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

Which is the reason that appeals to authority are logical fallacies.But let's get down to the real point of this thread.Like any other mythology, the mundane events recorded in the Bible were most likely at least grounded in reality. We do have examples of kings and so on mentioned in the Bible and corroborated by external, unrelated sources. It's even one of the methodologies used to date the events in teh Bible.It's the extraordinary claims where the Bible breaks down. Fundamentalists typically use examples of historically accurate parts of the bible to claim that the Bible in its entirety is a historically valid set of documents, and this is plainly silly.When the Bible says "so and so begat such and such," there's no real reason to doubt such a claim. Even uncorroborated, there's little point in arguing it unless contradictory claims are found elsewhere - people have children all the time, and while you can't say that a given uncorroborated geneology in the Bible is iron-clad evidence of a family line, you can certainly say that the geneology is possibly or even probably accurate (again, not refering to cases where contradictions are found).The point, though, is that on the whole the Bible makes a rather unimpressive historical document because it records such things as 6-day Creationism of the global Flood that are wholly contradicted by multiple fields of science, as well as stories like the Exodus or the Tower of Babel where no archeological or anthropological evidence is ever found to corroborate the stories even where such evidence should be found.In their completely biased predetermined conclusions from blind, unbreakable faith, fundamentalists forget the most basic facts regarding evidence of any sort: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When the Bible claims a geneology, or even mentions an individual as king, there's no reason whatsoever to doubt that such evidence may be factual unless contradictory information is revealed. Such claims are not extraordinary in the least. But when the Bible claims the world was Flooded and repopulated in its entirety by the contents of a rather small wooden boat, or that millions of Jewish slaves escaped Egypt amidst myriad plagues including the sudden unexplainable death of every first-born child in the nation, and there is absolutely no evidence to support those claims, there is no more reason to believe them than to believe that Achilles was a literally invincible warrior and that the Illiad was a "historical account" simply because Troy was a real city.

Some points to consider.On your argument concerning the Psalms you are biasing the discussion by using Santa Claus as your example. There are legendary figures who probably did not exist as such (Robin Hood seems to be a composite of several people, William Tell may be completely fictional) or whose story expanded and changed beyond recognition (King Arthur is likely to be one such). And it would not be surprising if songs were to become wrongly attributed to a legendary singer (especially songs about his life). So simply pointing out that Psalms (and even worse Acts) attribute some psalms to David does not reliably tell us who wrote those psalms. At the least we would need to track down more concerning the writing of those documents (Acts for instance likely relied on the attribution in Psalms, so it cannot be considered to offer any significant extra evidence).Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis of Wellhausen it seems clear that you do not have a strong grasp of what the theory says. In that case the fact that it has been widely accepted amongst the relevant experts should carry some weight with you. You must consider the fact that the hypothesis states that the documents were edited together and that the verse and chapter divisions were added later still Simply pointing to verses with other titles or epithets given to God or to even a verse were both Jahweh and Elohim are used does nothing to damage the real hypothesis. In short what you are really dismissing is a parody of your own invention.

quote:

---

You don't have to believe in God to accept what the Bible itself indicates through internal chronology that Genesis was written in 1513 B.C.E

---

I'm not familiar with any argument to that effect. However don't the references to the Philistines indicate that it was written at least partly after the Philistines arrived in the 12th Century BC ? And long enough after that time, that nobody would notice the impossibility of Abraham having anything to do with the Philistines ?

quote:

---

As far as the two genealogies of Jesus id concerned there is a good reason why there are differences between the two: he had two parents. Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. The reason why Mary wasn't listed by name is because of the customs of that time period. Jews had the saying : ”Genus matris non vocatur genus" which can be translated as "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant". So instead in Luke Joseph is said to be the son of his Father-in-law; Heli.

