“The Archaeological Evidence for the Bible is Non-Existent!”

So much of the Bible is interpretation so I do not think anyone knows. It contains much history but usually very little detail about an event. As Margot pointed out, the information may not necessarily be wrong but oftentimes is so vague it could have multiple explanations.

 

Most of the New Testament is directed at Roman oppression of Christians.

AboveAlpha

 

I will have to take your word on that since I do not know.

 

You would not believe how they created the New Testament!!!

You know that Revelation was rejected over 7 times by the Biblical Canon as being too....STUPID!!!

AboveAlpha

 

are you familiar with what a sopher is? the torah of today is IDENTICAL to the torah of 2000 years ago. you think maybe the judeo-christians and then the Christians knew how to train scribes in such a manner?


Putting together a bunch of writings into a book, and claiming the book to be holy is probably sufficient reason to attempt to ensure pretty close reproductions (without consideration to the numerous translation changes) across generations. Especially prior to 1440 with the western introduction of the moveable type printing press.

 

As I mentioned before, that would be the only way to get around the writing of the Bible as being divinely inspired. My entire point in this thread was not to prove anything is the truth, only that possibilities are out there.

 

There is quite a lot of evidence for history in the Bible. You simply have to look for it in the history of contemporary nations, in relics, artifacts, etc and compare events. Biblical events are recorded by both sides in the case of war, or peace pacts. Details may vary as to who actually won the battle, but there is no doubt that the event occurred. Names of opponents are mentioned by both sides and in some cases there are names of minor officials included.

This is limited to the era of the Kings - circa 1000BCE 600BCE. There is nothing before this, nor is there likely to be.

Even in the NT there are historic records recorded. How you fit them into christianity is up to you. I.e. Luke records the .'historic' death of Agrippa I and Josephus goes along with that record, though he puts it down to natural reasons. The Areopagus in Athens would have certainly been interested in Paul's activities. His route to Rome are all clearly defined along with other events and the accusation that Paul was 'the Egyptian' that caused trouble refers to an actual event.

How you tie these in with religion is for you.

 

I went to that thread and took a look at your first post. Your argument makes no sense.

There is a difference between giving an explanation and giving a good explanation.

 

It might be we also found Troy that doesn't mean Zeus, Aphrodite, Hera and the heroes of ancient Greece were all real in the Iliad just there is evidence Troy existed. We might find solid evidence of King David but that doesn't mean he fought Goliath and killed him with a sling stone then chopped off his head with Goliath's own blade.

But events like Exodus would have extensive collaboration but there is zero evidence of that event as per the Bible happening.

 

Perhaps it is because so many people ignore glaring inconsistencies and excuse it as "oh, well, the Bible is just so open to interpretation"

 

Agreed. I don't believe anything before the era of the kings - 1000BCE - were anything more that allegories etc.
However, there are events recorded in the Bible of which we had no other proof until the last 200 years of archaeology.
We are not talking 'cities'. Many of those in the OT were known about when the scribes wrote the OT. They used these to weave stories around. Nothing easier to weave a story about the 5 cities of the plain. The destruction of these was known to them and possibly some of their history. So they wrote a story about Lot around them.

We are talking about events known only in the Bible till fairly recently. Sishak (Sheshonq) of Egypt is recorded to have raided the Temple in Jerusalem. This was confirmed in the last 200 years on an excavated Palace wall in Egypt.
The Bible tells us about Solomons stables at Megiddo. Only fairly recently discovered at Megiddo. Though they are probably Ahabs stables - not Solomons. Nevertheless they exist. Battles are recorded in the Bible and have been confirmed on recently excavated palace/temple walls, sometimes with remarkable accuracy and names of Israeli kings, priests and, in one case, a 'diplomat'.

There's enough evidence to confirm many events in the Biblical era of the Kings and later.

By the way, I have no axe to grind. I'm agnostic - just interested in history of the period.

 

Either way there is no evidence that there ever was a Mount Sinai except what the Bible tells us.

 

Moses purchased a tomb for Sarai and himself from the Hittites. Given Biblical Chronology the Hittites did not appear for another 3+ centuries.

Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees? The Chaldeans were part of the Babylonian Empire 1000 years later.

Given Biblical Chronology Abraham would never have come near Pharaoh, or would Pharaoh have been informed of Sarai. Pharaohs of the time ruled from Thebes - far to the south.

In one place David is the shieldbearer for Saul, yet later Saul does not recognise him.

No evidence for Hebrews being slaves in Egypt, and anyway slaves were treated well according to ancient writings and archaeology.

2,000,000 plus men women and children wandering a scrub desert which tribes, even today, struggle to survive.
A red sea, which turns out to be a marshy 'reed' sea which 2,000,000 people with all their cattle and possessions pass through in a night. And an Eygptian army wiped out by creeping, shallow waters.

And not a word in Egyptian records as to how they managed their country without all their 'slaves'.

Before modern day living plagues as described in the Bible occurred when the waters from Central Africa dried up. Why not add an ultimate plague to the list? Killing of the firstborn.

Isaiah was little more of a prophet than you or I. He had an astute understanding of what happens when certain rules are disobeyed. Many of his prophesies were simply understanding the state of the world of his time.

When Neco the Egyptian brought an army to fight the Babylonians, and lost, he returned to Egypt. When the Babylonians heard that Judah was going to form a pact with Egypt, Isaiah knew well what would happen. Babylonia had taken over Israel when they conquered Assyria. Now Judah would be a threat. Conquering Judah would give the Babylonians control right up to Egypt's borders. So they did.

Study of the OT, its culture, religion and background without any preconceived ideas and things appear quite differently. Of course Christians and Muslims are unable/unwilling to do this. Those who have done so honestly
have come to the real 'truth'.

 

The God of the Bible had no problem violating Pharoah's free will and hardening his heart.