Soul Invictus

I think there was a post a while back stating the historicity of Alexander the Great was more than that for Jesus... That's what sparked my post. We always here about the great ancient kings of Egypt, like Thutmose and Akenhaten. Personally I've never studied enough to know the sources for this, however I'm sure it would like in the hieroglyphics.. One good thing about the Egyptians., they valued written record. What I want to know is that of the more popular Biblical characters, such as Abraham, Moses, Kings David and Solomon, is there any textual script to support the existence of these characters, outside of your KJV? I''m not well versed on any of the original Bibles of Hebrew of what not, but what I want to know is that is the Bible our sole source for information on these characters?

There are historical records on Plato, and Aristotle, and Constantine the Great, correct? Well is there anything to corroborate the existence of these characters? Another thing, - the lineages of man have been attributed to Noah's 3 nations idea....for his 3 sons. Is there any historical reference to him as well, and in the scientific community I found this
So I was wondering to what extent in the scientific community (dispite the link I provided) is the idea of Noah being important to the geneaology of mankind prevalent. If he is deemed critical, then he has to be accepted as having existed, (which I was wondering is there an outside source for)

I understand the Bible is going to have a portion of truth as well as it's portion of fancy. I'm wondering where the characters we're presented with lie?

***Final point***
How historically correct are events in the Bible that have been corroborated?
An example I'm referring to is the enslavement of Egyptians during the Moses era. I had questions about how the Egyptians are portrayed in the Bible vs that from what history shows us. I was watching a program about the Great Pyramids, and two scholars balked at the idea that the Egyptians operated a slave system (in a modern European sense) to create the Pyramids. They went on to explain that the workers would have been proud to have worked on a burial palace for the king. The Bible speaks of King Nebuchadnezzar as well, and vilifies him. Was he as evil a king as portrayed? What other errant portrayals of events are there? Is there any balance portrayals in the Bible? Also, there's no evidence of a great flood, right?

I think you all get the jist!

Invictus

Toto

Plato and Aristotle left their writings, and were mentioned in others writings. Constantine left an empire with official records.

Noah is a myth, but if he actually existed in Biblical time, would be too recent for his descendents to have created the genetic diversity around the world. Most anthropologists see the human species as coming out of Africa and not the middle east. Most anthropologists also think that "race" is a myth. The web site that you give is an imaginative attempt to fit modern human genetics into the framework of a Biblical myth, but it's just that. The time line is all wrong, the points of origin are wrong. It's not even good enough to bother a detailed refutation, but if you want one, you would do better in the Evolution or Science forums.

braces_for_impact

Some of the events/characters mentioned in the bible are purely myth (Noah), some are debatable (Moses), and some are true to some extent. For instance, Sodom and Ghomorah are mentioned in other writings besides the bible, and each of those writings seems to have a different explanation for the cataclysm that destroyed those cities.

Though my research on this topic isn't very thorough, I have done some, and it has been enlightening. I would say for the most part that the bible is based on actual events which were told, retold, and interpreted by the writers and listeners and their culture.

Unfortunately for biblical literalists, most of the bible stories which are more or less famous turn out to be gross exagerrations of the tale. Examples if this would include the supposed exodus, the city of Jherico, and the mighty King David. There was an excellent article last year in the New York times that many jewish rabbi were now considering the bible not to be representative of historical fact. This is due mostly to strong archeological evidence that does not coincide with the bible's telling of events.

One point of warning, if you decide to research this topic, make sure your bs detector is up and running at full power, there's a lot of crap out there concerning this topic. Especially, though not limited to, the fundie side of the debate.

Edited for spelling (that's what I get for doing this in a hurry at work)

philechat

The Bible is not the only, say, mythical account of some allegedly "historical" figure. The existence of Confucius, Xia dynesty, and Yellow emperor were mostly (if not totally) Chinese myths, and Achilles, Orpheus, and Oedipus were mythical-historical figures in Hellenic civilizations.

These people most likely did not exist, but they are all quite significant to the culture of their births. It is the, say, traditions they inspire that become important to a given culture, and not the figures' actual existence.

And for some reason, many Christian just does not understand this idea.

Sarpedon

Also one must be careful...just because something is mentioned in more than one story doesn't mean it existed. Myth borrowing is very common.

There is no archaeological evidence to support the existance of Moses. If he were real, there should have been. Where are the mass graves of all the dead first-born egyptian sons? Where are the tomb inscriptions running thusly..."in this tomb that I made for myself I now bury my first born son with much weeping...not only him, but my brothers son, and my sisters son, and so forth" or "a funny thing happened today, it started raining Frogs! I have never heard of such a thing!" etc.

Basically, the more bizarre things that happen in a story, the less likely it is to be true. Socrates appears in Greek histories of Thucydides and Xenophon, and they do not include much in the way of myth and magic. Thucydides flatly attacks oracles and such as frauds. Therefore, I consider him a more credible source than the bible.

Soul Invictus

Toto,

I shall take your advice and post this in Ev/Sci. I made it a favorite just the other day, because it looked impressive. Out it goes! I wish I had some background in anthro...points of origin being wrong? I'd come across Africa being a focal/starting point for the start of civilization as well, especially for it's conducive climate. So the timeline's off too hey? Where were you in my threads BEGGING on info on reconciling the Biblical timeline to that of generally accepted scientific guidelines?

Also, what info can you impart on the timeline of events?

Thanks for your input!

Invictus