Great Examples of the Bible's Historical Accuracy...

[tosca1]

But there are theists who claim it is 100% fact

It is!

But, you'll have to understand that many messages in the Bible are figuratively written (using various types of figures of speeches), and some are given as analogous fiction - that, they are given in such ways, is a fact!
Surely, you don't think everyone believes that we should LITERALLY pluck out our eyes if we sin with them?

 

[Quag]

The oral tradition/transmission of the Old Testament was reliable.



The Old Testament is by far the most reliable book of history of the ancient world.
In fact, there is not even a good candidate for the second most reliable historical text.
We obviously cannot prove that everything in the Old Testament happened from other sources. This is because we simply do not have enough other reliable sources. I cannot prove that David fought Goliath from other sources, for example. However, without a single exception, whenever the historical claims and information in the Bible has been compared to known facts, either from archaeological discovery or from reasonable inference from other histories, the Old Testament has proved to be reliable. Finds such as the Tel Dan inscription, the Ebla Tablets, the Moabite Stone, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Taylor Prism, the Siloam Inscription, the Tel el Amarna letters, the Nuzi Tablets, the Behuistan Inscription and many more have consistently supported the reliability of the Old Testament. For many years, historians doubted the existence of the biblical city of Nineveh. Then they dug up the city of Nineveh. Historians questioned the reality of the Hittites. Then they discovered Hattusha, the capital of the Hittites. The said David was not a real person. Then they found the Tel Dan inscription which shows this to be a lie. I could go on for dozens of examples. Archaeological digs around the Dead Sea confirm five cities, all destroyed about 2100 BC. A tablet found in Babylon confirms that King Jehoachim was in fact taken there and given special honor. You will find a chapter on this topic in my book “Reasons for Belief” also at www.ipibooks.com, as well as more info on the topic in the power point section of my web site.


I will conclude that the Old Testament is historically a fantastically reliable document. This is part of the evidence for its inspiration. If you read the histories of the Assyrians, the Mayans, the Egyptians and the Greeks, they tend to exaggerate or even fabricate. They also have a hugely biased account, ignoring nearly all mistakes and disasters. The Bible definitely does not follow this pattern. It is chock full of very bad errors and defeats of its leaders.

I challenge anyone to produce any ancient history which can hold a candle to the Old Testament as a reliable source of information about the ancient world.

How accurate do we know the Old Testament to be historically? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

The challenge goes to you too. Can you provide something?

Oral traditions are not reliable they are changed with every retelling

 

[Quag]

It is!

But, you'll have to understand that many messages in the Bible are figuratively written (using various types of figures of speeches), and some are given as analogous fiction - that, they are given in such ways, is a fact!
Surely, you don't think everyone believes that we should LITERALLY pluck out our eyes if we sin with them?

I meant to say factual as opposed to fiction
People who believe that the word is 6k years old because some priest hundreds of years ago guesstimated the ages of people mentioned in the bible prove point

 

[Questerr]

"evidenceforchristianity.org"

That's your idea of a non-biased academic source?

Their position is entirely based on faith, not on evidence (because there isn't any).

 

[tosca1]

Oral traditions are not reliable they are changed with every retelling

Not from what has been found out.

 

[tosca1]

"evidenceforchristianity.org"

That's your idea of a non-biased academic source?

Their position is entirely based on faith, not on evidence (because there isn't any).

Why not?
"Non-biased," is subjective.

If you have problems with what was written in it - REFUTE THEM!

 

[tosca1]

I meant to say factual as opposed to fiction
People who believe that the word is 6k years old because some priest hundreds of years ago guesstimated the ages of people mentioned in the bible prove point

@Questerr


That depends on the person(s) who believe, right?
Not all believe in young earth.
Furthermore, they have their reasons for questioning the actual age of the earth: Carbon-dating.


Actually, you guys are worse than them!
SCIENCE HAS NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD-CREATION - and yet, look at you folks.
You can't even bring yourselves to accommodate that.


And. worse...........you've got no rational reasons why you cannot see it from the.................................... scientific point of view!


The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

So.....you're not in any position at all to talk about, or even hint at................................... OBJECTIVITY and OPEN-MINDEDNESS.

 

[Quag]

Not from what has been found out.

There is literally not one supernatural claim in the Bible that has been found out to be true
We do no that the creation and age of the earth as described in the Bible are false.

 

[Quag]

@Questerr


That depends on the person(s) who believe, right?
Not all believe in young earth.
Furthermore, they have their reasons for questioning the actual age of the earth: Carbon-dating.


Actually, you guys are worse than them!
SCIENCE HAS NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD-CREATION - and yet, look at you folks.
You can't even bring yourselves to accommodate that.


And. worse...........you've got no rational reasons why you cannot see it from the.................................... scientific point of view!


The National Academy of Sciences also says:

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

So.....you're not in any position at all to talk about, or even hint at................................... OBJECTIVITY and OPEN-MINDEDNESS.

I never said all theists believe the earth is 6K years old I said some do
Science doesn't deal in the supernatural so of course science cant rule out God creating the earth but science has shown that it did not happen as described in the bible
There is also 0 scientific evidence for God creating anything or even existing

 

[Questerr]

Why not?
"Non-biased," is subjective.

If you have problems with what was written in it - REFUTE THEM!

How do I refute a position that is entirely based on faith and without evidence?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Here's the thing. I grew up in the church and many people, some of the most dedicated, say out loud that certain stories in the Bible are false or just examples. They are stories to make a point.

I've always been surprised how many people do admit that. Especially when you have other churches that are fire-and-brimstone and every word of The Bible is 100% accurate beyond question.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Not from what has been found out.

What is that exactly? Believers are especially credulous? We knew that.

 

[tosca1]

What is that exactly? Believers are especially credulous? We knew that.

