Archeology and History vs the Bible

[Asha'man]

This thread is aimed to continue a discussion with Mike(ATL)

Starting in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66077), Mike said that he had investigated the claims of the Bible, and found the Bible to be reliable. I pointed out that my investigations had lead to the complete opposite conclusion, and that the Bible was disproved by numerous fields of science.

I’d like this thread to just address the evidence of Archeology and History, mostly focused on the OT. Until Mike shows up, perhaps a survey of current evidence is in order.

Could someone who has the book provide a quick summary of The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman? I’ll insert a bit from the review on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869128/thesecularweb/)

…The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah."…

There have also been numerous discussions about the Exodus here. Simply put, it couldn’t have happened as written. The story is impossible to reconcile with Egyptian history, and 3 million Jews walking around the desert would have left some traces of their passage. Anyone want to elaborate on this a bit more?

{added internetinfidels link to Amazon URL - Toto}

[Celsus]

Finkelstein and Silberman in 5 words:

Everything you know is wrong.

(Ok, will get back to this later) Meanwhile, check this thread (http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000060.html) at EvC forums.

Joel

[Doctor X]

I do not wish to diminish Finkelstein and Silverman, but let me plug one of the books in the Recommended Reading List--and try out Toto addition of the Amazon Template:

Archeaology and the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0415159946/internetinfidels/104-6820516-4274354)

in fact . . . stop what you are doing and order it now.

This book puts in a succinct, clear, and non-partisan fashion "why" modern scholars no longer believe an Exodus happened or a Conquest. This book also rebuts a few theories of F and S--specifically on evidence for the historicity of a David and Solomon--though, to be fair--F and S admit they are speculating.

--J.D.

[Jack the Bodiless]

This would be a good place to point out an obvious contradiction: the contradiction between the Babel story and the actual use of language in Biblical times.

From the genealogies, the date of the Tower of Babel incident was 2100 BC or thereabouts. Before then, everyone used a common language (according to the Bible). After that date, "God confounded the languages".

Obviously, this did not happen. Ancient civilizations have always used a variety of written languages, and there is no period in which all languages suddenly changed.

The fact that nothing resembling submarines or scuba gear is mentioned (in any language we've deciphered) by those civilizations which survived the Flood is another problem...

[sparklecat]

Perhaps you can't say much about Israel until later on, but the earliest definitive reference to them would be around 1230 BC, in the Merneptah Stela. It merely mentions Israel (says the Pharaoh defeated them in fact), but it does establish the existence of a people named Israel living in Canaan at that time.

[PCenfuego]

slight change of topic but this is a really good site with evidence that the bible is true historically, especially read about Ninevah.

http://newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm#nineveh

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by PCenfuego
slight change of topic but this is a really good site with evidence that the bible is true historically, especially read about Ninevah.

http://newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm#nineveh

Other mythologies also mention historical places. An example is archaeological evidence for the city Troy of The Iliad fame. Do you give those mythologies as much credence as the one you've chosen? Why not?

[PCenfuego]

I was just giving an example of how it didn't disprove Christianity.

[Doctor X]

Eh?

The relative validity of historical material in the OT has no impact on the validity of historical material in the NT--that one is right does not make the other right. Furthermore, that a portion is right does not make the whole right. The film JFK is correct that the assassinated President was named "Kennedy."

"And I am right and you are right. . . ."

--J.D.

[rlogan]

PCenfuego -

I am curious if you can come up with just one unambiguous documented contemporaneous historical account or archaeological find confirming the existence of Jesus. A non-Christian source would be nearly "bulletproof".

About the closest we can come up with is Josephus from his "Antiquities". Until a copy is located that is much closer to the date of authorship, though, we are left with a pretty compelling case that it was "doctored".

It is interesting to cite gaps in the "fossil" record as evidence against evolution. Talk about gaps in the record!!

[-DM-]

Originally posted by PCenfuego
. . . this is a really good site with evidence that the bible is true historically....Regardless of the many evidences one can produce that the Bible is historically true in specific instances, it should be obvious to anyone that it is not always true historically. In some cases, for example, it provides allegedly historical details which are inconsistent and mutually exclusive with other allegedly historical details. In other cases, it provides allegedly historical details which are inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. In spite of these considerations, however, the page for which you supplied the URL, is entitled "Proof that the Bible is the Word of God"--which is silly as can be given that the Bible could be historically accurate and still not be the "Word of God." In fact, there is not a single evidence provided by the author of that page which proves his conclusion that "The Bible is the Word of God." The author is engaging in a huge non sequitur.

-Don-

P.S. The author of the "Proof that the Bible is the Word of God" page needs to do some reading outside of Christian sources. A good start would be:

The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465006493/InternetInfidels) by Thomas L. Thompson

Archaeology in the Holy Land (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393012859/InternetInfidels) by Kathleen M. Kenyon

The Bible Unearthed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869128/InternetInfidels) by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman

Archaeology of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671240102/InternetInfidels) by Magnus Magnusson

{fixed links - Toto}