Is the Bible a credible historical reference?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!

[youngborean]

Incidentally, I couldn't find any argument from silence in the article. The word "silence" appears in the article, but it has nothing to do with an "argument from silence". I think you should look up this term and make sure you understand the meaning.

From your article:

Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

I understand the term just find. This screaming silence is precisely the argument you're putting forth. Claiming some sort of validity to your lack of material evidence while assuming that if you couldn't find anything then it must not exist.

From wikipedia:

in general, the argument from silence does not offer a rigorous logical proof of a premise, although it may potentially offer some circumstantial evidence for a position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Simply put, just because one archeologist has not found evidence for something only shows that he or she has not found proof of anything. Thanks for compliation of no evidence that you have posted about the exodus and nazareth though.

Contrary evidence for the exodus has been posted already, and Nazareth has been discussed at length.

A contrary account of a battle only shows a contrary testimony. It is no less reliable than the Moabite stone, and neither takes primacy, both are excellent evidence for discovering history.

Is this the same guy that wrote the article?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... l-bio.html

I would look at the articles that Easyrider posted and try to answer back with some sources with a little more intellectual credentials on the subject than the former college instructor who posts on infidels.org.

[Lotan]

I would look at the articles that Easyrider posted and try to answer back with some sources with a little more intellectual credentials on the subject than the former college instructor who posts on infidels.org.

Why should he do that?

Easyrider posted links to three articles...

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

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

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

All of them are written by Christian apologists (NOT archaeologists) and none of these have "intellectual credentials" that are any more impressive than those of Farrell Till. If you are going to reject his arguments out of hand on this basis, then you should reject the others as well. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you would suggest this double standard.

Article 1 was written by Kyle Butt, creationist...

"Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament."

Article 2 was written by Wayne Jackson, inerrantist and creationist, editor of the Christian Courier website...

Jackson's academic credentials appear to be a secret, although he is cited as "Wayne Jackson M.A." (in what?) on this website, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Article 3 doesn't list an author, but since the board of the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies consists of only three guys we can probably safely assume that one or all of them are responsible for it...

Dr. Arlton Murray received a D. Sc. (Doctor of Science) in 1981 from the Sussex College of Technology in London. He worked for the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. for 27 years as Paleo-Osteological preparatory and field collector, Division of Vertebrate Paleontology. He is now retired.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyers received a Master of Theology degree in Old Testament Studies from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1989. He received a M.A. in Counseling from Liberty University School of Lifelong Learning in 1994 and a Doctor of Theology degree from Trinity Evangelical Seminary of Florida in 1997.

Mr. Martin Ruff is a contractor who has experience in restoring old buildings.

In case anyone is tempted to accuse these fellows of scientific objectivity, here is a link to the "Institute" statement of Doctrine. You know, "What we believe".

This is just sad, youngboringone.

A little friendly advice - smartass ad hominems such as this do little to establish credibility or further your argument. Stick to the evidence and play nice if you really want to make the theist position look bad.

[youngborean]

Excellent point Lotan. I was somewhat reluctant to say that either source was a quality scholar, etc (and that is why I did not). I only was trying to suggest a movement to relavant sources of which Farell Till, as well as the writers you have posted do not seem to be. The bibleandscience article (the authorless one) was the only article (of easyrider's) I looked at and since it was a review seemed to be apropriate article to continue discussing. But let's take your advice too and try to find the best sources out there rather than digressing away from good debate. I was only hoping that I would be impressed by the intellectual vigor of the response.

[The Nice Centurion]

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

I wanted to open a thread for the following question. Now I havent to.

About that " (such as king-lists from Egypt) "

5 Pharaohs (Supervillains) are spreading their mischief in the Bible Universe. But all are onlly called by their Job; Pharaoh

Until the Charlton Heston Moses Movie no one on earth had the information that at last Mos Pharaoh was called Ramses.
(As a kid I always assumed him Ramses II)

Oh, and the Pharaonic father of Mos very own Pharaoh was called Sethos according to "The 10 commandments"

Why is that. All apologists and historicists would be happy if the bible had cared to insert the 5 Pharaohs names.

Why are they in the bible only known by their Job affilation

[TRANSPONDER]

We can only make suggestions and (like a lot of history) we have to use circumstantial and indirect evidence. I'd say that by the time the OT was written Egypt was not what it had been. Ever since the Bronze age collapse, Egypt was quite weak. Rather OT writers knew little of the old kings but just used the rulership Title 'Paro"- Great House -rather than take a guess at which was the king of the exodus.

I am far more confident now that when I proposed this back on my other forum that the exodus was actually based on the old record of the expulsion of the Hyksos. Mind the evidence was all ythere and others probably worked it out for themselves - epigraphic dating to the time of the Exile, hints at Babylonian material (Life of Sargon for Moses) and Josephus indicating his historical source equated the exodus with the Hyksos which sorta shows where the mistake came from.

Better to just have a placeholder 'Pharaoh' than punt at a name. I have argued that it has to be post Hyksos when Joseph even arrived and got promoted as it refers to chariots which the Hyksos introduced. But post 18th dynasty Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan until after Israel existed. So when could an exodus have happened? Well I think it never did happen but the only other time was when Egyptian rule waned during the time of Akhenaten and Tutankhamen until Horemheb re-established control over Canaan. And never mind that Philistia didn't even exist at that time so why Moses went into Sinai to avoid the place only makes sense if....it was written AFTER the Philistines were settled in Gaza where they have been causing problems ever since.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]
All that AND I suspect the bible not in the slightest was even ever meant to write correct history.

PROPAGANDA is the word. The names and datas of non-jew scum, like kings of egypt, did not help propaganda. Even better; just calling them a bunch of Paros shows off righteous arrogance

[TRANSPONDER]

Generally, I agree. And that applies to the NT as well. And yet it was presented as hopeful imitations of history, corrected to put original errors of doctrine as merely being what actually happened into the doctrinally required form, and if the guesses were factually wrong, then it was metaphorically true, so that was ok.