MarkA

As far as the concept of the ‘Bible as History’ goes, it was fashionable just after the establishment of scientific archaeology to send expeditions to the Middle East in order to find evidence of the stories. A very Victorian mind-set that tried to meld modern, rational thought with their supernatural belief system. Something that still unfortunately happens today. Discoveries of the city of Abraham, evidence for the Flood, ruined cities unearthed that were mentioned as being destroyed by the Hebrews after their arrival in the Promised Land and so on were continually in the news at the time.

With the foundation of modern Israel, it seemed that if the new owners of the land could prove their ancient ancestors had occupied it from the beginning of human history, their present claim would have greater weight. So evidence for the cities mentioned as belonging to the empire of David and Solomon or the destruction of Jericho ‘just like the Bible said’ were proclaimed from time to time. To the credit of recent Israeli archaeologists, these initial claims have of late been routinely refuted and many fake artefacts have been exposed.

This whole concept strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the disparate writings that make up the artificial construct called the Bible. It also reminds me of the modern ridiculous phenomenon of trying to identify the agent of the Star of Bethlehem. It represents a pointless and fruitless search for a confirmation of a mythical or allegorical symbol. Rather like trying to excavate for the skeleton of unicorn.

The new archaeological research being undertaken in the Middle East by Israeli and international archaeologists has a much more rational and scientific approach. First dig the ground, find the evidence and then construct a plausible theory to account for what you find. Not as in the past and as fundamentalists still do, draw your conclusions and then go and find ‘evidence’ for it even if you have to stretch the truth to make it fit.

As an aside this is my first post on this site and I hope it will not be my last. It looks like an interesting and challenging place.

rickP

Well this is just one of the all too many cases on our books of chartered accountancy. The only way that we can fight this terrible debilitating social disease, is by informing the general public of its consequences, by showing young people that it's just not worth it. So, so please... give generously...

Robert Byers

Mizraim is the one from whom Egyptians come. In fact the RA in the name is the origin, probably, of the God RA. They made real leaders into Gods over time. Also from Mizraim came the Cretans and Philistines. This is common biblical knowledge in these areas of study.
Rob byers

Robert Byers

The evidence for the story of Joseph or of Abrahams truth is in a notable event in Pharoah Egyptian history. A particular King in Egypt suddenly decided there was only one God and all the rest were bogus. This is surely the Pharoah that dealt with Abraham or Joseph and therefore the true God which directly affected the Paroahs life.
if the story of Abraham or Joseph and the Pharoahs was false then skecptics would say IF THIS PHAROAH met the true God in such a manner as desribed then why did it not change Egyptian religion?!
We know one pharoah did suddenly change to a single god belief. It was the Paraoh who met the true God during either the story of Abraham or Joseph.
Robert Byers

Fortuna

Ummmmmmm......Ok, what about this ?

Here is how Josephus explains it ;

Where is this solid firmament ? (look up what "raqiya" literally means, and "expanse" will not due unless you can show me another place in the Tanakh where it clearly means a "free expanse", as opposed to a border - you won't find it ! )

I wonder if Werner Von Braun was concerned that his V2 rocket would strike it and get damaged ?


C'mon JayW, Byers ! This is a fable ! A cool one no doubt, but a fable nonetheless.

mountainman

Nice objective first post MarkA.

Three things have enlived greatly BC&H conjectures
over the last century. C14, the DSS and the Nag
Hammaid codices. All three are a result of archaeological
and/or scientific technological advances.

I am entirely optimistic that the future discovery of
new information will prove very interesting for most
people, and that the channels for this new information
will be scientific technological advances, applied to
archaeological finds - in the field of NT "history" and
"christian origins".


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Withered

how is that not a logical fallacy?
This is a discussion of specific items that have been proven over time to have been different than the bible indicated was so. With regard to archeology alone, there are massive amounts of data, that indicate that Egypt did not suffer a global flood catastrophe. There is no geological evidence that can be said to support the concept of a world wide flood with any real credibility.

If you want to make broad claims like the one in the opening post, and like the one just above, then please be prepared to back them up.
Counter any one item given so far in this thread that has to do with real, documented archeology or science.

I will allow that the intentions of men long dead and gone may be hard to perceive, so i can agree to instead deal with things like anachronisms, historical and cultural records, and of course, my personal favorite, hard science.
Bible supporters offer ancient personal opinion as evidence that proves the bible is correct, yet try to pawn physical evidence off as personal opinion.

Is that what you meant to say, 'cause it looks like you have it backwards when you write it...:huh:
I am in complete agreement.

I am sure that in your counterpoint, you will offer sources outside of the bible to support your assertions, right?
Again this post seems to be sort of backwards to me. it is not uncommon for christians to use one or two, (or exclusively) christian sources of information. it is common, but it is not evidence. To me that statement just looks more honest when we turn it round the other way.

mountainman

You'll notice the use of the word "if" in the first place.
The fact remains that written texts are not evidence
of their authenticity, historicity and/or authorship,
since written texts may be, and have been known
to be, forged by unscrupulous people.

The Bible consists of the greek LXX (Hebrew texts)
bound to the New and STrange testment under
Constantine. A despot published the thing.
He was undisputably a military supremacist.

Do you instinctively trust people like
Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc? or their
propaganda and publications?

I dont.

As you will appreciate, written texts are no guarantee
of their genuine character, and the maxim about accepting
things at face value, is the same maxim that should be
in your head when you go out to buy a used car:

BUYER BEWARE


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Withered

great first post. Welcome aboard MarkA.
Pleased to meet you.

L.

Baalazel

Do you mean that the past thirty five hundred years of claims that the Bible is the word of God and is, in and of itself, the living proof of that claim is not to be relied upon?

Here is evidence that falsifies the Bible. There is no evidence that King David ever lived. As you now claim the Bible is not to be used as verification of its own claims you should be ready to present non-biblical sources which do.

I remind you that if David did not exist there could be no throne of David for the Messiah to occupy. It is not too far a leap to understand the damage this does to Christianity.

I gave you just such a claim. David did not exist. Jesus is not the Messiah. The Bible is false. Will you be content as always to ignore the claim and continue to present nothing in defense? I expect you will.

And yet you would have us accept ancient opinions as truth and then tell us it is not possible to accept those opinions as verification of the truth insisting instead that we seek verification elsewhere while making liars of those who tell us the verification does not exist.

And it is not evidence to claim the Bible is genuine no matter how many sources you claim to have. It is nonsense to accuse critics of using the same tactics you use. You say critics often use the works of other critics as though you do not use the works of other apologists. You are right to say it is not evidence but only to the extent that the works contain no evidential material. It is correct that nothing you have said here contains any evidential material.

In fact, you have contradicted yourself, proved false your own claims of fact, and used as an apologist a figure history rightly condemns for his brutality in the furtherance of Christianity.

If this had a point I would no doubt be able to refute it.

Baal