There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

In 1993 a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran, made an astounding discovery, which was reported in Israel Exploration Journal. At the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the northern part of Israel, they uncovered a basalt stone. Carved into the stone are the words “House of David” and “King of Israel.”2 The inscription, dated to the ninth centuryB.C.E., is said to be part of a victory monument erected by Aramaeans”enemies of Israel who lived to the east. Why is this ancient inscription so significant?Based on a report by Professor Biran and his colleague, Professor Joseph Naveh, an article in Biblical Archaeology Review stated: “This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible.”3 Something else is noteworthy about the inscription. The expression “House of David” is written as one word. Language expert Professor Anson Rainey explains: “A word divider ... is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. ”The House of David’ was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth centuryB.C.E.”5 So King David and his dynasty evidently were well-known in the ancient world.So you are aware of this but still say that the existence of David is pure myth? I don't follow your logic. Actually this is not the first reference to David.An expert on the Mesha stela (also called the Moabite Stone), Professor André Lemaire, reported that it also refers to the “House of David.” The Mesha stela, discovered in 1868, has much in common with the Tel Dan stela. They both date to the ninth centuryB.C.E., are of the same material, aresimilar in size, and are written in almost identical Semitic script.As to a new reconstruction of a damaged line on the Mesha stela, Professor Lemaire wrote: “Nearly two years before the discovery of the Tel Dan fragment, I concluded that the Mesha stela contains a reference to the ”House of David.’ ... The reason this reference to the ”House of David’ has never been noted before may well be due to the fact that the Mesha stela has never had a proper editio princeps [first edition]. That is what I am preparing, 125 years after the discovery of the Meshastela.”

What “appears to be a receipt for a donation of three silver shekels to the Temple of Yahweh” has “recently surfaced on the antiquities market,” states Biblical Archaeology Review. “This is the oldest extra-Biblical mention of KingSolomon’s Temple ever discovered. [The words] BYT YHWH, ”the house of the Lord [Yahweh],’ ... had been found complete in only one extra-Biblical inscription,” and because of obscure context, its meaning has been disputed. The new inscribed potsherd, measuring 4inches by3.5inches [10.9 by8.6 cm] and containing five lines and 13 words, is clear and easily readable. Dated as early as the ninth centuryB.C.E., it is at least a century older than the other inscription and has been declared authentic by experts.

The book New Light on Hebrew Origins, by J.G. Duncan (1936, p. 174), states concerning the writer of the account about Joseph: "He employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used at the period referred to, and, where there is no Hebrew equivalent, he simply adopts the Egyptian word and transliterates it into Hebrew." The Egyptian names, the position of Joseph as Potiphar’s house manager, the prison houses, the titles "the chief of the cupbearers" and "the chief of the bakers," the importance placed on dreams by the Egyptians, the practice of Egyptian bakers of carrying baskets of bread on their heads (Ge 40:1, 2, 16,17), the position as prime minister and food administrator accorded Joseph by Pharaoh, the manner of inducting him into office, the Egyptian detestation of herders of sheep, the strong influence of magicians in the Egyptian court, the settling of the sojourning Israelites in the land of Goshen, the Egyptian burial practices”all these and many other points described in the Bible record are clearly substantiated by the archaeological evidence produced in Egypt.”Ge 39:1-47:27; 50:1-3.Excavations in and around the ancient city of Babylon have revealed the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki inside Babylon’s walls. Records and inscriptions found concerning such temples often contain the words, "Its top shall reach the heavens," and King Nebuchadnezzar is recorded as saying: "I raised the summit of the Tower of stages at Etemenanki so that its top rivalled the heavens." One fragment found N of the temple of Marduk in Babylon related the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded." (Bible and Spade, by S.L. Caiger, 1938, p.29) The ziggurat located at Uruk (Biblical Erech) was found to be built with clay, bricks, and asphalt.”Compare Ge 11:1-9.At one time, prominent scholars held that Assyrian King SargonII, whose name appears in the Bible at Isaiah 20:1, never existed. In 1843, however, near present-day Khorsabad, Iraq, on a tributary of the Tigris River, Sargon’s palace was discovered. It covers some 25acres . Raised from secular obscurity, SargonII is now one of the best-known kings of Assyria. In one of his annals , he claims to have captured the Israelite city of Samaria. According to Biblical reckoning, Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 740B.C.E. Sargon also records the capture of Ashdod, further corroborating Isaiah 20:1.The annals of Sennacherib , found at Nineveh, describe his military campaign during the reign of Judean King Hezekiah, whom the annals mention by name. Cuneiform records of various other rulers refer to Judean Kings Ahaz and Manasseh, as well as Israelite Kings Omri, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, and Hoshea.I could post a lot more on the subject, but if anyone is really interested you should read some books on the subject.

