Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

bertot:
Great Article. I agree with the scientific findings expressed in the article. I do not agree with the manner in which the ancient Israelites came into possession of such knowledge. That is where we continue to disagree, and will more than likely always disagree.If the same tests were run on the foods consumed by the Natufian tribes of the ancient Near East would the results be so different? If the same tests were run on the foods consumed by the Native Americans would the results be so different? I really don’t think so.That ancient people possessed intrinsically scientific knowledge does not come as any surprise to me. Either human beings learn how to survive in their environment or they move or perish. Life and survival was going on long before Moses {or whoever wrote Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy). The knowledge of what foods to eat and how to stay healthy and strong was common to all ancient Near Eastern & Middle Eastern cultures and societies. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians and others founded great civilizations long before the Israelites, and these societies did not fall because of the food they were eating or their lack of medical expertise. They fell because they were conquered by other human beings; other cultures and societies. Israel and Judea did not fall because of the foods they were eating or because of some medical malpractice; they fell because the Babylonians conquered them.The Hebrew Tanakh states that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel became divided because of religious disagreements, and these two divided kingdoms fell to Babylon because they were not living up to God’s Covenant. In spite of their food and medical expertise they became weak and vulnerable and were captured and enslaved by those who vanquished them. They lost their land, language, and freedom in 586 BCE. Scientific foreknowledge did not save them, but their superstition and religion contributed to their demise. Rather than being unified by their religion they were divided and conquered because of it.And then a New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant and a whole new division begins. Furthermore, the New Covenant is embraced by the Roman hordes that invaded the Promised Land and again God’s Chosen People are conquered. Now it is the heathen - the gentile - that God supposedly focuses his attention on, and God’s Chosen People are chosen no more, and whatever scientific foreknowledge God divinely bestowed in the Old Covenant is regarded as archaic and suitable for only a handful of superstitious Jews.If not for the Hellenization of the Hebrew Old Covenant the Hebrew Tanakh would not have survived into the Christian era. If Rome had not embraced Pauline Christianity in the third century CE the New Covenant would not have survived, and Christianity never would have spread to Europe and Protestantism would never have existed. These are historical facts. Divine intervention had nothing to do with it. Human armies and politics had very thing to do with it.

It Will Cure You”If It Doesn’t Kill You First
Among the ancient documents that detail much of the Egyptian medicinal knowledge, the Ebers Papyrus ranks as one of the foremost sources. This papyrus was discovered in 1872 by a German Egyptologist named Georg Ebers (the name from which the papyrus acquired its moniker) (Ancient Egyptian..., 1930, p. 1). It consists of a host of medical remedies purported to heal, enhance, and prevent. “Altogether 811 prescriptions are set forth in the Papyrus, and they take the form of salves, plasters, and poultices; snuffs, inhalations, and gargles; draughts, confections, and pills; fumigations, suppositories, and enemata” (p. 15). Among the hundreds of prescriptions, disgusting treatments that caused much more harm than good can be found. For instance, under a section titled “What to do to draw out splinters in the flesh,” a remedy is prescribed consisting of worm blood, mole, and donkey dung” (p. 73). [Doctors S.I. McMillen and David Stern note that dung “is loaded with tetanus spores” and “a simple splinter often resulted in a gruesome death from lockjaw (2000, p. 10).] Remedies to help heal skin diseases included such prescriptions as: “A hog’s tooth, cat’s dung, dog’s dung, aau-of-samu-oil, berries-of-the-xet-plant, pound and apply as poultice” (Ancient Egyptian..., 1930, p. 92). Various other ingredients for the plethora of remedies concocted included “dried excrement of a child” (p. 98), “hog dung” (p. 115), and “a farmer’s urine” (p. 131). One recipe to prevent hair growth included lizard dung and the blood from a cow, donkey, pig, dog, and stag (p. 102). While it must be noted that some of the Egyptian medicine actually did include prescriptions and remedies that could be helpful, the harmful remedies and ingredients cast a sickening shadow of untrustworthiness over the entire Egyptian endeavor as viewed by the modern reader.As medical doctor S.E. Massengill stated:The early Egyptian physicians made considerable use of drugs. Their drugs were of the kind usually found in early civilizations; a few effective remedies lost in a mass of substances of purely superstitious origin. They used opium, squill, and other vegetable substances, but also excrement and urine. It is said that the urine of a faithful wife was with them effective in the treatment of sore eyes (1943, p. 15).In addition, it seems that the Egyptians were among the first to present the idea of “good and laudable pus” (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 10). Due to the idea that infection was good and the pus that resulted from it was a welcomed effect, “well-meaning doctors killed millions by deliberately infecting their wounds” (p. 10). Needless to say, the modern-day reader would not want to be a patient in an ancient Egyptian clinic!PRESCRIPTIONS IN THE PENTATEUCH
The first five books of the Old Testament, admittedly, are not devoted entirely to the enumeration of medical prescriptions. They are not ancient medical textbooks. These books do, however, contain numerous regulations for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures that were to govern the daily lives of the Israelite nation. Missing entirely from the pages of these writings are the harmful remedies and ingredients prescribed by other ancient civilizations. In fact, the Pentateuch exhibits an understanding of germs and disease that much “modern” medicine did not grasp for 3,500 years after the books were written.

