Is the Bible a credible historical reference?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!

[Easyrider]

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

Obviously you've never read the account if you make that argument. Nowhere in the passage does God ever hold or express that viewpoint.

Read before you leap!

[McCulloch]

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.

Obviously you've never read the account if you make that argument. Nowhere in the passage does God ever hold or express that viewpoint. Read before you leap!

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.
They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.
They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."
So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.

Clearly you are correct, in a sense. But God is reported to believe that with one language, humanity could do almost anything, so he confused their language.
Juliod's questions remain unanswered. Why would an almighty God fear the accomplishments of humans at this point in their development? Why would a loving Father God wish to inhibit the abilities of humans? Would we really be omnipotent with a single language, or was God using a hyperbole?

[juliod]

What construction do you put on "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them"?

God is obviously an ignorant bronze-age goat herder. Otherwise he would have said "Ha, just wait until their pathetic tower collapses under it's own weight!"

Tell me, EasyR, you worship this being???

DanZ

[Easyrider]

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.

Obviously you've never read the account if you make that argument. Nowhere in the passage does God ever hold or express that viewpoint. Read before you leap!

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.
They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.
They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."
So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.

Clearly you are correct, in a sense. But God is reported to believe that with one language, humanity could do almost anything, so he confused their language.
Juliod's questions remain unanswered. Why would an almighty God fear the accomplishments of humans at this point in their development? Why would a loving Father God wish to inhibit the abilities of humans? Would we really be omnipotent with a single language, or was God using a hyperbole?

A key clue is likely, "They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name...."

It seems their interest wasn't in spreading the name of God to others, but to spread their own name and egos around.

As the saying goes, "Take another trip around Mt. Sinai, folks, until you get it right....."

[Cathar1950]

There seems to be no evidence of a mass exit from Egypt.
Jericho was destroyed 200 years before Joshua got there by an earthquake.
Also no Conquest of Canaan. No displacement or murder of the Canaanites.
Even if some things were found it would not prove the why.

A key clue is likely, "They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name...."

It seems their interest wasn't in spreading the name of God to others, but to spread their own name and egos around.

As the saying goes, "Take another trip around Mt. Sinai, folks, until you get it right....."

Actually it says let us make a “shem” a high mount, pillar, mounument or tower not a name. It is another poor translation. Like Jacob puts up a shem.

It seems your seems is a little sermonic. How do you know they wanted to spread their egos and name around?
I never hear the saying "Take another trip around Mt. Sinai, folks, until you get it right....." Is that some kind of moral/folk lesson?

[mbl020980]

There have been very few archeological finds that directly refute the evidence of the bible.

I'm not quite sure how many inconsistencies between the bible and other historical references you require to refute this claim, so I'll just post the more spectacular examples:

In Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... front.html)

According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened"

and later...

The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27).

In Where Jesus Never Walked http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html, Frank R. Zindler recalls the story in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, wherein Jesus enrages the the residents of Nazareth with his blasphemous teachings. In a fit of pique, the townspeople "took him to the brow of the hill on which it was built, meaning to hurl him over the edge." This poses a bit of a paradox for christian apologists however, because...

The town now called Nazareth, until just recently never occupied the top of a hill. Rather for a thousand years or more it has occupied a valley floor and the lower half of the hillside that bounds it on the northwest. Excavations of the top of the Nazarene hill show that it has never had buildings on its top before the twentieth century. Worse yet, there is no cliff which can be identified with the "brow of the hill" from which the Jews sought to cast Jesus down to his death

But if you want an almost exhaustive examples of the historical errancies in the bible, check out these sites:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart31.html#ref310
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart31.html#ref314

[mbl020980]

...and with regard to the "Tower of Babel" story, this article sheds some light on the issue...

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Tower_of_Babel

Anyone want to take on the story of the "adultress" that Jesus saved from a stoning with his ever-so-popular one-liner "Let he who is without sin..."?

Turns out that story is a lie!

[1John2_26]

juliod wrote:
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.

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

And of course the reason it is 2006. BC or the denigrating "BCE."

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.

Yet, this small group has "caused" the greatest civilizations "to date" to rise to a level of power and justice on a scale of such importance; one would have to think "something else" is going on with those rag-tags.

And the fact that "they" really did exist "after all."

[1John2_26]

..and with regard to the "Tower of Babel" story, this article sheds some light on the issue...

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Tower_of_Babel

Anyone want to take on the story of the "adultress" that Jesus saved from a stoning with his ever-so-popular one-liner "Let he who is without sin..."?

Turns out that story is a lie!

In wikipediaese.

Like you point out, there are lots of languages.

If we are going to settle Biblical truth by speaking wikipedia we are all in for a surprise ending.

Geez.

[Cathar1950]

Anyone want to take on the story of the "adultress" that Jesus saved from a stoning with his ever-so-popular one-liner "Let he who is without sin..."?

Turns out that story is a lie!

It isn't a lie it is an addition. The story of the adulteress is not in the oldest manuscripts and was never even commented on until the 5th century.

And of course the reason it is 2006. BC or the denigrating "BCE."

What does that have to do with anything? They didn’t even get the date right.

Yet, this small group has "caused" the greatest civilizations "to date" to rise to a level of power and justice on a scale of such importance; one would have to think "something else" is going on with those rag-tags.

It did not cause the greatest civilizations; it might have been an influence and even help some backwards development. I think the Christians were instrumental in bringing the Roman Empire down when they used power to wipe out much learning and crushed any opposing thoughts.