Biblical accuracy?

Question

How can the bible be accurate and unchanged if Nazareth was not a town in the time of Jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_history_.26_archaeological_evidence

There is archaeological evidence from before the 1st century, there is archaeological evidence from the 2nd century, but there is no evidence for a city existing there in the 1st century.

Also, there is no cliff at all for Jesus to be thrown off, as 'documented' by Luke.

Who thinks that a Jesus came from Nazareth, and who thinks that the Nazareth part got added at a later date?

We are not talking about missing a year or two here, we are talling about missing centuries. If there was a city there the evidence of it would have been found. It was not there.

If you think this is "Fraudulent nonsense" then post the link to the archaeological evidence from the 1st century. Wiki may not be the best source, but it at least gives references.

For those who need the bible reference:

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Where he fails to read and declares himself to be the messiah:

Luke 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Conundrum:
Nice thought out text. It is a pity you did not think it out for yourself:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Jesus_called_'Jesus_of_Nazareth'_when_there_was_no_town_or_city_named_Nazareth_2000_years_ago

and the archaeological evidence for a 1st century settlement on this mountain is? . . .nonexistent. No one has bothered to date the ruins there or dig for remains. So it is silly to claim this to be the real 'Nazareth'.

Answer 1

Whether there was a town of Nazareth in the 1st century or not, I can't really say. What we can say, is that there is no prophecy in the OT regarding the messiah being called a 'nazorean'. Instead, there is a prophecy that the messiah would be called a 'nazarite' - meaning, 'one devoted to god'.

It's pretty obvious that the Gospel author transliterated 'nazarite' and confused it to mean ' a person from Nazareth'. That being the case, there really is no reason to believe Jesus was from Nazareth, even under all the typical assumptions.

Answer 2

As we still have existing copies of the gospels that scholars have dated to within 20 years of the original that include the references to Nazareth, it becomes difficult to argue that the reference was added later.

Was Nazareth a town at the time when Jesus lived? It appears that it had been influential before the time of Jesus, and returned to a time of influence a century later after the Jews had been exiled from there. But that during the time of Jesus there was very little there.

That goes along well with what the New Testament states. It says that Joseph took the child Jesus to Nazareth to keep him out of the sight of the rulers at the time. Where better to take him then an unimportant and mostly uninhabited part of the country? That is one of the reasons that Nathaniel (in John 1) questioned whether Jesus was the Messiah, because nothing good come could come out of a "hick" and "backwards" area like Nazareth.

How many people does it take to be a "village"? If there were a hundred or so families still in the area, tending sheep, raising grain, etc (which there were), then they were a "village". Just not an important, influencial, or highly populated one.

Was the a cliff in Nazareth? Under Jews law a person who was sentenced to be stoned was to be first tossed from a "cliff", with the fall often knocking them out, if not killing them, before the stoning began. So in every Jews community there was a "cliff" - that is an area whether natrual or man-made that could be used for that purpose. If the land where totally fall, a pit would be used. While there may not be a "cliff" in the sense of a 100 foot drop of the side of a mountain. archeologist have purposed multiple sites in and around the area that would be more than adequate for the purpose of the "cliff" mentioned in the gospels.

So the archeological evidence gives no reason to question the gospel account of Jesus being from that area.

Answer 3

Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee.If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just N of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the S tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It was in a mountain basin with hills rising 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft) above it. The area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns near Nazareth. Also, it is estimated that one could walk from Nazareth to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean Coast in seven hours, to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee in five hours, and to Jerusalem in three days.
It is difficult to say with certainty just how prominent Nazareth was in the first century. The most common view of commentators is that Nazareth was then a rather secluded, insignificant village. The principal Biblical statement used to support this view is what Nathanael said when he heard that Jesus was from there: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Joh 1:46)

Answer 4

The bible doesn't say they tried to throw him from a cliff and there is a hill there as the bible says.

The fact that some historians raise the question as to whether or not the town of Nazareth existed during the time Jesus lived there is not proof that the bible is not accurate and unchanged.

Doubt is easy. Faith takes, well, faith.

Answer 5

Please don't use Wikipedia as your source on whether to believe or reject the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.

If finding out whether or not Nazareth was a city that existed at the time of Jesus' childhood then by all means do an exhaustive research on the matter.

Who do believe Jesus Christ to be?

Answer 6

I don't mean to upset or discourage you, but much of the Old and New Testaments are not textbooks. They're stories and non-first-hand accounts. I recall hearing that some of what was written about Jesus was written about 300 years later.

The very fact that they don't mention dinosaurs is highly telling. They didn't know about dinosaurs, so whoever wrote Genesis came up with the six-day creation story to illustrate that God is all-powerful.

Trust me, you can be spiritual and even Christian and not believe every single word in the Bible. Your faith and veneration of God trumps any "scholarly" pursuits -- God just wants you to be a benevolent person and resist temptation and live a good life. All else is really just man-made religion.

Answer 7

You're using wikipedia as your source? Let's assume it's a reliable one. If there is archeological evidence from say year 1 B.C. and also from year 2 A.D., that there was a city called Nazareth, then it follows that it existed between the two years. Also, we didn't start the modern common ere (A.D.) the minute Christ was born. Some believe he was born between 2-4 A.D.

Answer 8

Obviously the Bible was originally written in other languages and translated by many people. Over time, confusion in names may have occured and thus Nazareth was born. Personally, I believe it exsisted due to my Catholic faith but people have different veiws on this.

Answer 9

Almost all if not all the new testament was added later the bible as we know was compiled around the 2nd century

Answer 10

Where does it say it was a city? Where does it say he was to be thrown off a cliff? I believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. Thanks for all the time you have taken to inform us.