars, who really wanted it to have been a real event, have come to the realization that it never happened.

So, your above list of "real things mentioned in the Bible" is pointless.

Imagine. We went looking for Pontius Pilat and didn't find him. What would the skeptics say?
We went looking for the town of Nazareth and found nothing. What would the skeptics say?
We search for King David and found nothing. What would the skeptics say?
etc..
etc..
etc..
But when we find these thing what do the skeptics say? Pretty well much what you said.
At least we can lay to rest the charge that the bible faked the history.

I have been reading up on the Mari texts, from the time of Abraham. If someone invented the
Patriarch story in Babylonian or Greek times - where did they get the names, the towns, the
customs, the Bronze Age culture etc from? That was nearly as far back as Jesus is from us.
Easy answer, employing Occam's Razor - the Old Testament wasn't written in recent times,
or was sourced from previous documents.

 

[ecco]

Imagine. We went looking for Pontius Pilat and didn't find him. What would the skeptics say?
We went looking for the town of Nazareth and found nothing. What would the skeptics say?
We search for King David and found nothing. What would the skeptics say?
etc..
etc..
etc..
But when we find these thing what do the skeptics say? Pretty well much what you said.
At least we can lay to rest the charge that the bible faked the history.

Well, no you can't. Naming a few names of actual cities and people proves nothing about the "historical" narratives in the bible.

None of your above claims indicate the veracity of the stories in the bible.

For example: Nazareth.
It means nothing that there is/was a town called Nazareth. The fact that it existed/exists does nothing to validate the stories that use it as a setting.

In New York State there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. It was used as the focal point of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. That Sleepy Hollow exists does not mean that Ichabod Crane ever existed.

For example: Pilate.
It may well be true that a Roman Government official by that name existed. But, outside of the Bible, there is nothing to support his involvement with a Jesus Christ.

George Washington was a real person but there is nothing to substantiate the story that he ever threw a coin over the Potomac.

Even in fiction, authors will often use the names of real persons and locales.


As more research is done, more evidence is accumulated to show the Bible to be fiction. One of the biggest and best known of these is The Exodus. Even Jewish scholars, who really wanted it to have been a real event, have come to the realization that it never happened.

So, your above list of "real things mentioned in the Bible" is pointless.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, no you can't. Naming a few names of actual cities and people proves nothing about the "historical" narratives in the bible.

None of your above claims indicate the veracity of the stories in the bible.

For example: Nazareth.
It means nothing that there is/was a town called Nazareth. The fact that it existed/exists does nothing to validate the stories that use it as a setting.

In New York State there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. It was used as the focal point of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. That Sleepy Hollow exists does not mean that Ichabod Crane ever existed.

For example: Pilate.
It may well be true that a Roman Government official by that name existed. But, outside of the Bible, there is nothing to support his involvement with a Jesus Christ.

George Washington was a real person but there is nothing to substantiate the story that he ever threw a coin over the Potomac.

Even in fiction, authors will often use the names of real persons and locales.


As more research is done, more evidence is accumulated to show the Bible to be fiction. One of the biggest and best known of these is The Exodus. Even Jewish scholars, who really wanted it to have been a real event, have come to the realization that it never happened.

So, your above list of "real things mentioned in the Bible" is pointless.

I have already been over this very point.
By pointing out the existence of historic figures (King David) and historic locations (Nazareth)
we have at least attended to that aspect of the charge.
That leaves just two more - the personal lives of the biblical figures and the supernatural claims.
Neither of these can be proven, or even have evidence for.
Currently I am interested in the claim made by some that the Old Testament was crafted during
Babylonian/Greek times. That leaves a span of time from Abraham to Greece that is as long as
the fall of the Roman Empire till today. How did the "inventors" of the bible craft the Abrahamic-
Genesis story?

Claim 1 - Genesis was all invented as a Greek/Babylonian period "tale"
Claim 2- some of this "tale" was taken from earlier documents

I think we give a good argument that Claim 2 is closer to the truth. Been reading the story of the
royal archives of Mari and how it confirms a lot of the Genesis account of Bronze Age culture.
For Claim 1 to be true we would have to say that fiction approximates the archaeology by chance.
It has happened - one science fiction writer posited two tiny moons of Mars, and these were found.
But for ALL of the Genesis account, that's a long stretch.