If you read what were given, you don't have to wonder what exactly.

How accurate do we know the Old Testament to be historically? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

 

[tosca1]

@Quag
@Questerr
@Manc Skipper


I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.


***They believed that David was legendary...............................but, archeologists found a stone slab *Tel Dan), in 1994 with references to King David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

 

[Quag]

@Quag
@Questerr
@Manc Skipper


I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.


***They believed that David was legendary...............................but, archeologists found a stone slab *Tel Dan), in 1994 with references to King David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Yeah and Archeologists used the Iliad as an archeological tool as well
In neither case does doing so support the supernatural claims in either

 

[Questerr]

@Quag
@Questerr
@Manc Skipper


I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.


***They believed that David was legendary...............................but, archeologists found a stone slab *Tel Dan), in 1994 with references to King David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Cool. If a book is correct about 9 things, does that mean the 10th thing listed in it must therefore be true?

No one is claiming there is nothing historical accurate in the Bible. But everything that is historically accurate in it can be verified by external objective evidence.

 

[NotreDame]

Hum yes and no You have to remember that, like all media, they do have certain bias, and as a Israeli news organization, they do post articles that highly exaggerate things like that, just like you will see western news papers talk about 'discoveries' about Jesus in Israel around this time of year. Some amount of their evidence is taken out of context and exaggerated. It's to see papers and promote Judaism. So, like the western news papers making stories about Jesus this time of year, so they make claims about evidence for the exodus. Many of the things they mention might be true, but they are not evidence for the exodus. It is evidence of the fact the two cultures interacted.

So what if they have a bias? Entities and people with a bias can be correct, right, and espouse sound, strong, arguments.

You seem to think an article, citing to archaeological evidence, can be characterized as Jewish propaganda based on nothing more than you saying, “as a Israeli news organization, they do post articles that highly exaggerate things like that.” Do they? There’s no evidence they’ve done so here. You provide no evidence.

But let’s not obsess I suppose with the idea you made a statement lacking evidentiary support unlike the article citing to archaeological evidence.

Let’s suppose in the past this entity has “articles that highly exaggerate things like that.” Okay. Fine. So what? The past conduct doesn’t establish in this article they gave “highly” exaggerated the archaeological evidence. Just a plain text reading of the article suggest a cautious view of the evidence, not a “highly” exaggerated view.

Some amount of their evidence is taken out of context and exaggerated.

Such as? How so?

This article takes a relatively conservative view of the evidence, a cautious view. So the veracity of your statements of “highly” exaggerated, and/or “exaggerated” and “out of context” doesn’t at this moment fit the article.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It is!

But, you'll have to understand that many messages in the Bible are figuratively written (using various types of figures of speeches), and some are given as analogous fiction - that, they are given in such ways, is a fact!
Surely, you don't think everyone believes that we should LITERALLY pluck out our eyes if we sin with them?

So you get to choose which parts to believe. Cherrypicking.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Interesting read, if anyone's interested.

Were Hebrews ever slaves in ancient Egypt? Yes

***

www.haaretz.com

The Egyptians notably recorded all kinds of events, but the sudden exodus of a third of the population would if nothing else cause major disruption to society. Nothing like that was recorded.

 

[MaryP]

The Egyptians notably recorded all kinds of events, but the sudden exodus of a third of the population would if nothing else cause major disruption to society. Nothing like that was recorded.

A third of the population? I never thought that.

 

[Overitall]

The Egyptians notably recorded all kinds of events, but the sudden exodus of a third of the population would if nothing else cause major disruption to society. Nothing like that was recorded.

I doubt defeat would be something the Egyptians would want to record. They would more likely strike any record of the Hebrews from public record. It's not uncommon for nations to record history only that is favorable to them. Nevertheless.

Were Hebrews ever slaves in ancient Egypt? Yes

***

www.haaretz.com

That said, as the Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out, the Hebrew word for thousand, eleph, can mean different things depending upon context. It can even denote a group/clan or a leader/chief. Elsewhere in the bible, "eleph" could not possibly mean "a thousand”. For example: 1 Kings 20:30 mentions a wall falling in Aphek that killed 27,000 men. If we translate eleph as leader, the text more sensibly says that 27 officers were killed by the falling wall. Bv that logic, some scholars propose that the Exodus actually consisted of about 20,000 people.


The absence of evidence of a sojourn in the wilderness proves nothing. A Semitic group in flight wouldn't have left direct evidence: They would not have built cities, built monuments or done anything but leave footprints in the desert sand.

 

[Somerville]

[deleted words]


***They believed that David was legendary...............................but, archeologists found a stone slab *Tel Dan), in 1994 with references to King David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

There is debate in academic circles as to whether or not the Tel Dan Stele actually refers to the "house of David" with the word bytdwd, with several alternative translations offered since the initial publication by Biran and Naveh in 1993

 

[tosca1]

Yeah and Archeologists used the Iliad as an archeological tool as well

So what?

In neither case does doing so support the supernatural claims in either

You're so defensive against God.
I'm not saying these support the SUPERNATURAL claim. You're simply knee-jerking.

Lol - read the title of this thread!
We're talking about ........................................................ HISTORICITY!

 

[tosca1]

There is debate in academic circles as to whether or not the Tel Dan Stele actually refers to the "house of David" with the word bytdwd, with several alternative translations offered since the initial publication by Biran and Naveh in 1993

What isn't being disputed when something is found in support of the Bible?

 

[Quag]

So what?


You're so defensive against God.
I'm not saying these support the SUPERNATURAL claim. You're simply knee-jerking.

Lol - read the title of this thread!
We're talking about ........................................................ HISTORICITY!

The bible is no more truthful about history than the Iliad, the only real difference is it is bigger and covers a longer time period