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

Hi, Bambootiger. Welcome to EvC!Correct me if I'm wrong, but your posts seem to be cut-and-pastes from somewhere, complete with footnote numbers intact. I would like to know where you got this information so I could read it, too. {AbE: also note that it's rather against forum guidelines to post quotes without your own original argumentation attached.}Keep in mind, also, that the appearance of a mythological name in ancient artifacts doesn't support the truthfulness or historicity of the myth. There is a statue in Athens to the goddess Athena, with all sorts of inscriptions that treat her as real and historical, but I doubt you'd treat that as evidence of her actual existence.Edited by Bluejay, : Addition

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, bambootiger. Actually, it kind of does.Mr Biberfield has found five sources for the story of Esar-haddon's succession. He has concluded that, since one of them agrees with the biblical record, that the Bible and this other source are more reliable than the other three. In actuality, there is still more evidence in support of the story that one son killed Sennacherib than he has in support of the story that two sons killed him.He claims that these two stories agree highly in detail, and that this supports his claim that the Bible's and Esar-haddon's story was correct, while the Babylonian chronicles were wrong. But, what if one of the two was written based on the other? Then, you've only got one point in support of the Bible's story, and still three against it.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bambootiger.Try using quote boxes. If you click on the "Peek" button at the bottom of the message, you can see how I make these:

quote:

---

Here is where you put your cited text.

---

or Also, when composing messages, you'll have, on the left margin, a few options, including "dBcodes On," beside which is a "help" link: that'll list all the formatting codes you can use in posting.-----Also, Message 6 and Message 7 appear to be cut-and-pastes (Message #6 even has the footnotes still written in), but there is no source documentation provided.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bambootiger.Let me preface my remarks by saying that I do not particularly have an opinion, either way, as to whether this particular mentioning in the Bible is historically accurate, at all. My intention with this argument was to show that the evidence still does not provide definitive proof of the historicity of the Bible. Philip Biberfield seems to think they do: I guess, since he found two sources that added the other brother into the mix where the other three sources didn't, you could make the case that the other three simply left out a detail, for whatever reason. And, I think that's the case you're making, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.But, this approach automatically assumes that the extra detail is correct, when the only basis for this is that the extra detail is included in some maniscripts. If Esar-haddon thought that both of his brothers were involved, no doubt his record would reflect this, even if the second brother was not, in fact, involved. And, if his record was the source of the information used by the writer of Second Kings, no doubt Second Kings would also reflect this, even if the information was only learned by hearsay.Granted, the same applies to the three on the opposite side. But, the fact is that, given the information you have provided so far, you cannot make the judgment that one side is correct and the other isn't unless you first attach a historical credibility to one side or the other. Anyone who is objective would also not take it for granted that the extra detail is historically accurate. Lots of historical figures say lots of things that aren't true, often for propaganda or self-glorification or for their own misunderstanding of the actual events.Objectivity demands that we say there are two conflicting accounts, not that one of them is necessarily superior. If I were to say, "And Bambootiger is an actual tiger made out of bamboo," I would be giving more information. However, I would also (most likely) be lying.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bambootiger. Therefore, everything I say is clearly untrustworthy, right?It's clear to me that you are a Christian who feels that it's your duty to prove that the Bible is true. That's why you agree with Biberfield that the record that agrees with the Bible is truthful, while all the other records are inaccurate.This sort of argumentation is called ad hominem---attack on the character or disposition of your opponent instead of on the evidence he presents. It's considered fallacious reasoning.And, before we get too deeply into this, you should know that I am also a Christian who believes in the Bible. I hope that changes your perspective somewhat about my partiality.Besides, you have to admit that "Darwin loves you" is quite funny in its complete meaninglessness. That example was merely a rebuttal to your claim that "giving more information is the opposite of a lie." Clearly, I can provide a whole lot of information and still be lying (See Battle of Kadesh for an example). Clearly, then, Esar-haddon could be giving a lot of information and still be lying. Actually, he doesn't even have to be lying: he might have had every reason to believe that both of his brothers were involved in the assassination. Maybe it wasn't until later that the truth was learned.But, since Esar-haddon apparently had a quarrel with his brothers for the throne, he definitely had a motive to slander his brothers and turn them into public enemies. That sort of thing certainly happened quite often.Granted, I realize that historians must generally accept eyewitness accounts over later historical records, but there are many reasons why eyewitness accounts could be inaccurate. So, my contention is merely that, in the end, it is still an assumption that Esar-haddon was correct. We may someday find a record written by the second brother the flatly denies his involvement in Sennacherib's assassination: who's account do we then accept as accurate?While it is a good possibility that Esar-haddon was being truthful, it is just as likely, from what I can tell, that the later historians' accounts were a correction of Esar-haddon's account based on information that Esar-haddon did not have or was simply not providing.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.