Is the Bible a credible historical reference?

[mbl020980]

This question is slightly different than my previous post. This explores the issue of how closely the Bible agrees with other, diverse historical records.

Have at it!

[juliod]

This explores the issue of how closely the Bible agrees with other, diverse historical records.

Except for generalities (such as king-lists from Egypt) the bible has little that is confirmed by others sources. I've heard of one war that is preserved in records from the other side, but little more than that. Most of the bible is wildly implausible.

DanZ

[youngborean]

This is a good question. The History of the bible (miracles and stories aside) is almost always supported by the direct evidence found through archeology. There have been very few archeological finds that directly refute the evidence of the bible. There is archeology that through deduction can question the accounts of the bible, but beyond that there is no archeological evidence which disproves the historical people and general evironment that the bible portraying. That being said, there is a very limited amount of archeological evidence of Israel during biblical times to begin with. This is because Israel was never a great kingdom, they were always in obscurity in comparison to the surrounding empires, and have very little distinct material aspects of their culture. Which may or may not support the biblical account that they were strangers in a foreign land.

[Easyrider]

This explores the issue of how closely the Bible agrees with other, diverse historical records.

Except for generalities (such as king-lists from Egypt) the bible has little that is confirmed by others sources. I've heard of one war that is preserved in records from the other side, but little more than that. Most of the bible is wildly implausible.

DanZ

My investigations reveal just the opposite. You can start here:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2502

[McCulloch]

My investigations reveal just the opposite. You can start here:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2502

For the sake of debate, it may be a good idea to provide more than just a link. Perhaps a few of the the best points from the page linked to or an exerpt that best represents the point being made.

Dug in order to keep a steady supply of water pumping into Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s anticipated siege, Hezekiah’s tunnel stands as a strong witness to the accuracy of the biblical historical record of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.
[...]
Part of the text on the Taylor Prism has Sennacherib’s account of what happened in his military tour of Judah.
[...]
One of the most outstanding artifacts found among the ruins of Nineveh was the wall relief depicting Sennacherib’s defeat of the city of Lachish.

[juliod]

but beyond that there is no archeological evidence which disproves the historical people and general evironment that the bible portraying.

I don't think anyone disbelieves in the existance of the Jews, Israel, and their religion of worshipping a creator god, sometimes written as YHWH.

The bible itself describes the fortunes and (more typically) misfortunes of a small cultural group. But beyond that, what do we have?

The main events, the events of apologetic importance (The Creation, the Flood, and the Babel story) are completely without support in spite of being the events on a global scale.

If you accept the bible as being the spiritual record of the beliefs of a small marginalized group in the mid east, then there is no problem. But if you wish to believe that the bible presents us with an accurate history of the whole world, then no, it is not that.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

The main events, the events of apologetic importance (The Creation, the Flood, and the Babel story) are completely without support in spite of being the events on a global scale.

[/quote]

And with one fell swoop Juliod throws out the Big Bang, etc.

[micatala]

In terms of its descriptions of the history of the Hebrews, and the non supernatural aspects of the life of Jesus, there is little reason not to consider that the historical record of the Bible is substantially true.

I would suggest that one should consider the various books separately with respect to this questions, as the purpose, outlook, and of course times of writing of the various authors are often quite different.

There is a lot of reasons not to consider the accounts of the creation, the flood, Babel etc. as historically accurate. Notice that all of these are in the same book, and much of this book describes events that predate the establishment of the Hebrew culture.

[Easyrider]

There is a lot of reasons not to consider the accounts of the creation, the flood, Babel etc. as historically accurate. Notice that all of these are in the same book, and much of this book describes events that predate the establishment of the Hebrew culture.

Why does that matter, and how does that make the accounts suspect?

And how about some evidence for a "Tower of Babel" event?

History

There are historical evidences that lend support to the Genesis record regarding the origin of languages. There are several ancient traditions concerning this incident.

Abydenus (a Greek historian of the mid-fourth century B.C.), as quoted by Eusebius, spoke of a great tower at Babylon which was destroyed. The record notes:

”. . . until this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and divers tongues” (quoted by Rawlinson, p. 28).

In a grossly garbled account, but one which obviously has roots in some ancient event, Plato in one of his works, tells of a golden age when men spoke the same language, but an act of the gods caused them to be confounded in their speech (see M’Clintock & Strong, p. 590).

Josephus, the Jewish historian, quoting from an ancient source, records these words:

“When all men were of one language, some of them built a tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon” (Antiquities 1.4.3).

Aside from such references, the details of Genesis 11 are strikingly precise from an historical perspective. Consider the following:

a. The identification of Babylon with Shinar was apparently known in the earliest of times (cf. Gen. 10:10; Dan. 1:2).
b. The allusion to a “tower” in Babylon is certainly consistent with the fact that such towers, called ziggurats, were common in that ancient locale. These towers consisted of several platforms, constructed one on top of the other, progressively smaller in size till a pinnacle was reached which accommodated a small temple dedicated to some particular deity.
c. The reference to “brick” and “bitumen” (“slime” KJV) has a genuine touch of authenticity. The region of Babylon did not contain the common building stone that was characteristic of Palestine. Some of the fired bricks from that area were usable for centuries. There is no reason whatever, aside from anti-religious bigotry, to question the historicity of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.
Donald J. Wiseman, Professor of Assyriology at the University of London, has confidently stated that the record in Genesis 11 ”. . . bears all the marks of a reliable historical account. . . ” (p. 157). Even a liberal writer concedes that ”. . . the background that is here sketched proves to be authentic beyond all expectations” (Speiser, p. 75).

In his book, Chaldean Account of Genesis (1880), George Smith of the British Museum—the scholar who translated the Babylonian Flood account—published a fragment which is certainly reminiscent of the Mosaic record. The inscription tells of an ancient ziggurat.

“The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded” (Caiger, p. 29).

http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... or_history

[juliod]

Why does that matter, and how does that make the accounts suspect?

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe because the authors of Genesis were not in a position to know the history of the early earth?

And how about some evidence for a "Tower of Babel" event?

Sure, let us know if you find some.

You could start with explaining how a super-being could hold the mistaken notion that it is possible to build a brick tower higher than, say, a couple of hundred feet? The Babel story is self-refuting.

DanZ