 

[gnostic]

I have already been over this very point.
By pointing out the existence of historic figures (King David) and historic locations (Nazareth)
we have at least attended to that aspect of the charge.
That leaves just two more - the personal lives of the biblical figures and the supernatural claims.
Neither of these can be proven, or even have evidence for.
Currently I am interested in the claim made by some that the Old Testament was crafted during
Babylonian/Greek times. That leaves a span of time from Abraham to Greece that is as long as
the fall of the Roman Empire till today. How did the "inventors" of the bible craft the Abrahamic-
Genesis story?
Claim 1 - Genesis was all invented as a Greek/Babylonian tale
Claim 2- some of this tale was taken from earlier documents
I think we give a good argument that Claim 2 is closer to the truth. Been reading the story of the
royal archives of Mari and how it confirms a lot of the Genesis account of Bronze Age culture.
For Claim 1 to be true we would have to say that fiction approximates the archaeology by chance.
It has happened - one science fiction writer posited two tiny moons of Mars, and these were found.
But for ALL of the Genesis account, that's a long stretch.

There are no 3rd millennium BCE texts and no 2nd millennium BCE texts of any sort that relate to the Abrahamic religions.

I know that the story of Genesis to Joshua has been set in the time of the 3rd to late 2nd millennia BCE, but there are not a single parchment, papyrus, clay tablet, no inscriptions on walls of houses, palaces or tombs that relate to these stories in this period (Bronze Age).

All writings of Abrahamic religions only exist from 7th century BCE and later, hence during the Iron Age.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no 3rd millennium BCE texts and no 2nd millennium BCE texts of any sort that relate to the Abrahamic religions.

I know that the story of Genesis to Joshua has been set in the time of the 3rd to late 2nd millennia BCE, but there are not a single parchment, papyrus, clay tablet, no inscriptions on walls of houses, palaces or tombs that relate to these stories in this period (Bronze Age).

All writings of Abrahamic religions only exist from 7th century BCE and later, hence during the Iron Age.

True. Sadly true.
So far.
But texts have been pushed back to about 1000 BC, and these demonstrate there was a
Jewish culture and literature. Something denied by many skeptics.
Israel did not create monuments to itself like Egypt and Babylon did, for instance. Its
texts were parchment or papyrus, handed down generation to generation.
That's why the Mari stuff interests me. And I am looking at the names in early Genesis, were
these even Jewish? We know Moses wasn't - that's Egyptian. Abraham was an ancient Sumerian
name.

 

[gnostic]

But texts have been pushed back to about 1000 BC, and these demonstrate there was a Jewish culture and literature.

Except what we call “Jewish” literature and “Jewish” religion weren’t really predominant in the Hebrew society until the 7th century BCE, largely due to the driving force of King Joiash to promote Jewish monotheism.

There are earlier writings existing before Joiash’s time, but they are sporadic and most often have nothing to do with religion. There were no books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, no Samuel, nor Psalms, before 1000 BCE.

The oldest literary evidences for the Hebrew Scriptures, is the tomb at the cave called Ketef Hinnom, where they found small passage from fragments concerning Numbers 6, from we called the Silver Scrolls. This Silver Scrolls has been dated to late 7th century to early 6th century BCE.

You will find no older text, then this small fragments of passage.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except what we call “Jewish” literature and “Jewish” religion weren’t really predominant in the Hebrew society until the 7th century BCE, largely due to the driving force of King Joiash to promote Jewish monotheism.

There are earlier writings existing before Joiash’s time, but they are sporadic and most often have nothing to do with religion. There were no books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, no Samuel, nor Psalms, before 1000 BCE.

The oldest literary evidences for the Hebrew Scriptures, is the tomb at the cave called Ketef Hinnom, where they found small passage from fragments concerning Numbers 6, from we called the Silver Scrolls. This Silver Scrolls has been dated to late 7th century to early 6th century BCE.

You will find no older text, then this small fragments of passage.

The problem here is that you confuse
evidence
no evidence
earliest evidence.

I thought it strange there was no grasses during the age of the dinosaurs.
Why can't there be grass? Was there just bare soil? What did herbivorous
dinosaurs eat?
But then, they found grass. And last week, they found flowers 50 million
earlier than preciously thought. The more we look, the older and more
amazing things turn out to be.

 

[Altfish]

I'm a skeptic and would still be amazed if there were not archaeological evidence for some of the stories in the Bible. Most fiction is written based on some real life facts.

If, in 2000 years time, you were investigating the Harry Potter stories and the Hogwarts Express in particular, I'm sure there'd be evidence of King's Cross Station and perhaps the foundations of The Glenfinnan Viaduct. Does that prove Harry Potter is true?

 

[lukethethird]

I'm a skeptic and would still be amazed if there were not archaeological evidence for some of the stories in the Bible. Most fiction is written based on some real life facts.

