English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

Example:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

2007-02-28 11:24:23 · 22 answers · asked by Gardener for God(dmd) 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Another example:

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

2007-02-28 11:25:04 · update #1

22 answers

I don't really believe in God or the Bible but that doesn't mean that I discredit everything that the Bible says. Some of the people in the Bible may have existed but what you wrote doesn't really show how creation is absolute. It just shows that some people in Ebla believed in creation. Blind denial is just as bad as blind faith.

2007-02-28 11:33:48 · answer #1 · answered by ¥¥Z 4 · 0 0

There is some sort of truth in all mythogy. Yes, there were real people and real places. Ever seen History of the Bible on the History Channel? The Bible is not a history book. This is going to piss some people off but its the best example I can come up with. Dan Brown wrote Angels and Demons. All the historic/ art landmarks that are in the book are really in Rome. Did the things he say in the book actually physically take place? No. Its fiction. The bible cannot be considered an accurate account of happenings. Even the NT, the first book of the NT was written 40 + years after Jesus died. Not exactly fresh in people's memory. And other books of the NT were written as many 400 years later. Obviously not a first hand account. My question is why were some book thrown out and considered unacceptable for the bible when so many of the NT books are repetative?

2007-02-28 19:37:44 · answer #2 · answered by Kate 2 · 0 0

I agree with Dawn H. But also, how do you account for Catholics stealing Pagan holidays? Easter, one of the Pagans. Christmas, was the Winter Solstice. There's too much scientifical evidence to say that we didn't just spring from a magic word. Plus, the bible. It was written by man, man is easily corrupted. I watched a documentry on how, when the bible was being put together, one man chose what scriptures to keep and what ones to throw out. And another point. They say the Devil is the greatest liar, greatest trickster on earth. The Jewish bible was written before Jesus, and it states that man is susceptible to temptation and corruption. So what if the Devil came to man and tricked and tempted him into writing the bible not as an instrument of god, but as an instrument of hell? Decrying god and worshiping the devil.

2007-02-28 19:47:02 · answer #3 · answered by Talon F 2 · 0 0

I have no argument that the bible may have really been "written" by someone BC, I do however think alot of it was heavily embellished, and "Revelations" is about the future, so that cannot be proven as truth either. Put it this way, I could write a book about events in my life and make alot of stuff up and write outlandish things. People thousands of years from now may find this book, the only thing it really proves, is that I existed and wrote a book about events in my life, it doesn't prove that they were necessarily true. The bible makes no mention of Dinosaurs and there is plenty of proof about their existence including DNA.

2007-02-28 19:35:08 · answer #4 · answered by alessa_sunderland 5 · 0 0

Are you talking about the OT or the NT. Since most Christians don't consider the OT valid and ignore many of their teachings, I don't even know why you're bringing this up.

How do you explain the many accounts that aren't supposed by archaelogocial evidence? (Which, by the way, is more vast than the documentation of Biblical stories.)

2007-02-28 19:30:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

ok and what about the historic facts in the iliad...does that make it true too?

nothing in your question shows the bible as anything more than a history book

and what about the contradictions?

King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David.
1 Chronicles 29:7

"The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven." Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few miles above our heads.
Matthew 24:29

Jesus believed that Noah's flood actually happened.
Matthew 24:37

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."
John 5:14

2007-02-28 19:41:27 · answer #6 · answered by Melanie T 1 · 1 1

For hundreds of years, it was thought that Troy was an imaginary town in Homers works, over 2000 years ago. Just in the last few years it was discovered that it was a real city, just where Homer said it was.

Does this mean that all the creatures in the Illiad and the Odyssey (the cyclops, etc) are true and his gods are true?

No. Not any more than London being a real place and Big Ben being a real clock prove that Tinkerbell is real. (They're in Peter Pan)

2007-02-28 19:29:46 · answer #7 · answered by Laptop Jesus 2.0 5 · 7 0

Atheists don't necessarily believe EVERYTHING in the bible is fictional. However, just because there is some fact in the bible, that doesn't mean it's all fact. Take the ancient egyptians, for example. They recorded who ruled and when, who designed what buildings, and what went on in everyday life. However, they also recorded things about their gods, Horus and Osiris and all the others, but obviously these were just myths.

2007-02-28 19:32:25 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 1 0

Simple: there is a small amount of historical accuracy inside a book of fables.

Seriously, in 1000 years, when they dig up a library and find Stephen King's books AND also discover that Castle Rock is a real city, will they all start to worship a rabies infected dog named Cujo? Will they begin to beleive in evil clowns or in cars that come alive and take revenge?

You REALLY need to rethink your logic on this one.

2007-02-28 19:30:22 · answer #9 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 2 0

I do not say the bible is not real. I say the bible is not the word of a GOD. I believe it was the work of an author many many years ago. And is based loosely on facts here and there, like any good novel.

2007-02-28 19:35:23 · answer #10 · answered by Lost in Erehwon 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers