spamandham

IMHO, the simplest conclusion is that there really was a renouned family by the name Temech in that time period (if the mirror image argument fails), and the writer of that portion of Nehemiah was familiar with them. This proves that the OT does contain some historically useful information. I'm not aware of anyone who denies that.

reniaa

Yes I think we'll need more time on the mirror image debate so various scholars can assess it :S

But taking it in it's simpliest sense alone your right it is not much but added to the rest of bible - archaeological ties, evidences and agreements it's more weight in favour of the bible being an accurate account of actual history than the book of fiction skeptics would have us think it is.

If the mirror image point is the right answer then we still do have a temple seal which in itself is a nice if not quite so controversial find biblically

QuestionMark

Was there any evidence in the NT that Jesus was alive that was written by a contemporary?

QM?

WVIncagold

No yours is the week argument. if someone a thousand years from now finds a record with Blair on it and immediately jumps to the conclusion that its Tony Blair the Tony Blair who was the politician and not the Tony Blair who was the garbage man planning a garbage strike at the time its not only pretty poor judgment its blind to history and quite gullible. Keep in mind i am not debating the stone or that the name is in the OT as you speak of. Your defending the position this stone directly relates to the person in the bible and this in some way in your mind makes the bible infallible? Skeptics are skeptics because we don't turn a blind eye to reality. We know nothing of this inscription besides its name and its reference to another god besides Yahweh. You need to prove this stone expressly is talking about a minor character contained in the bible. As usual the devout immediately jump into fantasy. I would compare that 1000 years from now someone excavates an area in Mexico and finds a record of Jesus and jump on the premise Jesus must of come to the new world ignoring the fact that JESUS is a very popular name right now in Mexican male families. Sorry to say but such blind ignorance and acceptance hinders the ability to look intellectually and what is a very nice find.

Minimalist

There are? From the early First Century when he allegedly 'lived?'


I doubt it.


If you mean there are later writings of his 'followers' that's something else and means absolutely nothing. There are plenty of artifacts with the names Zeus and Jupiter and they weren't real either.

But if you can produce a genuine early First Century artifact with "Jesus" on it, that would be a big deal.. In fact, it would be such a big deal that it is hard to imagine that reputable archaeologists haven't already heard of it.

Darklighter

Yeah, this is a great find for archaeology, but it proves nothing about the bible, other than certain people that it mentiones around the time of the exile may have actually existed. I don't think that that point was ever in doubt. It's all the people BEFORE that point that are the problem. The further back you go, the further the biblical record deviates from confirmed history. Indicating that much of the OT was written (or at least edited and stitched together from various sources in the case of the pentatuch) around the time of that seal!

reniaa

Actually it doesn't deviate there is just a lack of evidence yet found, and I'm not sure the evidence would ever exist to find it, !0 plagues of egypt would definitly mean if some pharoah would ever admit to that sort of defeat which looking at their history is very doubtful especially if it concerns a slave race.

but you really need to back your claim here with some examples of patching up. without that it's just a statement from your viewpoint.

Wedge

Um, if the 10 plagues had happened, it couldn't be covered up by embarrassed Egyptians. That's like saying George Bush could cover up the effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans.

Whether the Egyptians recorded it or not, the evidence would be overwhelming. There would be mass graves. The economy would have collapsed. Other nations would have noticed, commented on it, probably invaded.

And both the Hebrew and the Egyptian cultures would have shown signs of extensive interaction, in their language and artifacts.

spamandham

Skeptics argue that it contains both history and fiction (as well as other genres).

"The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn" contains real history. It records the slavery, racism, vernacular, and the lifestyle of the times it portrays. It even mentions the Mississipi river, and Cairo Illinois, both of which are real. Does this build weight in favour of the rest of the book being historical rather than fictional? No, of course not.

It's a horribly naive approach to say "these things in the Bible have been proven historical, therefor everything probably is".

spamandham

...none that I'm aware of.