If not for the Hellenization of the Hebrew Old Covenant the Hebrew Tanakh would not have survived into the Christian era. If Rome had not embraced Pauline Christianity in the third century CE the New Covenant would not have survived, and Christianity never would have spread to Europe and Protestantism would never have existed. These are historical facts. Divine intervention had nothing to do with it. Human armies and politics had every thing to do with it.

Scientific foreknowledge: What about scientific knowledge period. I am not familiar with any archaeological or paleontological evidence regarding any of the patriarchs. However, absolutely none of the archaeological and/or paleontological evidence from the Near & Middle East displays facts that suggest any real human being lived to be eight and nine hundred plus years of age. If indeed such scientific knowledge exists please bring it to my attention.

Is the Bible the Word of God?
by Eric SnowHow External Historical Evidence Confirms the BibleNow let's turn to the external evidence test for the reliability of the Bible. Being the second of Sanders's approaches to analyzing historical documents, it consists of checking whether verifiable statements made in some text from the past correlate with other evidence, such as that in other historical writings or from archeological discoveries. Is this hard to do for the New or Old Testaments? True, not one of Jesus' specific miracles can be checked in sources outside the New Testament. Here, just as for the events of many other historical documents, eyewitness testimony is accepted as proof that they did happen. Consider this historical fact: "Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 b.c." How can you know whether it is true? After all, nobody alive today saw it happen. It's not like science, in which a scientist can go out and repeat experiments to see if one of nature's laws is true, such as the law of gravity. Fundamentally, it comes down to trusting as reliable what somebody wrote centuries ago about some event.When considering whether the New Testament is reliable, it's necessary to have faith in what some men wrote centuries ago, around 40-100 A.D., about Jesus and the early church. But this is not a blind faith, nor anything ultimately different from what secular historians studying the ancient past have to do. They too must have the "faith" that the documents of earlier times they analyze are basically trustworthy, or otherwise history writing isn't possible. Having automatic skepticism about the New Testament's historical accuracy because is a religious book is simply the prejudice of a secular mentality. Instead, let's investigate its reliability empirically, like a historian might with a non-religious document.Does other evidence confirm what is written in it, like archeological evidence or ancient historical writings by Jews or pagans? Its accounts of Jesus' and others' miracles should not make people automatically skeptical of whether it is true. While it may be true you or I have never seen a miraculous healing or someone raised from the dead, that doesn't prove nobody else ever has. Many important events happen all the time, such as (foreign) earthquakes, coups, floods, elections, and assassinations that many never have witnessed personally, but they still believe others have experienced them. Instead of ruling out in advance the Bible's record of miracles as impossible before examining the evidence, you should think that if other events or places of the New or Old Testaments can be confirmed, then it's sensible to infer the miracles they record also occurred.How Faith In The Bible Involves An Inference Like A Scientist'sFundamentally, the process of examining whether the Bible is God's word involves an inference from what parts can be shown to be historically reliable by archeology and other historical writings, and from its fulfilled prophecies, to saying ALL of the Bible is inspired. You cannot prove all Bible's statements independently of the Bible--but then, you can't do this either for any other major ancient historical document. If humanity could figure it all out by reason alone, God really wouldn't need to give us revelation to begin with. Human reason can't tell us the purpose of life, what happens after death, or give us moral guidance besides a few crude basics: Therefore, revelation is necessary.The intelligent Christian's faith involves an extrapolation very similar to a physical scientist's. The chemist (say) believes that because such and so chemicals interact in a certain way in his or her lab, that therefore all of the same chemicals in the same circumstances throughout the earth (or even universe) will interact in the same way again. But, of course, he or she hasn't checked all the same chemicals throughout the earth to be 100% certain that the same results will always happen long into the future. Similarly, the informed Christian performs a similar inference. He or she says that since the Bible's already fulfilled prophecies could only sensibly have a supernatural origin, and since it has no proven historical mistakes in what parts can be checked, therefore, the whole Bible is inspired. Clearly, faith is still involved, because only a relatively small part of the Bible consists of already fulfilled prophecies and historical statements that can be compared against other records or archeological discoveries. Nevertheless, making this inference is perfectly rational. Belief in the Bible need not be an operation in blind faith, since God has left enough evidence for us to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not so much that any and all challenges by disbelievers can be refuted with 100% certainty. So mankind should seek not 100% certainty in its religious convictions, but enough evidence so they are supported "beyond a reasonable doubt." We should not demand of God more evidence for determining our religious beliefs than we use for other major decisions in life, such as choosing a career or mate.Applying The External Evidence Test To The Old TestamentLet's consider the external evidence test as applied to the Old Testament. About the Old Testament, higher critics time and again have made skeptical, even dogmatic statements against its historical reliability. Thanks to archeological discoveries over the past two centuries, they have been embarrassed repeatedly, yet they never seem to give up. (Witness the recent series on the Book of Genesis on PBS, in which Bill Moyers intentionally cut out the fundamentalist defenders of Genesis from appearing on it, while allowing all sorts of skeptics to appear. So much for journalistic objectivity!) For example, could have Moses written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible)?In the nineteenth century, skeptics frequently argued he couldn't have, because writing hadn't been invented yet (c. 1400 b.c.) This claim was the basis for the documentary hypothesis of liberal scholars, which said unknown editors and writers wrote them centuries later. But excavations of cities in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) have decisively smashed claims that writing developed later. The ancient city of Ebla (found in modern Syria), which first began to be unearthed in 1964, was at the height of its power in 2300 b.c. It was destroyed in 2250 b.c. Some 17,000 clay tablets with writing have been dug up there since 1974. Even this discovery alone proves writing existed around a thousand years before Moses. The world's first civilization was the Sumerians of southern Mesopotamia. Early, primitive fragments of their picture writing are dated 3100 b.c. Plainly, the nineteenth-century higher critics were wrong to deny writing hadn't been invented by the time Moses lived some 1500+ years later.King Sargon's Existence, Once Doubted, Now ProvenEarly nineteenth-century higher critics denied that King Sargon II even existed. Mentioned in Isaiah 20:1 in connection with his attack on the philistine city of Ashdod, he ruled the ancient empire of Assyria in the eighth century b.c. But later archeologists unearthed his palace at Khorsabad (in modern Iraq), along with many inscriptions in stone about his rule. They found his own words about his campaign against Ashdod: "In a sudden rage, I did not (wait to) assemble the full might of my army (or to) prepare the camp(ing equipment), but started out towards Ashdod (only) with those of my warriors who, even in friendly areas, never leave my side. . . . I besieged (and) conquered the cities Ashdod, Gath, Asdudimmu." As the Israeli historian Moshe Pearlman writes in Digging Up the Bible: "Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views."The Old Testament Was Right About How Sennacherib's Sons Assassinated HimThe Assyrian King Sennacherib was assassinated by two of his sons, according to the Old Testament (2 Kings 19:36-37). Yet various historians doubted the Bible's account, citing the accounts by two ancient Babylonians who said only one son was involved. The later discovery of a fragment of a stone prism of King Esarhaddon, a son of Sennacherib, however, has confirmed the Bible's account. In part it reads: "A firm determination fell upon my brothers. They forsook the gods and turned to