---

It certainly is not obviously true - after all if we did not have the genealogy given in Matthew nobody would think that Luke's genealogy was traced through Mary. Can you show me any record of a Jewish genealogy that does what you say that Luke did ? Does any Jewish source give a genealogy that is in fact traced through the mother, yet written as if it was traced through the father ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I can only add parenthetical comments to Rahvin's post (Message 61) and PaulK's post (Message 62).Concerning a random genealogy, from the point of view of attempting to accurately and scientifically reconstruct history I don't think having no reason to doubt its accuracy is a legitimate basis from which to conclude it is possibly or probably true. I think corroboration with other sources or with archaeological evidence is the only way to establish the degree of accuracy.Concerning the topic itself, I think we're beginning to drift. This thread is not trying to show the Bible unreliable. Certainly each participant here has an opinion on this, but it's not the topic of this thread, which is only trying to show that the non-Biblical evidence for the Bible is lacking in most areas. Whether any particular Biblical account is true or not, for most of them the Bible is the only source of information.--Percy

You mean extraordinary claims like the the Exodus and Dead sea crossing evidenced at the Nuweiba beach site on the Dead Sea/Gulf of Aqaba along with corroborative evidence in the region relative to that Biblical account?You mean extraordinary claims like the corroborative prophesies of many OT and NT prophets relative to the nation of Israel being scattered globally and to return after lengthy Gentile occupation as well as it again blossoming after centuries of desolation as per Ezekiel 36-39 and others?You mean extraordinary claims like a latter day prophecy that all nations globally will some day have a mandated monetary system of numbers and marks as is emerging upon us as per Revelation 13?You mean extraordinary claims like the armies of the world being drawn into the Middle east relative to the nation of Israel and the contention of who owns the city of Jerusalem as per the OT prophet Zechariah and others?You mean extraordinary claims like a time when all nations will have the ability to view an event at one location simultaneously and that all nations will view and even worship via a speaking image as per Revelation 13?The above are corroborative, observational and externally evidenced reasons for the Bible's veracity.Abe: I intended this message to be a response for Rahvin but mistakenly linked it to Percy's message. I suppose it will serve to address both messages. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I think we need to be realistic about what we expect to find outside of the Bible that would support the internal claims.Certainly private conversations and discussions with God cannot be within the realms of historical investigation.However, there are many many epic events that should have left some evidence, and this is where Cavediver is correct. The evidence to support these epic events is simply appalling.Abraham was, relatively speaking, a nobody in the ancient near east, so we shouldnt really expect to find any evidence of his life. But the huge events such as the enslavement, Exodus, and Conquest of Canaan are completely invisible in the historical and archaeological record, there is nothing there at all. The best that can be done is for the Bible to be reinterpreted to fit the evidence, and when this is done we are left with something that barely resembles the original biblical account, but somehow we suddenly have evidence to support the Bible!From King Omri onwards, the Bible gets a little more accurate and reliable, but evidence is still quite weak.If similar 'historical' events as those written about in the Bible were found in non-biblical texts, they would be very quickly placed on the fiction shelf. But because these fairy tales are included in holy scripture, some people suddenly drop their critical evaluation skills, and accept any garbage that they *think* supports their little book.Cavediver's proposal is utterly sound in regard to the early books of the Hebrew Bible, the evidence is appalling.But from Omri onwards the Bible does improve some.

You still swallowing Wyatt's crap? And we have moved from The Red Sea to The Dead Sea now have we Every time you bring this up Buz everything about it is shown to you to be untrue, yet you still cling to this. It is embarrassing that an adult ignores how often Wyatt's claims have been exposed as lies, yet you keep clinging to it, you must have such a weak faith.A chariot wheel in the Red Sea, which the Bible doesn't even claim that the Israelites crossed, suddenly in your mind means that everything in the biblical account in regard to the Exodus is true, this is a conclusion that a 5 year old would make.No wonder so much money is fleeced from fundies.I wish I wasn't an atheist, I could make a fortune out of dopey fundies. But being an atheist means that I have a very high sense of morality and justice, so I couldn't bring myself to deliberately mislead, or lie to people.If I could just be born again, I'd be on easy street in a couple of years.

