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

I read what you wrote. I have now read it a second time. My conclusion remains the same. The glaringly obvious sentiment you seek to portray is that anyone who asserts that biblical claims appear true, only does so out of ignorance. I am simply telling you that what you thought didn't have any evidence supporting it, actually does.

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?

Cavediver was somewhat inconsistent in his opening post, but as he later indicated, his primary point is that the lack of supporting evidence for many Biblical accounts is rarely acknowledged or even understood by many conservative Christians.Staying with the House of David example, very few if any Biblical scholars outright reject the existence of a House of David, but there is much less consensus concerning the dating and events of David's reign. Some are convinced by archeological evidence that the great works attributed to David actually took place during a later reign, and that David's must have been a very tiny kingdom (see the historicity section of Wikipedia's article on David).But whatever your personal views about the historicity of David, that non-Biblical evidence for his reign is exceedingly sparse cannot be disputed.--Percy

Hi Bambootiger,I don't normally moderate in threads where I'm participating, but this is a cut-and-dried case. You're quoting from other webpages without attribution. For example, the passage in your latest message that begins, "Jericho has been subjected to excavations..." was cut-n-pasted without attribution from Biblical Archeology Pt 15.People do not come to EvC Forum to debate cut-n-pastes. If you use information from another source, please make your point in your own words, then provide a link or reference to the source of the information. These are from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

​

7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I am aware that many Christians pathetically try to invent parallels that don't exist. I'm so disturbed by it that I no longer refer to myself as a Christian. It's an absolutely meaningless term to me. I am so uninspired by the claims of someone being "Christian," mostly because there is no assurance that (s)he will think as I do. If there is some sort of unspoken comraderie supposed to be found between two people who think that Jesus is the messiah, it has thus far eluded me. Any real signs of someone existing over 3,000 years ago is expected to be sparse, other than perhaps the megalomaniacs of history who go to great lengths to preserve their memory and legacy (see Egyptians and Romans).But this sparsity could be said of almost anyone from antiquity, if you think about it honestly. The problem occurs when noticing the bias and motives. We don't generally see people saying that Plato was a fable, and that he never existed. Even supposing they did, you certainly don't see it with the same excoriation you do with all things Judeo-Christian.It gives a glimpse in to the psychology of the person denying it, their motives for doing so with such fanaticism, and what they hope to gain by doing it. It makes you wonder why they care so much about debunking Judeo-Christian figures, but could care less about secular persons of antiquity, and whether or not they really existed. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I am more than well aware of the evidence, Nem, and your words simply reinforce my point concerning your lack of reading skills. You may want to look up a correct definition of myth...

Is Cavediver ignorant or is he lying for Darwin?The physical evidence in the British Museum alone is astonishing. Look here.Ray

which Judeo-Christian figures are being threatened with being debunked? And who is threatening this? As you say yourself, and so when someone claims that there is anything more than sparse evidence, I cry bullshit. As I'm sure you'll support, if you are aware of the facts. I don't like lies going hand-in-hand with Christianity, so when Berreta makes a false claim, I will call bullshit. I'm sorry you can't do the same...

Ray, please correct my ignorance. Please spell out all of this abundant evidence resident in the Britsh Museum, and any other evidence of which you are aware. Quite seriously, I would be very grateful. I await your detailed reply.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

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.

Lets not be coy here. Fundy atheists websites spend inordinate amounts of time trying to subvert any evidence that would corroborate the bible, and fundy Christian sites spend inordinate amounts of time trying to connect erroneous dots. Occasionally one side or the other is correct, but why they are making the inquiry is something seldom spoken about.If Berreta, whoever that is, is every bit as fundy as you say, do you then indict yourself in the opposite question? Okay, fair enough, if that's all that you said. You continued on in a tirade, going on about how you concluded the bible is total bs. The thread title should say it all. I don't either, but then, I don't like lies at all. I obviously can since I am critical of all extremism in any direction. What upsets me is irrational loathing. To be upset at so-called Christians lying to further a claim is reasonable, and that really ticks me off too, maybe even more for me than you because I at least have some vested interest in it. Though that is dwindling more by the day. What also upsets me is people thinking that there is this war against Christianity if the Christians somehow fail to measure up to Christ -- as if that is something to avoid.Confronting people about why they find Judeo-Christian beliefs or ethics so appalling, I find, can usually be traced back to their cognitive dissonance about it. They felt let down. And it's as if they shook their fists skyward saying, "you lied to me." Who are they talking to? While I understand it, it is nonetheless irrational, and they should be careful not allow it to fester.Christians and pagans should not be seen as us versus them. Individuals within each exacerbate the situation needlessly, I think.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

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?

I'd say he's asking you to cite your source every time you quote an appreciable bit of text. That's what we all try to do here.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

You need to read what I write - not invent what you think I am saying. Fuck you, Nem. I am a scientist and I am interested in one thing only - the truth. Why would I have any interest in subverting evidence of anything??? You need to read what I write - not invent what you think I am saying.Seriously, Nem, take a few deep breaths, and go back and read yet again what I wrote. Now, do you still really believe that I say that I have concluded that the bible is total bs? Huh? From your posts I gather that I have been a Christian for a fuck-site longer than you And I'm shaking my fists at no-one, certainly not anyone in the sky. Whatever the state of my faith, I have more than enjoyed my time as a Christian and I'm not in anyway let down. I'm sorry if that is how you feel.

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.