their deeds of violence, plotting evil. . . . To gain the kingship they slew Sennacherib their father." The historian Philip Biberfeld comments in his Universal Jewish History: "It (the Biblical account) was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esar-haddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this even than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition."32Evidence For Sodom And Gomorrah Actually Once ExistingCommonly skeptics had questioned the very existence of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jehovah destroyed them for sinning sexually, mistreating visitors, and failing to help the needy (Genesis 19:4-7, 13-14, 24-25; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jude 7). While fleeing the city, Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt after looking back at Sodom illicitly (Genesis 19:26). Their names appeared on some of the tablets unearthed at the city of Ebla. The name of the city of Zoar also was found, which was the town Lot (Abraham's nephew) asked God (through the angels) to spare (Genesis 19:18-22). Although many had believed the southern end of the Dead Sea covered Sodom and Gomorrah, more recent excavations point to these two cities being underneath mounds on dry land in the same area. Having perhaps three million pottery containers and five hundred thousand people buried in some twenty thousand tombs, the site called Bab edh-Dhra is said to be Gomorrah. Seven miles to its south lies a site tentatively identified as Sodom. Ominously, excavations revealed a layer of ash and associated debris some five feet thick. Volcanic action couldn't have produced this, because no volcanoes exist here. Found under the rubble of a fallen defense tower, two human skeletons point to this city suffering a sudden end. Much like skeletons found at the Roman resort of Pompeii, abruptly buried by Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D., they had no time to flee. Dotted with salt formations, asphalt pits, and sulfur ("brimstone") deposits, this area geologically is a prime candidate for the location of Sodom and Gomorrah.33How A Biblical Reference Enabled An Archeologist To Make A Successful PredictionOne Kings 9:15 reads: "Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer." Dr. Yigael Yadkin, an Israeli archeologist, dug up stables at Hazor like those found at Megiddo. Although Megiddo's stables had been attributed to King Solomon, they actually had been later built by the wicked Israelite king Ahab, whose wife was Jezebel. Visiting back at the Megiddo site, Yadkin carefully wrote down a description of Solomon's gateway there. Figuring that since Solomon built the gateways at both Megiddo and Hazor, they would be similar, he told a few of his workmen exactly what they would find when unearthing the gate at Hazor. To the workmen's total astonishment, they found exactly what Yadkin said they would find: The gateways of the two cities proved to be identical.As Yadkin himself explains:When our 'prophecies' proved correct, our prestige went up tremendously, and we were regarded as wizards. . . . When we read them [the workmen] the biblical verse about Solomon's activities in Hazor, Meggido [sic?] and Gezer [1 Kings 9:15], our prestige took a dive, but that of the Bible rose sky-high!34
How Other Ancient Writings Confirm The Old Testament: Shishak's InscriptionOne of the best ways to test the reliability of a historical document arises when it describes accurately losses or other embarrassments. It's easy to boast about your victories to future generations--it's quite another to admit your defeats, and accurately record them for posterity. The Old Testament doesn't hesitate at all to describe graphically Israel's defeats at the hands of her enemies. But the converse was not true, for reasons Moshe Pearlman describes:"This kind of identical 'war reporting' from both sides was unusual in the Middle East of ancient times (and on occasion in modern times too). It occurred only when the countries in conflict were Israel and one of its neighbours, and only when Israel was defeated. When Israel won, no record of failure appeared in the chronicles of the enemy."
Hence, when Israel humbled Egypt during the Exodus, the Egyptian priests made no records of that disaster at that time so far as it is known. But King Sargon of Assyria boasts of when (c. 722/21 b.c.) he took away 27,290 people from the city of Samaria. Two Kings 17:6 records the same disaster that overtook the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. Similarly, Pharaoh Shishak (reigned c. 945-924 b.c.) commemorated his victory over Judah and Israel on a triumphal relief written on the south wall of the Temple of Amon-Re at Karnak in Thebes. It listed nine Israelite place names, including Megiddo and Gibeon. Excavators at various sites in Israel, including Gezer, have attributed to this pharaoh's raid the evidence of devastation they have found. Rehoboam, Solomon's son, the king of Judah, bought off Pharaoh Shishak by giving him all the treasures in the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 12:1-12). Hence, the Egyptian inscription reports Shishak's victory over Israel; the Old Testament relates Israel's defeat at his hands.35The Moabite Stone And Other Records Prove Various Israelite Kings LivedConsider the remarkable record found on the Moabite stone, discovered at Dibon (now in Jordan) in 1868 by F.A. Klein. On it King Mesha of Moab described how his nation had been oppressed by the Israel for some forty years, starting with King Omri (876-869 b.c.) Compare this to 2 Kings 3:4-5: "Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and used to pay the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. But it came about, when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel." Mesha on the Moabite stone then describes his unsuccessful rebellion (described in the rest of 2 Kings 3), during which Israel, Judah, and Edom crushed Moab's army. Later on, Mesha was successful in shaking off Israelite domination. He took vessels from the Temple of Yahweh (Jehovah), Israel's God, and dedicated them to Chemosh, Moab's god. Since this stone mentioned Omri, it was the first source discovered outside the Bible that mentioned a king of Israel or Judah. Since then the names of eleven other Israelite kings have been found in ancient texts outside the Bible. The most recent one (as of 1993), King Jehoash, was discovered in 1967 in Iraq on an Assyrian inscription. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser's Black Obelisk portrays King Jehu (or one of his emissaries) paying him tribute. Above the engraving on stone it reads: "Yaua (Jehu), son of Humri (Omri); silver, gold, a golden beaker, golden goblets, pitchers of gold, lead, staves for the hand of the king, javelins, I received from him." (Interestingly, this same obelisk mentions King Hazael of Syria, who Elijah anointed as king--1 Kings 19:15). Since higher critics once questioned the existence of some of kings of Judah and Israel, these finds have undermined their claims once again.36The Account Of Sennacherib, King Of Assyria, Of His First Invasion Of JudahOne extraordinary case of the Old Testament's account being precisely confirmed by archeological evidence concerns Sennacherib's invasions of Judah. During the first time, Sennacherib successfully grabbed the fortified cities of Judah, including Lachish. In response, Hezekiah agreed to pay tribute (2 Kings 18:13): "So the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold." On the hexagonal Prism of Sennacherib, unearthed in his palace at Nineveh, he boasts of his victory against Judah:As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities. . . . I drove out (of them) 200,150 people. . . . Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. . . . I still increased the tribute and the katru-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord which I imposed (later) upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually.
