Doctor X

my dog earl:

It is a common practice to try to force critics to disprove the extraordinary claim. While this is possible--yes, you can sometimes "disprove a negative"--the burden of proof really exists with the proponent.

For example, as The Bible Unearthed and other references demonstrate, a great deal of NEGATIVE evidence exists against the Exodus-Conquest. Proponents will point to something and pretend that is proof.

When they cannot, they withdraw from the debate and return later hoping no one has noticed.

--J.D.

Aravnah Ornan

It's shelved between the evidence of WMD's in Iraq and the evidence that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

Doctor X

Homosexuality is, indeed, a concious choice in Syria. . . .

--J.D.

my dog earl

I don't get it.

my dog earl

When they cannot, they withdraw from the debate and return later hoping no one has noticed.

--J.D.

It must be a universal tactic.

Sauron

It's another Ron Wyatt Archaeology claim. Ron Wyatt is (or, was - he's dead now) a five-star charlatan who ran a "Bible Museum" for ridiculous artifacts. He had no training in archaeology whatsoever; if memory serves, he was a dental hygienist in Tennessee.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-05.htm

Sauron

I realize you were being ironic here, but I just wanted to point out that this claim stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (no pun intended) of who the Hittites were.

Or, which two groups of people they were. From the Oxford Companion to the Bible:

1. "Among the people Israel found in Canaan were the 'sons of Heth,' members of a Canaanite family (Gen 10.15)....The names given for these Hittites are all Semitic, and it is likely that they all were members of a local Canaanite tribe.

2. The Hittites of Anatolia (modern Turkey) were another people, forgotten until excavations at Boghazkoy were begun in 1906. This was the site of tehir capital, Hattusha, containing a palace and temples."

So the fundies have gotten themselves confused. The people that archaeologists weren't sure existed are the 2nd group, not the first group. But it's the 1st group of people named "Hittites" that the bible talks about.

The 2nd group plays little or no part in the OT Bible, primarily because their empire came to an end at about the time of the Sea Peoples. There were several neo-Hittite city states that continued, but the empire was over.

Sposam

Just found this site, so this is my first post. Sorry for coming in late on the discussion.

There are many Biblical cities that were once thought fictional until archeologists dicovered them:
Arad, Bethel, Capernaum, Chorazin, Dan, Ephesus, Gaza, Gezer,
Hazor, Hesbon, Jericho, Joppa, Nineveh, Nazareth, Shechem,
Susa, etc.

Luke 3:1 refers to Lysanius being the tetrarch of Abiline. This was thought to be disproved until archeologists discovered it to be accurate.

The walls of Jericho have been found with evidence that they collapsed just as the Bible says they did.

Simon Peter's house has been found.

A basalt stone was found verifying King David.

Evidence was found in Iraq of a massive flood dating back to the time Noah was believed to live.

Falvius Josephus writes about the existence of Jesus, John the Baptist, James (the brother of Jesus), and Ananias the high priest.

Tacitus talks about there being a "Jesus Christ."

The Jewish Talmud, while not asserting Jesus to be the Messiah, still confirms the crucifixion of Jesus.

All in all, I believe there is strong evidence to take the Bible at its word. We do not doubt the reliability of the writings of Plato, even though there is a 1,200 year gap between the original and the first copy and a total of 7 copies. For Aristotle, there is 1,400 years between the original and the first copy and a total of 20 copies. Yet for the New Testament, there is less than 100 years between the original writings and the first discovered copies. In all, there are more than 5,600 ancient copies. We can verify 99% of the New Testament manuscripts to be in agreement, with the remaining 1% being little more than grammatical inconsistencies.

Doctor X

Oh my. . . .

Gentle touch necessary, methinks. . . .

First, Sposam, welcome to the forums . . . mind the hounds. . . .

Forgive the point-by-point but you introduce a lot of material. I strongly recommend you consider the book Archaeology and the Bible--goeth thou to Recommended Reading--for further detail.

Really does not prove anything. In fact, such has proven the inadequacy of some narratives because cities do not exist in time periods they should and, worse, existed without destruction.

And? This reminds me of the "They Laughed at Edison" argument--"they" were once "wrong" about something so "they" could be wrong now. Sagan replied, "They laughed at Bozo!" Also, Edison did do some rather stupid things, such as create concrete homes with concrete furniture. Anyways, that a fact is a fact in a text does not make the entire work "true" anymore than the fact that Mallory sets his Le Morte de Arthur in England proves King Arthur existed.

Actually, it is the other way around.

Reference. "Traditions" exist to make "such-and-such" a place to be "such-and-such" a place in the Bible. That does not make it so. Furthermore, if you review some of the threads on the "Historical Jesus" the fact that some figures actually existed--like a Paul or a Peter--does not validate the much later stories.

That is rather controversial. The authors of The Bible Unearthed cite it but admit it does not prove anything. They would argue that the fact a historical figure existed does not prove the stories attributed to him. The book Archeaology and the Bible discusses the problem of this find.

"All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place." spake a mentor. That a historical basis for a figure existed does not mean the much later mythology has any basis in reality.

No one can date Noah accurately. He is based on a Babylonian/Assyrian myth based on an even earlier Sumerian myth. Thou shalt find that discuss'd in a recent thread on the flood. If anything, a "local flood" is contrary to the various Flood Myths preserved in the biblical texts.

He also writes about nothing happening during the reign of Tiberius. The Tacitus mention is controversial--as are the Josephus--probable insertions from later scribes. As above, even if we accept these as "true" for the sake of argument, the references state nothing about what a historical figure said or did.

The Talmud is quite late. There is a thread here on that. It does not serve as historical support.

Here is where you have a problem. Just for starters you have:

1. Two competing and unreconcileable Creation Myths.
2. Two competing and unreconcileable Flood Myths.
3. Versions of Junior that have unreconcileable teachings.

Where does one start and stop taking the Bible "at its word?" The same section that contains the rather artificial "ten commandments" also demands child sacrifice. I, for one, wish we would return to this sage practice . . . especially around Christmas. . . . What about a Junior who refused to save good people?

Actually, there is quite a wonderful literature on Plato.

Er . . . no.

First, it is about 100 years between "the events" and the actual texts. The depends on when you date Mk--after the Squishing of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Mt, Lk, and sometimes Jn use Mk as a source.

The witnesses are rather beyond 100 years from the texts. There are some "early" papyrii but they do not answer controversial issues of textual criticism.

"Quality not quantity," to paraphrase Emperor Clau . . . Clau . . . Claudius. 1000 witnesses to a bad text are 1000 witnesses to a bad text.

Ah . . . no . . . far worse than that. That is an apology quoted in earlier literature, but the Criticus Apparatus indicates otherwise.

Yet, for the sake of argument, let us assume you are correct. You are then left with the problem of Junior being born twice--ten years appart--and a Judas who is either hung or explodes. You have two unreconcileable birth narratives and genealogies.

Leave aside the historical inaccuracies.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Doctor X was comprehensive, as usual, in his response but I would add that Tacitus never uses the name described above.

After a description of how Nero blamed Christians for the fire, the text refers to "Christus, the founder of the name".