You mean Wyatt's discovery corroborated after Wyatt's death by Swedish Dr (abe: Lennart) Moller's scientific research? A palatible swallow, indeed. Of course then there's those other corroborating items listed in my message, all of which corroborate one another relative to evidence for Biblical veracity. Not to mention that significant other observational evidences not cited in my message are supportive to Biblical veracity. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted in text

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Rahvin writesThese kinds of post do show some simlitude of objectivity in relationship to the question at hand. However, the above statement is actually an over application of the term "logical fallacy". If it can be demonstrated that several authorites do agree on cetain biblical historical aspects, then the application of logical fallacy is simply to strong a term to appply."Lack of evidence" presently for a specific person or place is not the same as saying that those events or peoples are false or inaccurate, as in the case of the Hitties. So much of the scriptures can and has been demonstrated true and accurate and it is appreciated by myself when I see individuals acknowledge these facts, atleast that shows some objectivity. Far from being silly, it lends credible support that those things actually happened. If on the other hand those peoples places and civilizations were demonstrated to be completley false or inacurrate, or fabrications, this then would be evidence to reject those outlandish claims. One of the things that I see happening here is that the words "absolute proof" is simply getting replaced by the word "evidence". Absolute proof is one thing and "evidence" is quite another. Again, lack of "evidence" at present is not the same as saying it is false, innacurate or fabricated. Isnt it almost always the case that when the scritures are verified or exonerated, that that evidence is scrutinized and usually dismissed OR reduced the comments that characterize this post to which I am responding presently. "So what the Bible got some facts correct", mentality.Point of interest, what amount of evidence would convince the die hard skeptic, answer, where the miraculous or divine is involved, absolutley none.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I appreciate your message, Bertot. As for absolute proof, of course, no ideology has a corner on that. Corroborative evidences serve to substantiate the veracity of ideology. Hopefully that's what we're all about here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Imagine you're an archaeologist in the distant future and you've just unearthed an ancient library and are reading two brief texts, both set in New York City, which is known to have been a real place. One text describes a giant ape climbing the Empire State Building, the other describes two planes flying into the World Trade Center towers. By your criteria, the fact of New York City's existence lends "credible support" to both texts. Not in this thread, you don't. You're the first person to mention "absolute truth", which is an ideal with no real existence. Evidence is what counts, and that's what this thread is focused upon.--Percy

Percy, let me finish with Rahvin's and I will respond to yoursD Bertot

Percy writesThis is a fair question but it misses by large margin the point that I am making. The mere fact that the independant source did not discribe the place as "Newby Yorbky city or by some other completly different name Boston or Orlando ,lends credibility to the other soucre (the find) that also corroborates the archeological support. In other words, from the start it appears to be correct and the person that wrote that document was possibly contemporary with it or new of it. Its a valid starting point of verifiability or credibilty, verses being (watch it now) "completely". inaccurate. Nobody said it was "proof" of the supernatural. See the difference?Secondly, my only support for believeing in the supernatural or miraculous events is not exclusive to a book, but the very real demonstratable evidence for the creator to which it attaches itself and its claims, which lends the very real evidence to the overall question. This, combined with other verifiable evidence in the same document, written over a 1500 year time period, collectivley offer support for these "facts" and these items support eachother. Evidence for or believing that person said or did a specific thing in the past, or that an event (miraculous or not) took place cannot be absolutley demonstrated by any amout of "evidence", because we were not there to witness those actions or events. However, that which the scriptures do provide, are a good starting point for a supportable belief. There is no reason to reject it outright.You are assuming my only reason for believing that a man got swallowed by a great fish is that it is connected with an actual place called Nenivah, which is also, mentioned accuratley in the sriptures. While it helps its not my only reason for believing it.So the idea that my argument is limited to a single fact of historical accuracy and the conclusion you draw, is invalid. You may not believe it but I agree with your above statement completley. It is evidence that counts, but is also how you interpret and apply the evidence. Objectivity, and there is alot here, as I see them from several comments. However, complete objectivity will not exclude other very real possibilites. It is a sound argument and evidential that Deity could involve itself in these events of historical aspects.In other words, if every detail or aspect of scriptural history could be demonstrated, it would not convince or provide "evidence" of the miraculous events, to everyones satisfaction or interpretation of the term "evidence".I did not mean to intrude on the "srtictly" physical evidence issues involved, but certain other comments need to be addressed when the miraculous or supernatural in mentioned by authors in thier posts. If you wish to discuss only the physical evidence at hand that is one thing, but when the "claims and miraculous" mentioned in the scritures are used as a reason for disbelief, these items need to be addressed Please continue with your completley physical evidental investigation.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