The amount of tribute Hezekiah handed over included "thirty talents of gold." This is an exact parallelism between the Old Testament and the pagan Assyrian king's boasts. Sennacherib commemorated his operation and successful capture of the fortified city of Lachish during this invasion of Judah by reliefs in his throne room. On one relief, he declares: "Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nimedu-throne and passed in review of the booty (taken) from Lachish (La-Ki-su)." Built so his army could move siege engines equipped with battering rams up it, a ramp has been unearthed in recent years there.37The Book Of Daniel Vindicated About Belshazzar, The Last King Of BabylonAt one time, skeptics claimed the book of Daniel was wrong to say the last king of Babylon was Belshazzar instead of Nabonidus. No known ancient source mentioned him besides the Bible. But thanks to archeological discoveries, piecing the actual truth together proved to be like solving a puzzle step-by-step. In 1861 on a Babylonian text, the name "Belshazzar" first appeared. Then in 1882 the Chronicle of Nabonidus appeared. It stated that Nabonidus lived in Tema while his son stayed in Babylon itself, but failed to name him. Then in 1884, Belshazzar was said to be the son of Nabonidus on one tablet. One inscription first read in 1916 had an oath sworn to both, naming both Nabonidus and Belshazzar. This obviously implied some kind of dual monarchy existed.Finally, in 1924, on yet another inscription, King Nabonidus declared: "I entrusted kingship on my son Belshazzar." The puzzle parts, when put together, show Nabonidus chose to retire (much like Charles V of Austria did in the sixteenth century, or Queen Wilhelmina of Holland in this century) while leaving actual rulership to his son. This peculiar dual kingship explained why, at his final feast after Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall for him, Belshazzar offered and later gave the Hebrew prophet the position of being "the third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 5:16, 29). Yale professor R.P. Dougherty placed the book of Daniel above other ancient writings, explaining: "The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom."38 This case shows that when the Bible conflicts with other ancient source(s), it's unwise to automatically assume the Bible is wrong, and the ancient pagan sources right.Lions In Mesopotamia And Domesticated Camels: The Bible Is Right After AllSkeptics also have declared the Bible wrong for portraying the camel as domesticated in the time of Abraham and Isaac (c. 1820 b.c.) in Genesis 24:10. Werner Keller, in his occasionally skeptical The Bible as History (1964), maintained these "camels" were really donkeys. More recently, Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli military leader and archeologist, found evidence that camels "served as a means of transport" in patriarchal times: "An eighteenth-century BC relief found at Byblos in Phoenicia [modern Lebanon] depicts a kneeling camel." He also added that: "Camel riders appear on cylinder seals recently discovered in Mesopotamia belonging to the patriarchal period." The higher critics also claimed no lions lived in ancient Mesopotamia. This meant the prophet Nahum's references to them when condemning Assyria and Nineveh were wrong (see Nahum 2:11-12). It is now known lions were imported from Africa into Assyria. Kept in captivity until the king had them released, he hunted them down for sport. After killing them and bringing them back, lions would be offered in the temple as a sacrifice to the gods.39 O, how wrong these higher critics proved to be! Yet how many believed them, thinking their conclusions came from "the assured results of modern science" rather than an anti-God bias? Hasn't it been shown above that the skeptics have been proven time and time again? Judging from their poor track record, doesn't this show people should be wary of trusting them the next time they read about someone claiming the Bible isn't historically accurate? Why be automatically skeptical of the Bible, when the skeptics themselves have been proven wrong so often? Let's be skeptical of the skeptics in the future!Other Cases In Which Biblical References Have Been ConfirmedConsider other cases in which archeological evidence confirmed Biblical references. After invading Canaan, Joshua built an altar to God on Mount Ebal (Joshua 8:30). Excavations performed on Mount Ebal during 1982-84 uncovered an ancient altar--quite possibly the one built by Joshua. The only city Joshua burned during his conquest of the promised land in the north was Hazor (cf. Josh. 11:11). Only excavations at this site have found this kind of destruction for the time of Joshua's northern campaign. Joab, the army commander for King David, and Abner, the general for King Saul's son, fought with handpicked men near the Pool of Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:13-17). The actual Pool of Gibeon has been discovered, positively identified by a jar handle inscribed with "Gibeon" found in it. The prophet Amos condemned the unrighteous for having the great luxury of ivory in their houses as Israel fell into idolatry, crime, and sin. He especially included the king of Israel in context by implication (Amos 3:15; see also 6:14; 1 Kings 22:39). Interestingly, the king's palace is one of the few places within Israel where artifacts made of ivory have been dug up. Good King Hezekiah of Judah, according to 2 Kings 20:20, "made a pool and the conduit, and brought water into the city [Jerusalem]."In order to supply Jerusalem with water during a possible future siege by the Assyrians, Hezekiah bored a tunnel 1,750 feet long through solid rock. The American traveler Edward Robinson and a missionary, Eli Smith, accidently discovered the tunnel in 1838. In 1880, a boy noticed an inscription in Hebrew on its wall, which described how the work crews dug the tunnel from each end, meeting in the middle. Hilkiah, the high priest for King Josiah of Judah, found the book of the law in the temple (2 Kings 22:8). In 1984, in the home of an antique collector in Paris, a ring was found with this inscription: "(Belonging) to Hanan, son (of) Hilkiah, the priest." Clay seals (bullae) have been uncovered with such Biblical names as Baruch, the scribe for the prophet Jeremiah, Jerahmeel, the king's son, and Gemariah, the son of Shaphan the scribe (Jeremiah 32:12, 36:12, 26).Nebuchadnezzar's three assaults against Jerusalem (605 b.c., 598-597 b.c., and 589-586 b.c.) all have evidence from outside the Bible to confirm their occurrence. Especially striking is the tablet where in his seventh year "the Babylonian king" took "the city of Judah," installed a king of his choice [i.e., Zedekiah for Jehoiachin], and received heavy tribute (2 Kings 24:10-18). On the cylinder that bears his name, King Cyrus of Persia had his own words discovered in Babylon in 1887. Corresponding to Isaiah 45:13 for the Jews, he proclaims the policy of allowing those captives dragged into exile by Babylon to return home and to let them rebuild their sanctuaries. Time and again, the Bible's references do check out--so why are so many today so skeptical about it?40The Case History Of Jericho's Dating: How Archeology Isn't Always ReliableThe above doesn't prove that every bit of archeological evidence as presently interpreted by archeologists is in perfect conformity with the Bible. Some controversies remain, mainly over dating. Archeological evidence can be interpreted in more than one way in good faith, since it is inevitably fragmentary and hence limited. As Yohanan Aharoni explained: "When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture." Furthermore, he admits that archeologists aren't infallible when assigning dates, although today they are better than they used to be. For a case history of these kinds of problems, consider the date for the fall of Jericho, the first city Joshua took when Israel invaded the Promised Land. A straightforward interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1, which says Solomon began to build the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem 480 years after Israel left Egypt, points to the Exodus occurring about the year 1445 b.c. Since Israel spent forty years wandering in the wilderness in punishment for their sins, they must have taken Jericho about the year 1405 b.c.Before World War II, professor John Garstang found the city of Jericho had been wiped out and rebuilt numerous times. For one of these times, the walls fell as if an earthquake destroyed them, and fire totally burned up the city. He even found that the walls fell outwards, as Joshua 6:20 implies, which is very unusual for ancient cities, whose walls normally fell inwards, towards their buildings. Garstang believed this event happened around 1400 b.c.--just about the time Joshua invaded Palestine. But later, following her own excavations, the archeologist Kathleen Kenyon maintained Jericho was destroyed about 1325 b.c., after a much earlier destruction in the sixteenth century. She believed no inhabited city occupied the site in the fifteenth century. Was the Bible wrong?More recently, John J. Brimson re-examined the evidence. He maintains the destruction Kenyon saw as happening in the sixteenth century could well have occurred in the middle of the fifteenth. Furthermore, Garstang's earlier investigation found only one piece of Mycenean (early Greek and Cretan) pottery out of over 150,000 shards at the City IV level of Jericho. Since Mycenean pottery was exported into Palestine soon after 1400 b.c., this level of Jericho had to have been destroyed considerably earlier than approximate 1325 b.c. date Kenyon deduced. Hence, since the evidence concerning the date of Jericho's fall can easily be interpreted to fit the Bible's dating of it, there's no compelling reason to say it is wrong. (Notice the dispute concerns dating, not whether Jericho existed or the walls fell). This case demonstrates an important principle about the relationship of archeological evidence and the Bible: If there are any disagreements, reexamination and reinterpretation of existing evidence or the discovery of new evidence may resolve them. This is hardly a procedure of blind faith, since archeology in the past has so often has vindicated the Bible while abasing its critics (who still never seem to give up!)41".Eric snow, "Is the Bible the Word of God", 'How External Historical Evidence Confirms the Bible'

