Everyone says there is archaeological proof. What is it? What proves that Mark, Matthew, John, etc…weren’t lying? Did they perform miracles? Did they or did they not live decades after Jesus passed away? How can you trust the word of men who only claim that God speaks through them?
2006-12-04 20:04:00 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
When the archaeologist dig up a site 1000's of years later, it has been exactly where the bible said it was. The disciples did not make any thing up,
2Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2006-12-04 20:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Archaeology (from the Greek "Ancient words/ speech) basically involves the careful examination of ancient sites where people lived.
Many "Christian Scientists" have attempted to bring Science and Theology together by trying to "prove the Bible". Some have gone so far as to say that the Dinosaurs must have been born in 4004 B.C.E. when some crackpot in Europe centuries ago said that all life began on the Earth.
The Council of Nicea was convened in 325 C.E. to determine several things;
1) Which of the estimated 51 Gospels were the correct ones
2) Was Christ the "Son of God" or a "Prophet"
3) What date was 'Easter'
As to #1; only three Gospel were chosen... the rest being proclaimed "Heresy" a charge that carried the death sentence.
As to #2; they decided that Jesus was the directly the Son of God.
As to #3; they determined that Easter was the first Sunday after the full moon after the Vernal Equinox.
2006-12-04 20:24:01 · answer #2 · answered by wolf560 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible's accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archaeological finds produced by both believing and nonbelieving scholars and scientists. This included verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible.
One among many examples is the fact that for many years the existence of the Hittites (a powerful people who lived during the time of Abraham) was questioned because no archaeological digs had uncovered anything about them. Critics claimed the Hittites were pure myth. But today the critics are silenced. Abundant archaeological evidence for the existence of the Hittites during the time of Abraham has been uncovered.
Bible scholar Donald J. Wiseman notes, "The geography of Bible lands and visible remains of antiquity were gradually recorded until today more than 23,000 sites within this region and dating to Old Testament times, in their broadest sense, have been located." Nelson Glueck, a specialist in ancient literature, did an exhaustive study and concluded: "It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Well-known scholar William F. Albright, following a comprehensive study, wrote: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of History."
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection NOW. there are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). In fact, there are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. Bottom line: The New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
2006-12-04 20:34:44 · answer #3 · answered by Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is little to support it. The archeological "proof" is only a possible proof. They say that this recently discovered city _might_ be one of the many cities mentioned in the New Testiment.
The only proof as such is that most of the oldest known copies of the NT have been radiometrically dated (carbon14 or other) to within 1st Century AD.
It's odd though that despite this, religious fundimentalists dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating, claiming it can't be relied upon...
2006-12-04 20:32:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at the same time as i change into an atheist, I had to come back to have self belief that there change right into a God, before i'd ever dream of heavily reading the Bible. In my case I got here to the proper that God existed before I grew to change right into a Christian and studied the Bible. yet evidence is yet another be counted fullyyt. What I evaluate evidence is truly for sure of no result to particular different forms of persons. All of my evidence is actual brushed aside with cynicism. The cynic sees no reliable in something. Love is lust, sex is instinct, exhilaration is endorphins, and there is not any God. that is the information of the cynic. wish that enables.
2016-11-23 17:39:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can't. If god is an all knowing all powerful what ever, it's hardly going to leave a birth certificate behind for us to find.
The best archaeology could do is verify that certain historical data within the bible is correct i.e. the battle of somewhere took place because weapons were found that indicate a battle took place in that area at around that time.
You would not find evidence for the parting of the red sea, for example.
2006-12-04 20:07:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The New Testament itself doesn't claim to be inspired by God.
If you look at the first chapter of Matthew, he says his letter is a genealogy of Jeshua (Original name of Jesus). It includes Jeshua's ancestry as well as stories about his life.
Mark is also stories about the life of Christ.
Luke states that his letter to Theopolus is a chronologically written letter of the life of Jeshua.
John's letter is also a description of the life of Jeshua.
These letters were written from actual experiences as well as from other people who told of their experiences with Jeshua.
Since Matthew and Luke both specifically say they were recording the accurate life of Jeshua, you could say their letters were inspired by man to create an accurate record of the life of Jeshua.
These letters were written many years after the death of Jeshua and were not part of the Bible. The Bible didn't even exist at that time. It was many years later that these and other letters were collected and bound into one book known today as he Bible.
2006-12-04 20:36:19 · answer #7 · answered by dndllc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no archaeological proof. These people will believe carbon dating one day, and totally shun it the next.
2006-12-04 20:06:49 · answer #8 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I dont think you should believe archeology
2006-12-04 20:38:46 · answer #9 · answered by sunday y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I do not believe the NT is part of the Holy Scriptures-------I do not accept any of it.
Now, if you want to discuss what you call the OT-----be glad to-----------------------------------.
2006-12-04 20:19:33 · answer #10 · answered by Shossi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