These kinds of post do show some simlitude of objectivity in relationship to the question at hand. However, the above statement is actually an over application of the term "logical fallacy".

---

In fact it's quite correct. Since experts can and do disagree they are not guaranteed to be correct. Thus arguing solely on the basis of expert opinion is not logically valid.

quote:

---

If it can be demonstrated that several authorites do agree on cetain biblical historical aspects, then the application of logical fallacy is simply to strong a term to appply.

---

The context was disagreement between experts, not agreement. And "logical fallacy" is NOT a strong term to apply at all. Logical validity is a very strict standard, thus observing that an argument fails to reach that standard is not a strong claim.

quote:

---

"Lack of evidence" presently for a specific person or place is not the same as saying that those events or peoples are false or inaccurate, as in the case of the Hitties

---

And if you go back to the OP you can see that the issue is lack of evidence - DESPITE claims to the contrary. Falsity or inaccuracy are not the issue. (Which of course means that in dismissing the OP BambooTiger was either taking the position that the validating evidence MUST exist or not bothering to even read the OP before rejecting it. Now that's bias !).

You do have to be quite ignorant of ancient near eastern history and the huge amount of archaeological evidence though to conclude that it was written in 1513 BCE!You also have to be quite ignorant of the internal evidence.Let’s have a wee look at a fraction of the evidence from the Book of Genesis that suggests a later date than the 16th century BCE.Let’s start with the old patriarch Joseph.The entire Joseph tale fits a period of Egyptian history much later than the time proposed by the biblical texts.For example, if you look at some of the names in the Joseph narratives they do not belong to the bible time frame for Joseph.For a start, Joseph apparently talks to a pharaoh around 1850 BCE, but 'pharaoh' as a title did not exist until the time of Thutmosis III (1490), who is the first pharaoh to be called 'pharaoh'. (McCarter, P. K. The Patriarchal Age in Shanks (Ed) Ancient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, Prentice Hall: Biblical Archaeological Society, Englewood Cliffs; Washington DC. p 27)Also, although some of the personal names in the story are Egyptian, they belong to a later date. Joseph’s wife is called Asenath (Genesis 41:45), a name with parallels beginning in the middle of the 20th Dynasty (about 1184-1070 BCE). The name of Asenath’s father is Potiphera (Genesis 41:45), and this name has been found on an Egyptian stele dating to the 21st Dynasty (about 1070-945) or later. The name of Joseph’s Egyptian master Potiphar (Genesis 37:36) is probably a shorter version of the name Potiphera. Joseph’s own Egyptian name, Zaphenath-paneah (Genesis 41:45) has no exact parallel in extant Egyptian records, but names with a similar structure are attested to from the 21st Dynasty (about 1070-945 BCE) and later. (McCarter, 27)So, already your claim is undermined. The names of ”historical’ characters in the Book of Genesis who were supposedly born before Moses have been shown to belong to a time period well after Moses died.What about the city names Per-Ramesse and Pithom in Exodus 1:11?
Now if Moses left The City of Rameses then he left it long after 1513 BCE!The building of the ”Estate of Rameses’ cannot have been before 1304 BCE, as no pharaoh before that was ever called Rameses. The date of Rameses II’s reign in the High Chronology is 1304-1238 BCE, Middle 1290-1224 and the Low 1279-1213. (Baruch Halpern The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1992 p.90)There seems to have been some confusion at this site over that dating and naming of the ”Estate of Rameses’. There is no doubt that the ”Estate of Rameses’ was named after Pharaoh Rameses II, the inscriptions found at the site itself are evidence of this.
