Comments on: Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

By: cag

cag — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:39:52 +0000

Joey #22 – not to worry, there are no gods. There is no better god than the biblical god, as no gods exist. God is ~~love~~ non-existent. Right!

By: Joey LoForti

Joey LoForti — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:48:04 +0000

I know very little about history but I certainly hope the Old testament is nor true. I don’t know why so many people want to believe in a God who ordered his children the Jews to commit genocidal atrocities over and over again. If the bible was proven to be true all it would prove is that God is evil and hypocritical for saying, “thou shalt not kill” and then turning around and telling his people to kill men women and little babies without any mercy. Why do Christians even want to believe in a God that would send good people to everlasting damnation just because of the “sin” of unbelief. There has to be a better God than this biblical God. God is Love right?

By: LRP55

LRP55 — Fri, 06 May 2011 18:44:48 +0000

I just wanted to point out that the first instance given regarding the king of Moab doesn’t prove historical inaccuracy of the biblical account but only that there is an account that seems to disagree. Often if you talk to two different people witnessing the same event you can have two very different stories even though they will both believe that they are accurate describing what happened. This is where perspectives come in.
And with both the Joshua stories, it seems more than a coincidence that archeology dated them around the same time. Wouldn’t it make sense that the dating is off either on when Joshua lived or when these cities were destroyed. Methods of dating have been know to be flawed before (such as carbon dating… but we won’t get into that).

By: rafe white

rafe white — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:47:39 +0000

1/10th of the supposed # of jews taken out of the egyptian economy would have left a huge hole. no amount of political coverup could have hidden from neighboring countries or trade partners. there were many historians back then. Other countries leaders hungry for a sign of weakness. the would have spies.
even the reduced # of jews leave alot of evidence wandering around a relatively small area for 40 years. resourses would have
been decimated.(locusts) Fire wood. massive pottery works. show me one of the huge latrines. thats alot of poop in a day. they had to steal alot (or trade) when they weren’t slaughtering the rightfull owners of the lands they wandered though.
They couldnt cover up the effects let alone the actual plagues.
there would have been non egyptian witnesses. ambassiders
trade caravans, hell, tourists. And 40 years of border incursions and caravan / village plundering, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE NOTICED.

I would be ashamed and horrified to think that my god punished men women and children for 40 years. AND ordered the slaughter of untold thousands of men women and children over and over for 40 years. I wish someone would prove it didnt happen and that god is loving and forgiving.

By: christian

christian — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:07:41 +0000

i’m not a archaeologist.
But considering archaeologist opinion about exodus who claimed that bible fact aboout is fiction are fool.
the reason :
1)If you are christian or not, see the Jesus existence, if He is really-really exist, and i think most of archaeologist think that He really lived on earth, we must be convinced about His teaching, that talked about Moses that the Archaeologist thought never happened.
2)If i really lived maybe 1800 BCyears ago and died in around egypt or when i exit from egypt, and i leaved some artefact or bronze or somethings like this when i died, and if i am israel, then someone for another country brought my bronze to another country (called “country A) in 1700 BC, then archaeologist shall say that i’m from country A. What a funny things.
3) It is foolish things to investigations human that 3800 years ago compare to israel that only took 40 years in wilderness and about 400 years in egypt. in physics lecture,
4) there are many many many reasons for this.
My reason maybe : why there are not documentation about israel slavery in egypt (maybe the excavation only 2% by archaeologist) because the disaster toward egypt by God of Israel is most horroble event to them.
5)Many archaelogist was frustrated when they could find something sensational or special.
6) Investigation Bible completely,ok.

tian

By: Stephen P

Stephen P — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:57:23 +0000

For those who … want serious information … you coud do worse than visit the article ‘A New Chronology’ at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

Well, I’ve been through it, and even with my limited knowledge of the subject found some sections in it that seemed pretty curious and unlikely. On researching further, I see that the book I mentioned earlier gives several reasons for doubting Rohl’s work. And there are several relevant articles online as well, such as Rohls Chronology Deconstructed and Pharaohs and the Bible.

So I’m not at all convinced that “serious information” is a good description.

By: karen

karen — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:13:36 +0000

On the one hand, I love it when religionists declare that some historical or archaeological finding has “confirmed” the Bible, since they are usually wrong about that; but on the other, I don’t like it, because most people are not informed enough … and don’t even care enough … to realize this. Very few people have enough historical knowledge to know better. Thus, most people are fooled.

Well, that’s par for the course, given how easily most people are fooled in general, whether it’s about religion, ESP, UFOs, mystical healing, or general con artistry. What did wise old P.T. Barnum say?

Every objective historical source I have read confirms what you say about archeology not backing up Biblical “history.” Yet true believers seemingly will never stop grasping at straws, twisting the details and trying to fit round pegs into square holes in the attempt to “prove” their beliefs are accurate.

Time to bring out my favorite quote:

“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” –Demosthenes

By: PsiCop

PsiCop — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:00:09 +0000

Religionists and, particularly, Biblical literalists love to point out when “archaeology confirms the Bible.” But as in the Moabite stone example, the “confirmation” is not really there when you really look at it. The “James ossuary” episode a couple years back is another example … it turned out to have been fraudulent (i.e. it was a genuine 1st century ossuary but its inscription had been amended recently), but you will find people still committed to the view that it was real and that it confirms Jesus lived.

Their problem is, even if the ossuary weren’t fraudulent, it would still prove nothing other than that there was a Joseph who had two sons, Jesus/Joshua and James/Jacob. It says nothing specifically about the Jesus that people worship today.

The reason people do this, is ignorance. Despite the occidental world’s education system (or perhaps because of it!) people do not really understand ancient history or the meaning of an archaeological find. They hear a tiny piece of something, then imagine all sorts of other things about it, expanding it beyond its true nature, so it appears to “support” their beliefs.

As someone with a degree in history, I know better. Historical and archaeological finds are subtle and surface appearances rarely play out fully. The cold hard fact is that history and archaeology, so far, do not in any way aver that the Bible stories are correct; the vast amount of Egyptian history we know, for example, makes the Exodus tale impossible. It is also unlikely that the ancestors of the Hebrews (represented in the OT by Abraham) migrated from a long distance … they were most likely native Canaanites, albeit a semi-nomadic tribe which roamed around the Levant as conditions forced them to. There was no warfare involved in them taking over Canaan; they simply overran the natives (socially, not militarily) and absorbed them.

Having said that, totally dismissing the Bible as a historical tool is foolish. There are a number of things which the Bible has shown to have existed. One are the Hittites (Khatti in the OT), whose inscriptions were found c. the turn of the 20th century. There are some other things which the Bible has helped us understand when nothing else helped. But the uncovering of HIttites, while widely interpreted as having “confirmed” the Bible, is like the Moabite stone, a two-edged sword: What we have found out about the Hittites is that they ran a massive empire which at different points stonewalled the Egyptians and overran the Babylonians, yet the OT mentions of them do not in any way suggest they had any supremacy in the Levant (they did, in fact, have such supremacy leading up to and shortly after the Battle of Kadesh c. 1,275 BCE). In other words … the Bible ought to have had a lot more to say about them, but it doesn’t.

By: Tony Bennett

Tony Bennett — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:18:28 +0000

I take the point about Wikipedia, nevertheless that particular Wiki article about Jericho and Dame Kathleen Kenyon etc. is well researched and written up.

For those who still have an open mind about the historical accuracy of the Bible, and want serious information about Jericho, Kathleen Kenyon’s findings, archaeological records which bear on Israelite history, including the time in the wilderness, Goshen (period of Egyptian slavery) and even pre-Goshen periods of Israelite history, you coud do worse than visit the article ‘A New Chronology’ at:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

It prints out at 17 pages long. Every page has fascinating information to dwell on and maybe research further

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:23:39 +0000

Actually, there is an archeological dig in Goshen that has revealed a city-sized settlement of Asiatic origin. The timing dates to when the Jews are reported to have been in that location by scripture, and the descriptions of them being “asiatic” fits the language of the day for how the egyptians described the Jews.