AM, In my long anticapation of your lack of responses to my recent posts and my responses to you, in this long wait, I was perhaps anticapating you might have found an ancient medical text as ancient as that of the Mosaic writings that can afford us with the undersanding and lack of nonsensical information provided as do the writings of Moses in these areas. I was however, greatly disappointed to see that you only chose to respond to the very last article I presented and disregarded my challenge for the ancient text. I will suppose this as a defeat on your part and an acceptance of the verifiable understanding in the writings of Moses in these medical areas. However, I am still open to the possibility that you might someday provide me with that ancient information.I will get to your most recent and "only" response to arguments in a little while.

Mr Snow writes quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, not one of Jesus' specific miracles can be checked in sources outside the New Testament. Here, just as for the events of many other historical documents, eyewitness testimony is accepted as proof that they did happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM writes
. My point is made: Mr. Snow admits that, “not one of Jesus’ specific miracles can be checked in sources outside the New Testament.” He is absolutely correct. And then Mr. Snow compares “miracles” to “events of many other historical documents.” These “other historical documents” are not referring to “miracles”, and these “other historical documents” would not be regarded by historians as “historical documents” if there were not other documents corroborating the event described by them. An “ancient document” that describes an uncorroborated event is called “an ancient document” or “a document of antiquity”, but not “a historical document.”