Jesus made the claim that he is God's Son. He also said that his Father was also his God just as he was the God of his disciples. He never said that he was God, or "incarnate". There are earlier examples, for instance during the time of Abraham, when Angels "materialized" human bodies, thus at that point in time they were "incarnate", but that is not the case with Jesus: he was born in the same manner as you or I. Jesus is called God in Isaiah 9:6, but so is Moses at Exodus 7:1. That is because both represented God, just as the human judges of Isreal who were called "gods" and which Jesus commented on at John 10:34-36. None of these are called "almighty", and at Revelation 3:14 Jesus called himself "the beginning of creation" and not "the creator."So your entire argument is not valid since it based upon a faulty premise.

Cavediver,
Unfortunately you set yourself up. You, in my view anyway, used an "all or nothing" approach in your logic. You used the phrases "pure fantasy", "pure myth", and "lying-for-Jesus" in the space of as many sentences, and how much room does that leave for a real discussion with people who see the facts differently, or perhaps are aware of facts which you are not? It has been my experiance that prejudiced, in general, is derived from ignorance, and is manifest by certain trademark logic flaws. One of these is to over generalize, another is be quikly dismissive of another viewpoint before hearing all of it. I mentioned only a few things before, and as I have said there have been quite a few books written, not by evangelists (who not all of whom are honest), but by scientists who have spent many years in the field doing their research. These all do not agree, of course.An example is that of Jericho. Jericho has been subjected to excavations during three different expeditions (1907-1909; 1930-1936; 1952-1958) and the successive interpretations of the findings demonstrate again the fact that archaeology, like other fields of human science, is not a source of positively stable information. Each of the three expeditions has produced data, but each has arrived at different conclusions as to the history of the city and particularly as to the date of its fall before the Israelite conquerors. At any rate, the combined results may be said to present the general picture set forth in the book Biblical Archaeology, by G.E. Wright (1963, p.78), which states: “The city underwent a terrible destruction or a series of destructions during the second millenniumB.C., and remained virtually unoccupied for generations.” The destruction was accompanied by intense fire, as is shown by the excavated evidence.”Compare Jos 6:20-26.The picture will always be only a partial one because not only have thousands of years passed, but in one of the most historically war torn areas on earth. The parts of the picture that we can see, however, is enough in my opinion to show that the Bible was not written as a fairy tale which happened "once upon a time" in an unnamed and unknown far away place. This was a real geography, real historical times, and real people. Here is one more example that I found really interesting:the Bible record states that King Sennacherib of Assyria was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded to the throne by another son, Esar-haddon. (2Ki 19:36,37) Yet, a Babylonian chronicle stated that, on the 20th of Tebeth, Sennacherib was killed by his son in a revolt. Both Berossus, Babylonian priest of the third centuryB.C.E., and Nabonidus, Babylonian king of the sixth centuryB.C.E., gave the same account, to the effect that Sennacherib was assassinated by only one of his sons. However, in a more recently discovered fragment of the Prism of Esar-haddon, the son who succeeded Sennacherib, Esar-haddon clearly states that his brothers (plural) revolted and killed their father and then took flight. Commenting on this, Philip Biberfeld, in Universal Jewish History (1948, Vol. I, p.27), says: “The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”Does that really sound like someone is lying for Jesus?

Percy,
The only web pages I quoted from are the ones I povided links to. Otherwise I am quoting from my sources which are tight here with me, and which obviously I can not provide a link to. It may be that the same infomation I have here ia also available on a web page, but I am not aware of it since that isn't where I aquire the information from. In every case where I quoted someone I did properly attribute my source, so frankly, I don't understand the validity of your objection. In the thread in question the person who initiated the thread made a number of references in the first message whithout a source which others could verify. For example the regerence to "Jesus and Ceasar" as for as how we know that one or the other existed is not attributed to the original source so that someone else could look it up and examine the context, as well as any reason put forth as to why this was original stated, and exactly what was said. Thus an obscure regerence such as this is misleading. As far as "cut and paste" is concerned if I don't have a weg page to provide a link to then "cut and paste" as you call it remains the only methold left to provide supporting evidence as to why I am saying what I say. So the only way to do this is to post the quotes and preperly attribute my source. Are you accusing me of plagiarism or of copyright infringement? If so here is a link I researched on the subject:
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.I have been in Debate groups with Atheists and I have always found that if you research the topic and sound like you have a coherent argument they first start to nitpick about anything they can think of, secondly they try to discredit by making personal attacks, and then kick the me out of the group and lie to their members by saying that I quit. If this is your intention why not tell me now so I won't waste anymore of my time?

