Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 306 (479064)
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


I'm starting this thread spurred by Berreta's comment earlier today, that:
Berreta writes:
There’s more than enough historical evidence backing the Bible’s veracity
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 08-24-2008 9:59 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 08-24-2008 11:22 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2008 11:32 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 6 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:03 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 2:30 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-24-2008 2:31 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-24-2008 6:00 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 08-26-2008 9:43 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 209 by Creationist, posted 10-03-2008 4:38 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 210 by Creationist, posted 10-03-2008 4:55 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 231 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 6:34 AM cavediver has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 306 (479067)
08-24-2008 7:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 306 (479070)
08-24-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


cavediver writes:
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...
Me too, actually. Ever since I realized that this was a lie, I've always wondered why so many christians these days so blatantly lie to their children and other people like this. What ever happened to the 9th commandment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 306 (479075)
08-24-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


I like what CS Lewis has to say on this. It is from Chap 15 of his book "Miracles".
CS Lewis writes:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 306 (479076)
08-24-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


Global flood -- not!
To me the global flood is one of the prime examples.
The lengths some folks go to try to support their belief in the flood are ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

Bambootiger
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 44
From: Denton, Texas, United States
Joined: 08-24-2008


Message 6 of 306 (479084)
08-24-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


"pure myth"?
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.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:10 PM Bambootiger has replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 08-24-2008 3:18 PM Bambootiger has not replied
 Message 53 by Brian, posted 08-25-2008 5:11 PM Bambootiger has replied

Bambootiger
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 44
From: Denton, Texas, United States
Joined: 08-24-2008


Message 7 of 306 (479085)
08-24-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bambootiger
08-24-2008 2:03 PM


Solomon
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:03 PM Bambootiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:31 PM Bambootiger has not replied
 Message 11 by Blue Jay, posted 08-24-2008 2:34 PM Bambootiger has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 306 (479088)
08-24-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


There is evidence: Are you willing to look?
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???
The books of the bible are themselves evidence, corroborated by physical evidence. The accounting and geneaological tables are themselves evidence. You have to remember that evidence of David or Solomon don't come from one source; the Bible. The Bible is a collection of separate books, from different authors, from different times. Each of those are pieces of antiquity. It was only much later that it was condensed it to a single book.
Also try and remember that finding anything over 3,000 years old directly pointing to a single man is extremely rare and difficult. Before the Tel Dan Steele, the same debunkers claimed that David was pure mythology. Now this piece of evidence isn't good enough. I happen to think that is evidence that nothing will ever be good enough so long as bias exists.
There is also independent physical evidence pointing to Solomon. One wonders if you would ever use the same scrutiny about other historical figures.
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.
When nothing but incredulity and assault is presented to the bible, people would like to present evidence so as to place the naysayers in disrepute. Look at it sensibly. If these epic figures of antiquity were not actually real, it would take a collusion so colossal that it rivals modern-day conspiracies.
Your excoriation of all things biblical is very telling, and it immediately questions your objectivity. You stated in no uncertain terms that it's all bunk. Well, that clearly isn't the case. And the more archaeologists dig, the more they corroborate the testimonies displayed in various books of the Bible.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 3:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Bambootiger
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 44
From: Denton, Texas, United States
Joined: 08-24-2008


Message 9 of 306 (479089)
08-24-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bambootiger
08-24-2008 2:10 PM


A little more
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:10 PM Bambootiger has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 306 (479090)
08-24-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-24-2008 6:53 AM


All hail Caesar!
...there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Julius Ceasar
No-one doubts that there existed a man named Jesus (or Jeshua, actually) who lived in Judea in the first century. There were probably hundreds of such men as this was a very common name. However, the evidence that one of these men was god incarnate is pretty much the same as that Julius Caesar was god incarnate.
There is a form of didactic argument being used here that I call the 'derivative lie': "We have inscriptions and writings from first century Judea referring to a Jeshua. Therefore, we can derive that the new testament description of Jesus is accurate in all its detail."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:58 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 11 of 306 (479091)
08-24-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bambootiger
08-24-2008 2:10 PM


Re: Solomon
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

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:10 PM Bambootiger has not replied

Bambootiger
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 44
From: Denton, Texas, United States
Joined: 08-24-2008


Message 12 of 306 (479094)
08-24-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals
08-24-2008 2:31 PM


Re: All hail Caesar!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-24-2008 2:31 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 13 of 306 (479096)
08-24-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2008 2:30 PM


Re: There is evidence: Are you willing to look?
You stated in no uncertain terms that it's all bunk.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 4:20 PM cavediver has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 306 (479097)
08-24-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bambootiger
08-24-2008 2:03 PM


Re: "pure myth"?
I'm not sure why Cavediver would cite evidence for David's reign (the Tel Dan Stele) and then later say that anything pre-captivity is pure myth. That seems contradictory.
Cavediver's intent was to reply to Berreta's claim that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Julius Caesar, and this claim is most certainly not true. We even have a book written by Julius Caesar, his Commentaries.
So I think the point that Cavediver was trying to make is that the evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible is much more sparse than is commonly acknowledged.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 2:03 PM Bambootiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 08-24-2008 3:34 PM Percy has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 306 (479099)
08-24-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
08-24-2008 3:18 PM


Re: "pure myth"?
I'm not sure why Cavediver would cite evidence for David's reign (the Tel Dan Stele) and then later say that anything pre-captivity is pure myth.
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.
So I think the point that Cavediver was trying to make is that the evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible is much more sparse than is commonly acknowledged.
This is the key point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 08-24-2008 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Bambootiger, posted 08-24-2008 4:43 PM cavediver has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024