Mr. Snow writes "Nevertheless, making this inference is perfectly rational. Belief in the Bible need not be an operation in blind faith, since God has left enough evidence for us to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not so much that any and all challenges by disbelievers can be refuted with 100% certainty. So mankind should seek not 100% certainty in its religious convictions, but enough evidence so they are supported "beyond a reasonable doubt." We should not demand of God more evidence for determining our religious beliefs than we use for other major decisions in life, such as choosing a career or mate.""and since it has no proven historical mistakes in what parts can be checked, therefore, the whole Bible is inspired."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider this historical fact: "Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 b.c." How can you know whether it is true? After all, nobody alive today saw it happen. It's not like science, in which a scientist can go out and repeat experiments to see if one of nature's laws is true, such as the law of gravity. Fundamentally, it comes down to trusting as reliable what somebody wrote centuries ago about some event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Autunman writes: Above, Mr. Snow compares Jesus’ supernatural miracles to the historical fact of “Julius Caesar’s assassination in 44 BC.” Heads of State being assassinated is an event that has happened in our lifetime. We have experienced JFK’s assassination. The assassination of a Head or State is not a supernatural, miraculous event. There is more than one or two sources corroborating the historical existence of Julius Caesar, and a number of historical sources corroborating the historical “fact” of Julius Caesar’s assassination. To attempt to compare Jesus’ supernatural miracles to the historically corroborated event of Julius Caesar’s assassination is a ludicrous, irrational comparison. Mr. Snow’s argument falls flat on its face {so to speak).