That is what I am trying to do. as per rule 4. Perhaps there is something else more subtle I am missing out on. When I make a quote I tell where it is from. If it is a book or magazine I state that, and if it if from a website I state that also. If I don't then it is my own words. Of course one of the other rules mentions "lengthy quotes" but doesn't indicate how long "lengthy" is, so maybe that is where my misunderstanding is. My idea of lengthy may not be what othes think of as such. I don't want to make what I call "lengthy quotes" because that is where you get into copyright infringement. I try to only quote a single point which is not too long, rather than whole paragraphs or half a page. Frankly I realize that I am somewhat over sensitive on this issue, but perhaps I am distrustful because I've been burned quite a few times; so much so that I usually only join friendly forums. All i want to do is to discuss the issues, and while it may seem that I am beating people over the head, from my point of view I doubt that I could possibly change anyone's mind if it is made up, but all I want to do is to present a third view, and why I see it that way. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but others may not see it the same way.

BlueJay,
If you read it carefully the other three accounts do not directly contradict that of the Bible and Esar-haddon. The latter two provide a detail which the first three do not. So anyone who is objective would not construe this as a lie. Giving more information is just the opposite of lying. Also, while it may be possible that the person in question has a bias, we don't know that for sure, or have any evidence for it, and we, at this point, have no other expert testimony to the contrary.

CaveDiver,
It is too easy to get personal. I don't agree with Ray's comment about your lack of qualifications. It doesn't matter to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with yours, but that doesn't matter. I just want to discuss the facts. Perhaps you could point out where you feel the Bible is inaccurate in something it says which conflicts with a secular view of history. All you have done is to complain about a lack of information, which is an entirely negative approach aimed at entirely putting the burden of proof on the opposing side without having to prove anything yourself. So why not prove something, or is all you are going to do is to tell others "prove it" and then discount whatever they say?

BlueJay,
It's hard to accept that you are impartial, or do not have an opinion either way when your message says "Darwin loves you". Personally I think that the person who would be the one who would be more likely to know the details would be the third brother who was also the the one who was the next King, and this is the account which agrees witht he Bible. Your illustration about additional information is really consistent with what we are talking here. It would be more consistent to say "Bambootiger is a poster on this site, and on Yahoo Answers." That would show that you knew more about what you are talking about, the other statement you made is just something you made up entirely, and that isn't what the quote is talking about; none of the sources made up facts which were not literal true. So you are try to takes this and claim it is a lie? That is illogical.

Thank you Brian, that's very interesting. No doubt more information will come to light with further study. As to the point about CaveDiggers topic I never gave it any credence to begin with. It would have been a stronger argument if he had said "partly myth" or maybe "some fantasy". From his wording one might assume the magical appearance of an entire nation out of thin air at some point in time, and all of these possessing memories which were all in agreement and yet still completely false. That would be a miracle indeed.
As for the question about David it is all a moot point to me anyway. Many ancient nations kept genealogical records. In two of the gospels we have listed the genealogical history of Jesus and both of these list David. Now I know you folks won't see it that way, but to me what is significant about this is that the Jews, until the destruction of that nation in 70 C.E., had genealogical records which they kept very carefully and these were available for public view. The first century Christians were extremely unpopular, especially with the Jews who called them a sect, and these Jews especially did not want to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. So if there was anything wrong at all with these two genealogies then that would have seized upon immediately by Jewish opposers. The other thing is that David was still there at that time. In the Bible at Acts 2:29 Peter refers to the tomb of David where he still was at that point in time. You know, I would really love to see how this line of argument would fly if there were a few folks in Israel here. David is almost an object of worship with them. I doubt if they would find it very funny if someone suggested that he never existed. However Jews living in the first century were in a much better position to know if David existed or not. In the Greek scriptures he is mentioned 59 times. In addition to this, one person, I'm sorry but I don't remember who it was, mentioned something written by Caesar. David's name appears 75 times in the superscriptions of 73 Psalms. No matter how hard they try a mythical person can not be an author. In all throughout the Bible his name in mentioned 1,138 times in the Bible. So personally I have no doubt at all that he existed.

