2007-03-15 04:02:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If one accepts metaphorical interpretations, they have equal support. For example, the Bible says Soddom and Gemorah were destroyed by 'fire from the sky' and recently archeologists discovered two villages they believe may have been S&G... destroyed by volcanic pyroclastic flows. Not quite fire from the sky but, still...
If one insists on literalist interpretations, Iliad has better archeological sources.
2007-03-15 04:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Boy MagpieX is sure jaded!
Anyhow, that is a very interesting question...I like it, I like it. Mostly, because it seems honest to me. You top contributor you!
Archaeology continues to support the Bible, although I have never studied the Iiliad's archaeology.
2007-03-15 11:10:16 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff- <3 God <3 people 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They found Troy based on the Iliad complete with the type of damage it described. They haven't found anything to back up the exodus. So the Iliad wins.
2007-03-15 11:10:00 · answer #3 · answered by Alex 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure it's a completely fair comparison. The Iliad takes place over a much shorter span of time, and really only covers one event-- the Trojan war.
2007-03-15 11:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The bible far outweighs all other books of Antiquity, both for historical accuracy and archaeological proofs.
It is widely recognized as a totally reliable historical record.
Whether you believe it is the word of God...that is the real question. And one that will ultimately settle your destiny!
2007-03-15 11:11:10 · answer #5 · answered by Eartha Q 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Given the comparative scope of the two books (one event versus thousands of years) there is exponentially more archeological support for the Illiad.
edit: what do you mean "jaded"? The Illiad describes the war of Troy. Find Troy and evidence that there was a war there and you've archeologically supported the Illiad.
The Bible describes thousands of events over thousands of years--it would be impossible to archeologically support every one of them (and only a fraction of them have such support). As far as the New Testament is concerned, not a single event has been archeologically confirmed.
It's not about being "jaded"--it's about being realistic.
2007-03-15 11:07:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The Iliad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iliad
2007-03-15 11:07:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bible.
2007-03-15 11:07:28 · answer #8 · answered by GLSigma3 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I direct your attention to the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstien and Silberman for a discussion of biblical archeaology.
2007-03-15 11:06:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bible, hands down.
Ever heard of a magazine called "BAR - Biblical Archaeological Review?"
2007-03-15 11:06:34 · answer #10 · answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