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

I'm starting this thread spurred by Berreta's comment earlier today, that: As a teenage evangelical Christian, I was continually fed the line that the Bible is historically verified to an unprecedented level, usually accompanied by the line that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Julius Ceasar. I had no reason to disagree...Some years later, having watched David Rohl's televised version of his "A Test of Time", I found a copy of the Bibilical Archaeological Review (BAR) in a local Christian bookshop. For some time I became an avid reader of the BAR and associated material. I was dumbstruck by what they had to say - the line I and so many others had been fed concerning the historical veracity of the Bible was pure bullshit. The BAR was full of the excitement at the very recent discovery of the Tel Dan Stele. This was the first evidence for David ever found??? WTF??? I mean, fair enough, historical evidence for anything in the Pentateuch would be expected to be sparse; but we had NOTHING on Saul, David, Solomon??? And let me point out that the BAR is an evangelical Christian publication - this is no secular, atheistic propaganda - they are desperate for historical evidence to back up the Bible. They are just honest enough to admit that in the main part, it does not exist. Interestingly, at the time this had a positive impact on my faith, as I have always been driven by mystery, not certainty...Anyway, the purpose of this thread is to point out in no uncertain terms that Berreta's claim is pure fantasy. Anything pre-Captivity presently stands as pure myth, and to declare otherwise is at best ignorance, often another case of lying-for-Jesus.The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy, I guess.Edited by cavediver, : Where to put it...Edited by cavediver, : Provided more links

I think you need to check your reading skills, Nem. The only thing I am declaring as bunk are the endless Christian claims concerning the status of the Bible as a verified historical document. I think you may want to check your own objectivity here...

I'm not sure you will find many scholars who are willing to say that the Tel Dan Stele is evidence sufficient to raise David's reign out of myth, but Brian is our resident expert so I will defer to him. This is the key point.

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...

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.

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.

So you are saying you agree with the following statement?

quote:

---

There’s more than enough historical evidence backing the Bible’s veracity

---

If so, I'm sure you can produce something of near-infinite more substance than your examples? Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your examples - they are fascinating. But if you think they are sufficient to raise the Biblical narratives from the level of myth to sound historical document, then I think your evidentiary requirements are rather weak. Perhaps you, like Nem, need to be more acquainted with the technical concept of "myth" rather than the colloquial usage. Really You, like Nem, seem to think that I am approaching this as some atheistic funde. I have been an evangelical Christian for 24 years, and my viewpoint on this subject was initiated 14 years ago studying the relevant journals, publications and books.You don't seem to like the strength of the message, but you do very little to counter it.

No Ray, I just don't possess the book to which you referenced. I was assuming you do possess the book as you feel confident that it is exceptional evidence. Please produce some examples from the book that will make us realise the historical veracity of the Bible. Ray, we can smell your fear from here

Bambootiger, you like Nem seem to want to read something into my posts that isn't there. Where do I claim that the Bible is inaccurate? [ABE How do I know if it is accurate or not, if I do not have any evidence to back it up?] And not conflicting with secular history is perhaps the very first step down a very long road to demonstrating its historical veracity - and many Scholar would claim that there is significant conflict in multiple places. But I neither need to promote nor discuss these to make my point. Oh good grief, my whole OP is a generalised complaint against Christians claiming that the Bible is an historically verified document (or collection of documents.) I have no complaints whatsoever against the Bible itself. Your examples give a glimpse into how the OT contains some elements that may relate to real historical events. Great. I'm sure many more will be forthcoming over the decades ahead. How does this conflict with my OP?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Perhaps not where I would choose to pick my definition I hate to define via Wiki, but this puts it rather more succinctly than your source:

quote:

---

A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it hold religious or spiritual significance for those who tell it, and it contributes to and expresses systems of thought and values. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative. To the source culture, however, a myth by definition is "true," in that it embodies beliefs, concepts, and ways of questioning and making sense of the world.

---

I can't disagree with any of this. You reading that, Nem? Bambootiger?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Just because you knew fuck-all by the time you were 27, doesn't mean that the rest of us were so incapacitated Let's face it, my seven year old son has a better command of English that you do.Anyway, this thread is not really about evidence for the miraculous... we're only looking for historical evidence for the events described in the pre-captivity OT. Nothing more difficult than that. So do you have any evidence of the 2 million strong Exodus? The Conquest? Saul, David and Solomon's kingdoms? Or were these all miraculous events as well, that would have been self-cleansing from history?

Hi Brian, I was hoping you would play a prominent role in this thread - thanks for your input.Can you turn things around, and give a list of what *you* think constitutes evidence for any of the pre-captivity OT narratives?

Hi Bertot, please reply to Brian's post above concerning the Hittites. I would be very interested to hear your opinion, as it is directly related to this thread's topic. Thanks

You seem to have missed the point, Bertot. This thread is mine and I am saying that there is no good historical evidence to back up the pre-captivity naratives in the Bible - and yes, I have read and studied the subject to some depth as described in my OP. My claim is that Christians have continually mis-potrayed the true picture of Biblical archaeology. If you disagree, then provide the evidence in your own words. We do not debate by link here at EvC.If you have some evidence, bring it forth. So far you have mentioned the Hittites, and had your point utterly demolished by Brian. You have mentioned the comments of Dever and agaian Brian has pointed out that Dever has given up on the Exodus and Conquest - precisely the period of interest. Is that all you have got? If not, then when you have a moment, please present it.