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

Does it? Or does it merely contain wild speculation and wishful thinking? I don't know, I haven't read it.Have you read it? I'm starting to doubt it.Do you have a copy? If so, why won't you provide us with some examples of this abundant evidence, so that we can discuss it properly?It's no use just pointing to a book and saying that it backs up your argument, without citing anything. That's a waste of everybody's time.

---

Mutate and Survive

Whoa there!Take a look at Daniel 4:10-11

quote:

---

4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth;

---

Even in a vision, this only makes sense on a flat Earth, where a suitably tall tree could be seen by everyone. At the centre of a sphere, it would be seen by no-one.This is only one example. The cosmology of the Bible is that of a flat Earth with a dome-like vault of skies above it. This is consistent with the Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies of the time.I don't want to get caught up in this especially. This thread is primarily about historical figures in the Bible and the corroborating evidence for their existence, or lack thereof. That means we're more interested in figures from within the reach of human history, such as David, Moses or Jesus.If you think that the Bible is so accurate, why don't you provide some evidence for their existence?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

On what basis can you say that the Bible is an eyewitness testimony? How can Genesis possibly be an eyewitness testimony? Humanity wasn't even created until the sixth day, so how can accounts of the previous days be eyewitness testimony?The Bible is a collection of material from many different sources, written long after the (often entirely fictional) events they describe supposedly took place. Because scepticism is the normal way of approaching historical sources. This is entirely proper. Neither you nor I was there at the time and not every historical source is going to be correct. That is why we need to carefully assess the evidence in ancient texts like the Bible, weighing it against other sources, archaeological findings, etc.The Bible should not get a free pass when it comes to evidence of this kind. If it is accurate, there should be evidence to confirm it. If there is no evidence, then it is entirely reasonable to doubt the Biblical accounts. Listen to what you're saying. You don't believe that ancient records are sufficient to prove that any historical character existed. Thus, you will believe the Bible, apparently without much question. If you don't mind my saying, that is both contradictory and credulous.Taking the Bible's word for it may be just fine with you, but it's not good enough for me. Furthermore, the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate evidence for the existence of Biblical figures, evidence that is comparable with the evidence for Julius Caesar for example. If you are not interested in providing such evidence, you are wasting your time posting here. The Bible's flat Earth is supported by rather more than just that one quote. Take a look here at an interesting article on the subject. Of particular interest is the material towards the bottom of the page about the Book of Enoch. Although it is non-canon, 1 Enoch gives a very clear description of the kind of Hebrew cosmology that existed in the vivid imaginations of the Bible's authors. The Earth in 1 Enoch is very definitely flat. Read Genesis again, but this time try to imagine it from a flat Earth viewpoint. It make much more sense, especially if you imagine the sky as being the dome-like cover of a flat Earth cosmos. From the above source;

quote:

---

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

---

What would really be surprising would be if the ancient Hebrews knew something that no-one else knew, yet chose to keep quiet about it. If they knew the Earth was a sphere, why did they not mention that? I would have thought it would be worth mentioning.Face it, pulling out Genesis as a bastion of historical evidence is just laughable. Sorry.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I'd say that's as good a summation of this thread as any. Cavediver asked for extra-Biblical evidence for Biblical characters and here we are talking about bananas.There most certainly is a lack of evidence to back up the Bible, which is why it's apologists are reduced to making bizarre claims about fruit.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade