The Bible has a “stellar archaeological record�?

[Zzyzx]

.
The Bible has a “stellar archaeological record�?

From a current thread:

How much of the Bible can actually be proven true?

I don't know that one can put a figure to it or any other historical document. The bible has a stellar archelogical record but in the end, the only thing we can say for sure is that nothing in it has been proven to be untrue.

Exactly WHAT constitutes the Bible's supposed “stellar archaeological record�? Cite evidence, references, studies.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, I don't like when you cherry pick my "preambles," which are there to explain the next bits, but otherwise meaningless, and ignore the important stuff. The important stuff, was quite germane to the OP...

Like why are Sargon and Nebuchadnezzar misrepresented?.

If you don'the want anyone referring to your "meaningless" "preambles" you might consider keeping them to yourself. I can only presume if they are in the post you consider them somehow relevant.

If you provide a clear structured referenced reply, explaining you rather vague remark and explain how it is in the least bit relevant to the points I was making, , I might consider replying to it. I don't recall seeing your feelings as a topic for debate and what you like or don't like is of absolutely no interest to me .


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

Okay, that's a very impressive list you've given us in post 7, JW.

I do have to ask this though - do all those findings mean it's justified to say a resurrection happened? That a global flood happened? Or any other of the magical events described in the Bible?

We found Troy VII in the mid 1800s. Does this give us justification to say that Paris of Troy had a beauty contest with three goddesses of the Greek pantheon?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by JehovahsWitness]

Take a break JW, obviously your faith is being challenged:
You can't really be objection to an introductory sentence can you? No, it was the meat of the post.

No, riku makes the same points, we both are interested - he said Helen of Troy, I mentioned the lack of Egyptian history...

Obviously, the Bible has flaws throughout its core, body and surface. There is no explanation for why the Bible gets it wrong, except, that it is wrong. If God allowed history to be corrupted for inconclusive ends, then all of the Book is suspect.

Since it is suspect about things we can prove, a reasonable man would discount still more extraordinary claims about miracles.

There is no way around.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

I am here to debate the thread topic which you can see in the heading of this thread, namely

Exactly WHAT constitutes the Bible's supposed “stellar archaeological record�? Cite evidence, references, studies

.

The purpose of my research was to address that question and that alone. The conclusions I have drawn can be clearly read in the final paragraph of my post marked "conclusion" (see post #7)


If you wish to address another question I am confident someone somewhere on the Internet will feel inclined to exchange with you.

JW

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

I am here to debate the thread topic which you can see in the heading of this thread, namely

Exactly WHAT constitutes the Bible's supposed “stellar archaeological record�? Cite evidence, references, studies

.

The purpose of my research was to address that question and that alone. The conclusions I have drawn can be clearly read in the final paragraph of my post marked "conclusion" (see post #7)


If you wish to address another question I am confident someone somewhere on the Internet will feel inclined to exchange with you.

JW

And you answered the mundane aspects of it very well. By mundane I mean the existence of kings, and cities, and battles, and so forth. Stuff that happens in the course of a normal human experience. The other part - the supernatural - doesn't have any such corroboration. Which, if we are all honest, we already knew given the total lack of data and evidence from all the other threads at this website. And that isn't going to change today, is it...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

Thank you. I don't recall the supernatural being mentioned in the OP

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

I am here to debate the thread topic which you can see in the heading of this thread, namely

Exactly WHAT constitutes the Bible's supposed “stellar archaeological record�? Cite evidence, references, studies

.

The purpose of my research was to address that question and that alone. The conclusions I have drawn can be clearly read in the final paragraph of my post marked "conclusion" (see post #7)


If you wish to address another question I am confident someone somewhere on the Internet will feel inclined to exchange with you.

JW

So citing your conclusion

Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.�

The entire Old Testament, and New? Or only those portions we can verify through other sources?
As I said in my above comment - we found Troy. That does not give us leave though to say there was indeed a beauty contest between three goddesses.
Just because we found artifacts mentioning King David doesn't give us leave to say he was indeed appointed king by the one true god.

[JehovahsWitness]

So citing your conclusion

Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.�

No, that was that conclusion of M. Blaiklock; my conclusion reads as follows "The above list is far from exhaustive but the illustrate the steller biblical record ... concerning archaeological discoveries."

[rikuoamero]

So citing your conclusion

Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.�

No, that was that conclusion of M. Blaiklock; my conclusion reads as follows "The above list is far from exhaustive but the illustrate the steller biblical record ... concerning archaeological discoveries."

So just that sentence then? Okay...why call it a 'steller' record? You do realise that not everything in the Bible has been archaeologically proven, I hope? For example, one of the biggest stories, the Exodus, has not been proven, has in fact been disproven given the complete lack of garbage 2 million plus people wandering a desert for 40 years would be expected to leave.
What you posted before was a good list, I give you that...but I wouldn't give the adjective 'stellar record' to the Bible. It hasn't earned that.
Again, it looks to me like you're taking the Bible as being (almost) completely true because some parts of it can indeed be verified.

[Talishi]

Obviously, the Bible has flaws throughout its core, body and surface. There is no explanation for why the Bible gets it wrong, except, that it is wrong. If God allowed history to be corrupted for inconclusive ends, then all of the Book is suspect,

Jeremiah prophesied the Babylonian Vacation would last 70 years. Archaeology says it lasted 49 years. JWs alter history to make it come back out to 70 years by introducing the date 607 BCE as a thing, when nothing of note happened then.