Is the Bible a credible historical reference?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]

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I'm not quite sure how many inconsistencies between the bible and other historical references you require to refute this claim, so I'll just post the more spectacular examples: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

I suggest you re-read my post. The inability for someone to generate evidence for an event is not direct evidence against a particular event. What is interesting about the exodus is that the material record shows the sudden arrival of the Israelites. They likely came from somewhere. There is a variety of explanations for this, Oren's is only one and as the article states, his is an "argument from silence".

The Moabite stone is just another example of a common practice in the near east. The claiming of victory on both sides of a battle is common place in archeology. If you read about the Kadesh relief at Karnak, the Egyptians gave an account of their victory and so did the Hittites in a relief in their capital city. The result is that both sides are taken into account in the historical record. The existence of contrary accounts of this battle may cast doubt on the details, but general history is more than maintained.

Your stance on Nazareth is also an argument from silence, if you are interested about the specifics of the archeology there was a post that details both perspectives which you can read here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... t=nazareth

[mbl020980]

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.

Granted, but it was:
1. Added by a scribe that had no authority to do so (unless, of course, the scribe was the mythical "God" of the bible).
2. Unsupported by any historical evidence.
3. Left in the bible and continues to be taught in churches and Sunday schools, even after scholars had uncovered the fraud.

To me, that adds up to, at the very least, a deliberate deception.

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.

Not to mention the horror of the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, prolonging of the Dark Ages, and Witch Trials all over the world, which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

From my perspective, these "great civilizations" have persevered in spite of christianity.

[Easyrider]

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
(Farrel Till wrote): 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"

Farrel Till is a dedicated Bible basher who makes all kinds of outrageous and suspect claims. But to answer his claim you can review the following:

Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus

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

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC . The most important discovery is the Merneptah stele that mentions Israel which forced the revision of a number of liberal theories. Before the discovery of this stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They were now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. This puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus.

Regarding Infidels.org (another Biblically-challenged skeptic's website), recommend you consult answeringinfidels to get a more balanced view of the arguments.

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider:

Farrel Till is a dedicated Bible basher who makes all kinds of outrageous and suspect claims. But to answer his claim you can review the following:

Is that one of those, less than knowledgeable, unwitty ad hominem statement? I think highly of him. So do many others. Maybe you are still stuck in 19th century achchealogy unless it is non-liberal of course.

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC . The most important discovery is the Merneptah stele that mentions Israel which forced the revision of a number of liberal theories. Before the discovery of this stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They were now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. This puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus.

So when the shepherd kings the Semitic ones that were ousted were Moses or was Moses the Semitic Shepherd Kings? This idea has been around for a while. It was considered to be the work of liberals but now it is the conservative apologists that are using it. So rather then having forced the revisions of liberals it was produced by a liberal view. It was trying to explain how the bible stories might be true at there core.
I have also read where Moses may have been a priest/relative of Akhenaten and lead a bunch of his followers to Canaan. It does seem the Israelites where around one stone even records their total destruction. “Jacob is no more” It seems the Egyptians were always battling over Canaan and were in control most of the time. There seems to be no difference between the people of Canaan and Israel at the suppose times of the conquest. There is a difference during later times of expansion when the stories were written.

Regarding Infidels.org (another Biblically-challenged skeptic's website), recommend you consult answeringinfidels to get a more balanced view of the arguments.

Considering your other A.H. (ad hominem) attacks, I am wondering what you mean here buy "challenged" or biblically-challenged.
How is answeringinfidels a more balanced view? Wouldn’t it be the other unbalance view?

[Easyrider]

Easyrider:

Farrel Till is a dedicated Bible basher who makes all kinds of outrageous and suspect claims. But to answer his claim you can review the following:

Is that one of those, less than knowledgeable, unwitty ad hominem statement? I think highly of him. So do many others. Maybe you are still stuck in 19th century achchealogy unless it is non-liberal of course.

Till's Skeptical Inquirer is well known for its dedicated anti-biblical slant. I used to read him but really can't deem him as being very credible. And that's not an ad hominem, it's the truth.

[mbl020980]

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

I assume that this is a reference to recent claims that some articles in Wiki have been found to contain erroneous and, in some cases, outright bogus information. A weak argument at best. The science journal "Nature" (an esteemed scientific publication) did an investigation of 50 different science articles in Wiki and had researchers look for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies. They determined that, on average, the error rate in Wikipedia was about the same as the "gold standard", the encyclopedia brittanica (3 per entry for EB, 4 per entry for Wiki) and the errors were very small. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5055388)

Your rebuttal only addresses Wikipedia's accuracy, in general. It fails to refute any of the information in the article that I referenced.

But here are a few issues to ponder:

[Cathar1950]

Till's Skeptical Inquirer is well known for its dedicated anti-biblical slant.

What does that have to do with the merit of his argument?

I used to read him but really can't deem him as being very credible.

Why would that be?

And that's not an ad hominem, it's the truth.

That is what all people that use A.H. (ad hominem) remarks think.
I think that is why it is a fallacy, it is not usually relavent even if true.
In your case you just think it is true and relevent.

[Cathar1950]

I remember seeing a picture of this cross with a man on it and he had a donkey head. This was also an ancient symbol of Israel, the donkey. It has been found in ancient Egypt.

I just thought it was interesting.
Now back to Egypt.
I have no doubt that the people of Palestine were influenced by Egypt as well l as ancient Sumer.
Of course Persia and Babylon as well as the Greeks influenced them. Many of the tales of the ancestors were borrowed or integrated into Israel story. It has long been suggested Joseph was an Egyptian tribe as Dan was a Phoenician.
A reading of http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm gives all kinds of possibilities. It must be liberal

[mbl020980]

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

You've attacked the source of my reference but none of the points made by the reference. Just as a stopped clock is correct twice a day, 1 or 10 or 1000 errors found in Wikipedia do not prove that the singular article that I use as a reference is in error. Do you have a legitimate point to debate or is this the best you can come up with?

Some articles in Wikipedia contain errors
This article is from Wikipedia
Therefore, this article contains errors

I believe this is called the "Dicto Simpliciter" logical fallacy (one of Aristotle's original thirteen fallacies). Anyone out there know for certain?

[mbl020980]

I suggest you re-read my post. The inability for someone to generate evidence for an event is not direct evidence against a particular event.

Nor did I suggest it is direct evidence. But the inability to provide evidence for an event certainly doesn't do much to bolster the assertion either. Not sure what the point of that statement was.

What is interesting about the exodus is that the material record shows the sudden arrival of the Israelites. They likely came from somewhere.

Don't know what "material record" you're referring to. Certainly nothing in my post. And (predictably) you fail to provide a reference. This is just sad, youngboringone.

There is a variety of explanations for this, Oren's is only one and as the article states, his is an "argument from silence".

There are a variety of explanations for the fact that "Eliezer Oren failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened?" That makes no sense at all! You certainly haven't provided any alternative explanations in your post. 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.

The Moabite stone is just another example of a common practice in the near east. The claiming of victory on both sides of a battle is common place in archeology.

My point was (remember the topic of this thread?) that the bible cannot be considered a credible historical reference.

Your stance on Nazareth is also an argument from silence,

Once again, I don't think your using this term correctly.

if you are interested about the specifics of the archeology there was a post that details both perspectives which you can read here:http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... t=nazareth

I read this post. The only point that I could find was one about an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima that mentioned that the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. But that claim is debunked later in the thread by someone else who points out that the inscription was dated around the 4th century A.C.E.