The above doesn't prove that every bit of archeological evidence as presently interpreted by archeologists is in perfect conformity with the Bible. Some controversies remain, mainly over dating. Archeological evidence can be interpreted in more than one way in good faith, since it is inevitably fragmentary and hence limited. As Yohanan Aharoni explained: "When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture.""Before World War II, professor John Garstang found the city of Jericho had been wiped out and rebuilt numerous times. For one of these times, the walls fell as if an earthquake destroyed them, and fire totally burned up the city. He even found that the walls fell outwards, as Joshua 6:20 implies, which is very unusual for ancient cities, whose walls normally fell inwards, towards their buildings. Garstang believed this event happened around 1400 b.c.--just about the time Joshua invaded Palestine. But later, following her own excavations, the archeologist Kathleen Kenyon maintained Jericho was destroyed about 1325 b.c., after a much earlier destruction in the sixteenth century. She believed no inhabited city occupied the site in the fifteenth century. Was the Bible wrong?More recently, John J. Brimson re-examined the evidence. He maintains the destruction Kenyon saw as happening in the sixteenth century could well have occurred in the middle of the fifteenth. Furthermore, Garstang's earlier investigation found only one piece of Mycenean (early Greek and Cretan) pottery out of over 150,000 shards at the City IV level of Jericho. Since Mycenean pottery was exported into Palestine soon after 1400 b.c., this level of Jericho had to have been destroyed considerably earlier than approximate 1325 b.c. date Kenyon deduced. Hence, since the evidence concerning the date of Jericho's fall can easily be interpreted to fit the Bible's dating of it, there's no compelling reason to say it is wrong. (Notice the dispute concerns dating, not whether Jericho existed or the walls fell). This case demonstrates an important principle about the relationship of archeological evidence and the Bible: If there are any disagreements, reexamination and reinterpretation of existing evidence or the discovery of new evidence may resolve them. This is hardly a procedure of blind faith, since archeology in the past has so often has vindicated the Bible while abasing its critics (who still never seem to give up!)41"."