If, in 2000 years time, you were investigating the Harry Potter stories and the Hogwarts Express in particular, I'm sure there'd be evidence of King's Cross Station and perhaps the foundations of The Glenfinnan Viaduct. Does that prove Harry Potter is true?

For many, yes. Case in point, Jesus.

 

[Shad]

True. Sadly true.
So far.
But texts have been pushed back to about 1000 BC,

No the oldest fragment, not even a page, is from 7th century BCE.

 

[PruePhillip]

No the oldest fragment, not even a page, is from 7th century BCE.

True. The so-called Tel Dan inscription didn't come from the Jews,
but it mentions the House of David.
It's strange that the Jews didn't even inscribe text in stone. I understand
they had an issue with self aggrandizement and portraying images, but
I don't understand the inscription taboo.

 

[ecco]

How did the "inventors" of the bible craft the Abrahamic-
Genesis story?


Claim 2- some of this "tale" was taken from earlier documents

I think it's fair to say that all extant creation stories borrowed from earlier ones.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm a skeptic and would still be amazed if there were not archaeological evidence for some of the stories in the Bible. Most fiction is written based on some real life facts.

If, in 2000 years time, you were investigating the Harry Potter stories and the Hogwarts Express in particular, I'm sure there'd be evidence of King's Cross Station and perhaps the foundations of The Glenfinnan Viaduct. Does that prove Harry Potter is true?

Well here's the thing. Some influential skeptics claimed, by way of analogy,
that there was no King's Cross Station and the Gelnfinnan Viaduct.
And they influenced many to no longer believe.
But later, when the station and viaduct were unearthed, those who left their
faith did not return to it.

And the strategy was simply to say, "There's no evidence there ever was a
King's Cross Station and Gelnfinnan Viaduct." Which many thought (in their faith
in science) to mean "King's Cross Station and the Gelnfinnan Viaduct never
existed. You have been lied to."

Had I actually read the Harry Potter series I could push this analogy much further.

 

[Altfish]

Well here's the thing. Some influential skeptics claimed, by way of analogy,
that there was no King's Cross Station and the Gelnfinnan Viaduct.
And they influenced many to no longer believe.
But later, when the station and viaduct were unearthed, those who left their
faith did not return to it.

And the strategy was simply to say, "There's no evidence there ever was a
King's Cross Station and Gelnfinnan Viaduct." Which many thought (in their faith
in science) to mean "King's Cross Station and the Gelnfinnan Viaduct never
existed. You have been lied to."

Had I actually read the Harry Potter series I could push this analogy much further.

Not sure what you are saying, as long as the phrase "There is no evidence" then it is a true statement. There is no lying if when evidence is uncovered they change the statement.
There is still a big leap though from King's Cross and Glenfinnan Viaduct existing to Harry Potter existing.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not sure what you are saying, as long as the phrase "There is no evidence" then it is a true statement. There is no lying if when evidence is uncovered they change the statement.
There is still a big leap though from King's Cross and Glenfinnan Viaduct existing to Harry Potter existing.

'There is no evidence' is a true statement.
It is employed, or interpreted by some, to say 'It doesn't exist'
It doesn't clearly state, but implies.
"There is no evidence of King David" carried with it the weight of science,
the new authority.
And this new authority claimed that the Old Testament was made up at
a much later date, even into the Greek period. So the discovery of the
"House of David" suggests whoever "made up" the OT didn't just pull it
out of their hat - for as far as 700 years earlier there WAS a King David.
Word of mouth? Written history? Or a bible not only complete but also
a Cannon which was not able to be edited?

 

[Altfish]

'There is no evidence' is a true statement.
It is employed, or interpreted by some, to say 'It doesn't exist'
It doesn't clearly state, but implies.
"There is no evidence of King David" carried with it the weight of science,
the new authority.
And this new authority claimed that the Old Testament was made up at
a much later date, even into the Greek period. So the discovery of the
"House of David" suggests whoever "made up" the OT didn't just pull it
out of their hat - for as far as 700 years earlier there WAS a King David.
Word of mouth? Written history? Or a bible not only complete but also
a Cannon which was not able to be edited?

I'd say that that is the 'interpreter's' fault - if you believe that "there is no evidence for" is 100% proof that something doesn't exist then you need educating.
Science is very useful but you must understand it to interpret it.
King David - the jury is out.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'd say that that is the 'interpreter's' fault - if you believe that "there is no evidence for" is 100% proof that something doesn't exist then you need educating.
Science is very useful but you must understand it to interpret it.
King David - the jury is out.

So you say it's ME that needs educating because I point out how people misread science?

There's general agreement there was a house of David. David is a dynasty - and the first of
the dynasty usually holds the eponymous name, in this case, a king called David.