The site of the city of Rameses was built on the location of the Hyksos capital of Avaris, which was rebuilt and made the capital again by Sethos I and Rameses II, and called by the latter the ”House of Rameses. The authenticity of the tradition is confirmed by the fact that the capital was referred to as ”House of Rameses’ only until the 11th century BCE, after which it was called Tanis. (John Bright, A History of Israel SCM Press, London 1972 edition p.119)It has been suggested that the references to Pithom and Rameses in Exodus 1:11 could be anachronistic, well it definitely is anachronistic. Even if the reference to Rameses is accurate then the mention of Pithom is still anachronistic. According to Exodus 1:11, Pithom should be seen as a city comparable to Rameses. This is historically impossible, as Pithom was only used as the name of a city in the Saite period, i.e. the 7th century BCE onwards. Pithom means ”the house of Atum (the god)’ and although this was known prior to the Saite period as the name of temples and temple estates belonging to this god, the name was never connected with cities (Niels Peter Lemche, Is It Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel? in V Phillips Long, Israel?s Past in Present Research Eisenbrauns, Indiana, 1999, p.398).Besides this, archaeologists working at Tell el-Maskhuta in north-eastern Egypt have found good evidence that this was the ancient city of Pithom and that it was founded by Pharaoh Necho II between 609-606 BCE, a good survey of this can be found in J.S. Holladay’s The Wadi Tunrilat Project. The Excavations of Tell el-Maskhuta. Malibu CA 1982.The archaeological evidence cannot support the two cities in Exodus 1:11 as ever being occupied, or even existing, at the same time. One part of the reference seems to belong to the 2nd millennium BCE and another to the 1st Millenium BCE. (J Maxwell Millar and John J Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah SCM Press, London 1986, page 69)Paul has already pointed out that fact that the Philistines were unknown until the 12th century BCE, and we have a host of other anachronisms to consider.What I would like to know is a little of the evidence that would lead us to conclude that Genesis was written in 1513 BCE. One of which was Himself Seriously though, Jesus only had one human parent, the other was supposed to be God. Which is great, but pretty shitty for being the Messiah, since the Messiah was to come from the bloodline of Solomon then Nathan’s descendants are no good, so this genealogy is no good. Matthew proposing that Jesus is linked by blood through Joseph to Solomon is equally negative for Jesus’ messianic claims. Joseph simply wasn’t Jesus father, hence Joseph’s genealogy is redundant, and so this genealogy is no good either. Well, it is hardly evident, and certainly was never claimed by early Christians. This particular apologetic didn’t raise its head until the 16th century, so it could hardly have been evident. What does ”legally Jesus’ father’ mean?An adopted child does not share the father’s bloodlineThe Virgin Birth negates the possibility that Jesus was the messiah, the lineage of Mary is of no consequence at all, even the Bible tells us that . . . So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. Luke 2:4There you have it in black and white.Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because JOSEPH belonged to the line of David and NOT Mary, and with Joseph not being Jesus’ father, then Jesus has no line to David, therefore Jesus was not the Messiah.

yes indeed that is the one.Tell me Buz, How is Moller doing with the 'research' he stole from Wyatt?How many academic journals has Moller had 'his research' research published in?It has been a few years now since you brought this up, funny how its never made any academic journals isn't it?