Mr. Snow then states:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentally, the process of examining whether the Bible is God's word involves an inference from what parts can be shown to be historically reliable by archeology and other historical writings, and from its fulfilled prophecies, to saying ALL of the Bible is inspired. You cannot prove all Bible's statements independently of the Bible--but then, you can't do this either for any other major ancient historical document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Autunman writes"Actually, one can “do this...for...other major ancient historical documents”. Historians would not consider these other ancient historical documents “historical documents” if they were not corroborated by other documents and evidence. That is how realistic history is recognized. Therefore, the Bible’s statements can only be proven independently from the Bible. And biblical statements that cannot be proven legitimate by comparing them to extra-biblical sources and evidence must be perceived with considerable skepticism. It is that “skepticism” that brings historians and archaeologists into biblical research and debate, and their participation tends to either confirm or deny various aspects of the biblical record. However, whatever biblical statements are confirmed historically or archaeologically do not automatically bestow credence to the supernatural and/or miraculous aspects of the biblical Scriptures. The documentary aspects of the Scriptures do not confirm the docudrama & supernatural aspects of the Scriptures.

Your implication that the Hebrews did not acquire their would-be scientific knowledge and understanding in the same realistic fashion as other ancient tribes and peoples is, as far as I am concerned, an unrealistic implication. To make a leap from touting “scientific foreknowledge” to “supernatural intervention” is a leap of utter nonsense. If, by some stretch of the imagination, a Supreme Being was to impart “scientific foreknowledge” to an ancient people, don’t you think that Supreme Being would have imparted something on a much grander scale? What animals to eat is a rather petty pseudo-scientific divine gift. Furthermore, rabbits do not chew their cud. And rather than merely bestowing these ancient people with a somewhat obscure understanding of how to keep the ill from spreading their disease, why not give them the foreknowledge of how to cure these particular diseases.You go from “science” to “the supernatural” far too easily, yet both concepts are mutually exclusive.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, a Supreme Being was to impart “scientific foreknowledge” to an ancient people, don’t you think that Supreme Being would have imparted something on a much grander scale? What animals to eat is a rather petty pseudo-scientific divine gift. Furthermore, rabbits do not chew their cud. And rather than merely bestowing these ancient people with a somewhat obscure understanding of how to keep the ill from spreading their disease, why not give them the foreknowledge of how to cure these particular diseases.

And rather than merely bestowing these ancient people with a somewhat obscure understanding of how to keep the ill from spreading their disease, why not give them the foreknowledge of how to cure these particular diseases.

I am not only disappointed that you would think that our discussion regarding scientific foreknowledge in the OT hinges on me somehow locating an obscure archeological discovery, but that you leap to the assumption that I concede the discussion to you because I have not yet replied to your previous lengthily article.

You are not responding to what I wrote.The supernatural is the supernatural. There is no amount of historical or archaeological evidence that can confirm the supernatural or miraculous accounts in the Heb. OT or in the Eng. Holy Bible.The reliability of the Holy Bible as a whole is not based on its specific, reliable, corroborated, and supported narrative accounts, since such narrative accounts are
relatively small. As Mr. Snow points out, “only a relatively small part of the Bible consists of...historical statements that can be compared against other records or archeological discoveries.

The reliability of the Holy Bible as a whole is not based on its specific, reliable, corroborated, and supported narrative accounts, since such narrative accounts are
relatively small. As Mr. Snow points out, “only a relatively small part of the Bible consists of...historical statements that can be compared against other records or archeological discoveries.”

I accept the relatively small part of the Bible that consists of historically accurate statements. I do not accept that any OT prophecies were fulfilled in the NT. And I do not accept any of the Holy Bible’s accounts of supernatural events.

I do not have to prove that a supernatural event did not actually occur. It is your job to prove beyond any doubt”since God supposedly performed said supernatural event”that said supernatural event actually occurred.

No one here is trying to establish the "supernatural", not even Mr. Snow. What is being established is the reliability of the scriptures as a reliable source for belief and Faith.