reniaa

Isn't this the point though huckleberry finn uses fictional characters and events in a fairly accurate historical setting! but the bible uses real people and they are found to exist in reality from other sources, and many biblical events have also been found to have happened, for example wriitten tablets from the other warring sides viewpoint. so at what point when reading a document do we say "well we have the person, the place and the event corroborated by outside sources so it must have happenned?"
As I have said many times before in other threads, for other historical documents and suchlike we ask for a lot less evidence before believing them as fact! than we do of the bible, which people from a frantic point of view ask for more and more proof till we get to the situation we are now, enough proof for one side but never enough for the other.

figuer

This is simply false. You have been given the following example before: Troy has been found, and Mycene, and Knosos. Do you believe therefore in Zeus and Athena, do you believe in the Minotaur? Are you asking more proof from "a frantic point of view" before believing in Zeus? Is there any indication for an Exodus, for Noah, for Adam and Eve? Why is Zeus mythological but not Noah?

reniaa

Again you have found the place for troy but no evidence of people or the events therein described but with the bible you get place, person and event corroborated in many cases, to the point were we are now left with the further back in time ones because others have all been found and in jesus's case we have pontious pilate, jewish kings and the sanhedrin leaders of that time all confirmed by outside sources, and frantic apposers are like well you still don't have jesus or the miracles therefore.... etc etc.

Mageth

That's an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the "others have all been found"?

J-D

It's normal for invasions and similar major population movements to leave archaeological evidence.

There is no archaeological evidence of the movement of the Israelites into Canaan as described in Joshua and Judges. In the relevant archaeological strata there is no evidence of any interruption to continuity of habitation.

J-D

The 'Bible' is not a single document. It's a later compilation from diverse sources. Some parts have historical corroboration and some don't. There is corroboration from archaeological sources for parts of the narrative in the later portions of the books of Kings and Chronicles. Therefore, it is reasonable to use those parts of the Bible as historical sources (although one should still be alert, as with all historical sources, for possibilities such as ideological bias on the writer's part, or just carelessness). That is no reason to treat, say, Job, or Jonah, as a historical source.

Biff the unclean

Were I an archeologist and found a set of rosary beads that had the name Goldberg engraved on the back of the crucifix even though I had only heard about Goldbergs that were Jews I would not jump to the conclusion that these Goldbergs were Jewish.

This thing is a seal to leave an official mark in wax and on clay tablets that has priests of the God Sin on it. I don’t see how we can assume the owner was a Jew at all.

Agenda07

Actually archaeologists have found the Palace of Ajax. From the article:

So, do you accept that the Trojan War occured as described by Homer, that it was triggered by a squabble between three godesses over a golden apple inscribed with the phrase "to the fairest", that Ajax was the brother of a man who was virtually invulnerable as a result of having been dunked in the Styx by his mother and that the war was won with the help of an enormous wooden equine?

Pataphysician

Considering the possible dating of this seal to the late 6th century BC, couldn't the seal be related to some functionary of Neo-Babylonian King Nabonidus in the region? Nabonidus was trying to create a universal religion based on the Moon god Sin.

spamandham

No, the point is that simply because a few ordinary things are confirmed (which in this case has not yet adequately been established), it isn't valid to conclude that the extraordinary parts are true. Also, I think you are neglecting the point that many of the historical claims in the Bible have been effectively shown to be false, such as most of Exodus. Further, you seem to be treating the Bible as if it were one book written by a single author.

Even if it could be shown that ALL of Nehemiah were historically accurate, in no way would that imply any other book of the Bible is equally accurate.

That's not true. The ordinary historical claims of the Bible are treated the same as the ordinary historical claims of any other source - they add to the argument one way or another, but are not considered authoritative. Similary, the extraordinary claims of the Bible are treated the same as the extraordinary claims of other sources - they are pretty much dismissed out of hand unless a preponderanc of evidence supports them.