Percy,
I haven't been in this forum for long, but I have the tern "circular reasoning" a number of times. Personally I think it is overused and often misapplied. To me what is circular reasoning can be expressed in the form ( since..., given ..., so..) or with roughly equivalent terns. The first term is sort of a logic filter which directs and limits the outcome, or conclusion, in a manner which concurs with he first term. Everyone has some sort of bias, I think, except for someone young enough to have no preconceived opinion whatsoever. So let me illustrate. If I say , for example, that the superscription of Psalms 16 says "A mik’tam of David." and at Acts 2:25 Peter quotes a verse from that Psalm and days "For David says", and then my listener says "How do you know who wrote it?" No doubt said listener is thinking that I am using "circular reasoning", but here is how the process goes: the other person is thinking "since I can't believe anything that the Bible says... given that this is a statement is from the Bible... so this means that the Bible is unreliable, and I can't believe anything from the Bible." From the other person's point of view the question was proven before any evidence was presented and so there is no reason to examine any evidence. That is circular reasoning. The person ends up where they began because they never actually went anywhere.
Would you compose a song and then, when submitting it for publication, sign the name of a mythical person, like "Santa Clause" to it? Then would you do that 72 more times and include biographical details? If you did that would all of your contemporaries accept that those songs were by Santa Clause and all those biographical details were real events?Often in any controversial subject the positions move like a pendulum, only from one extreme to the other, and only on one plane. To me a more logical approach is to think of what might lie closer to the center, and to look to see what might lay in the third dimension. Then think of the subject in term of models. People get emotional very quickly and feel personal attacked if you disagree with a position they have a lot of personal investment in, and they also feel that, in their own self defense, they have to attack the other person rather than listen. If you put together a model, though, of a different viewpoint, then you can examine it from different angles and compare it with your own, as well as with other possibilities. Also it really doesn't hurt to at least acknowledge that another person might have some good points even if you really disagree overall. One thing that is helpful here is to try and not over generalize. The viewpoint of one person who believes in the Bible may be quite opposite of another, some, for example, say that they believe in the Bible, and still in evolution, and try to reconcile the two things. Personally I believe that the universe and earth have been around for billions of years, which is just the opposite of some others, especially Seventh Day Adventists believe who are the core of the "Young Earth" and "Creationism" view.
I am familiar with the theories of critics who claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, that the Bible is not as old as traditional thought, and so forth. However it is all based on very flimsy conjectures. For instance there is the documentary theory which was proposed by the German scholar Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen said that one author consistently used the personal name of God, Jehovah, and is thus called J. Another, dubbed E, called God "Elohim." Another, P, supposedly wrote the priestly code in Leviticus, and yet another, called D, wrote Deuteronomy.
However in just one small portion of the book of Genesis, God is called "the Most High God," "Producer of heaven and earth," "Sovereign Lord Jehovah," "God of sight," "God Almighty," "God," "the true God," and "the Judge of all the earth." (Genesis 14:18,19; 15:2; 16:13; 17:1, 3,18; 18:25) Did different authors write each of these Bible texts? And at Genesis 28:13 the terms "Elohim" (God) and "Jehovah" are used together. Did two authors collaborate to write that one verse? If you apply this same line of reasoning to secular writings then it completely fails, and so we are asked to apply something different to determine the authorship of the Bible books than we would to anything else, and only so as to discredit the Bible. You could call this circular reasoning, or you could call it rationalization, which is deciding what you want to believe and then working backwards only to justify the conclusion you want.
You don't have to believe in God to accept what the Bible itself indicates through internal chronology that Genesis was written in 1513 B.C.E.. It didn't take either a miracle or divine intervention for Moses to know how to write. Writing is known to predate this time. For example, I've read that the Sumerians invented the cuneiform script over 5,000 years ago.
As far as the two genealogies of Jesus id concerned there is a good reason why there are differences between the two: he had two parents. Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6,7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. The reason why Mary wasn't listed by name is because of the customs of that time period. Jews had the saying : ”Genus matris non vocatur genus" which can be translated as "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant". So instead in Luke Joseph is said to be the son of his Father-in-law; Heli.
I believe you asked about "how do you know the genealogical records of the Jews were accurate?" Well what would be the point otherwise? Why would anyone keep records if they weren't going to be as accurate as they possibly could? For the Jews this was important because by their law land was inherited through family line, this included not only agriculturual land, but also in the walled cities. Land could be sold, but according to the law of the Jubilee it had to revert back to the original ownership every 50 years. so the value of what was sold and bought was reckened according to how long it was until then. There was also the matter of taxes, service at the temple, and so forth. So records were very important overall, but it was even more important in their religion because of the promise of the Messiah and the linage that this was promised to come through.
Are you familiar with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus?

If you look on the internet it seems possible to find an expert that will tell you anything you want to hear. As far as I know, unless there is something more recent, there were three expeditions of Jericho. If you look on the internet you might find a site that is critizing the Bible and it will cite only the one which disgreed the most with the Bible, and on the other hand another site by some ministry or the other will cite the one which most agrees with the Bible. I think that often people have a vested interest in finding an audience and scrathing them behind the ears; that how you get suport, money or fame, or both.