Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 212 (4133)
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


I'm curious to know (and I've asked this in many discussions elsewhere
without much luck) if anyone knows of historial writings or evidence
which corroborates any of the events of the bible.
By corroboration I mean unequivecable corroboration.
I ask for this reason :: much of the conviction of creationists
against evolution, abiogenesis, etc. is founded in the belief
that the bible is a complete and accurate record of ancient
events.
I would like to know if this belief has a foundation in testable
cross-corroboration, or is a matter of faith.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2002 7:21 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:46 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 8 by Ningishzida, posted 03-12-2002 1:48 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-12-2002 2:10 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 32 by John, posted 06-13-2002 5:41 PM Peter has replied
 Message 99 by Doctor Robert, posted 10-28-2003 3:22 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 114 by Quiz, posted 10-29-2003 2:03 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 154 by Nighttrain, posted 06-12-2004 7:11 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 155 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-12-2004 2:10 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 186 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 9:02 PM Peter has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 212 (4764)
02-16-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


Have been looking for info on this topic, with little success.
I do have a few scraps of info from a book, but doesn't seem to be worth the typing effort - maybe later.
What I did track down:
A Google search for "evidence of biblical events":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evidence+of+biblical+events&btnG=Google+Search
One site found in above results:
Biblical Archaeology
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kmeyers/archaeol/bib_arch.html
In turn, the above led to this:
Archaeology and the Bible -
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
Will try to pursue further.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2002 8:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 212 (4779)
02-16-2002 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
02-16-2002 7:21 PM


From "Evolution Of The Earth", 2nd Edition, Robert H. Dott, Jr. & Roger L. Batten, 1976, McGraw-Hill
(I believe this book is currently in it's 6th edition; word has it that there are NOT substantial difference between the editions).
From page 1 and 2:
quote:
A volcanic event of still greater historical interest occurred in the eastern Mediterranean region about 1500 B.C., but its story has only recently been worked out. Santorin, or Thera, is a crescent-shaped island between Greece and Crete. It is a volcanic caldera, that is, a ring enclosing a submerged crater 400 meters deep -- a puny remnant of a once lofty mountain. (Crater Lake in Oregon is also a caldera, but it stands well above sea level.) Many small eruptions have occurred at Thera within historic times, but old lava flows and thick volcanic ash deposits tell of a more violent earlier history. Recent sampling by oceanographers of deep-sea sidiments in the eastern Mediterranean has revealed widespread buried ash layers that become thicker toward Thera, their obvious source. Carbon-14 isotope dating and archaeological remains indicate that the last very great eruptions occurred between 1450 and 1520 B.C. The material erupted was three or four times greater that from Krakatoa 3,400 years later.
Thera's eruptions are of special interest not only for their geologic magnitude but even more so because of their historical implications. The earliest European civilization -- called Minoan -- began on Crete only 125 kilometers (75 miles) south of Thera, and a well-preserved Minoan settlement has recently been excavated on Thera itself. But the Cretan civilzation collapsed suddenly between 1400 and 1500 B.C. for reasons that have eluded archaeologists for generations.
Greek archaeologist Spyridon Marinatos postulated way back in 1934 that and eruption of Thera may have ended the Minoan culture, and his hunch has recently been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Thera's cataclysmic eruptions would have generated tsunamis, waves perhaps as much as 100 meters high, which could reach norther Crete without warning in a mere 20 minutes. As around Krakatoa, such waves would do severe damage, and the Minoan capital of Knossos is known to have been virtually leveled at about this time. Other palaces, as well as temples, roads, and viaducts on the island, also were destroyed. Prevailing winds blew great volumes of ash southeastward. Most of this ended up on the bottom of the Mediterranean, but a lot must have fallen on eastern Crete, where it would have raised havoc with cultivated fields. Poisonous gases also may gave blown as far as Crete.
We have at last a logical explanation for the unusually sudden disappearance of a great culture, but that is not the whole story. Egyptian writings record the cessation of imports of Cretan cedar and of oil needed for preparing mummies duting the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, which lo and behold would place it about 1500 B.C.! Those same writings tell of a period of floods and darkness when the "sun appeared in the sky like the moon." Could Thera, then, have caused the famous days of darkness of the Old Testament? And could the ebb of its tsunamis possibly explain the parting of the waters in the "Sea of Reeds" in northeastern Egypt to allow the Jewish Exodus? Could Thera also have inspired stories of the sinking of mythical Atlantis? Some scholars think so.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2002 7:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 7:34 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 212 (4786)
02-16-2002 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


I found this one on ChristianAnswers.net - http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
--It seems to have alot of information on different biblical implications and evidence in non-biblical documents and the like. I looked through a couple breifly, it has some good information.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 03-11-2002 7:56 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 212 (4918)
02-18-2002 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
02-16-2002 8:17 PM


I think the eruption thing is a bit too indirect for what I
was looking for, although not entirely out.
Some of the info. on the web-site that you pointed to (and TC did
also) are quite interesting.
Personally I'd have to be very skeptical about the Summerian King
List. The recording of stories similar to those in the bible
by an earlier text (probably fictional in itself) speaks more
of deliberately assimilating pre-existing religions (as the
early christians did) in order to be a more popular religous choice.
The invasion of Ashdod is a better one for me. Its a record
of a major military action that is also recorded elsewhere.
I wonder if the timing of this event has been calculated using
the same genaelogy as the Earth Age calculation ? Comparing that
to the archealogical date would be interesting I feel.
Shishak ... that one's more problematic since I don't think there
is a specific reference to a Shishak in Eygtian writings ... I
believe the wall carvings are about one of the Ramses, whose
personal name in Egypt was Sheshank. I saw a program on this
once .. a while ago .. so I admit I may be in error here.
And talking of the existence of Jesus..
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusi.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusi.html
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/lucian.html
My main problem (apart from the apparent bias on BOTH sides
by the authors of the above) is that ALL of these accounts
come from a substantial time after Jesus' crucifiction date,
and we do not know the original sources.
They are, however, better than the claims for old testament
veracity.
In essence I am convinced that early christians claimed
the founder of their cult to be Christ, the son of God.
None of the extra-biblical writers I have read say otherwise,
but their sources are unknown, and verification of the
existence of a teacher named Jesus are lacking.
Old Testament verifications are cited largely as real places,
or large scale historical events (invasions etc). Inclusion
of these is a common story telling technique.
What about references to Moses, the exodus, or such ? These
were big events ... wouldn't they be recorded besides the bible ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2002 8:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dreaded s flynn, posted 05-28-2002 6:46 AM Peter has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 212 (6528)
03-11-2002 3:52 AM


The following is message 69 of the "QUESTIONS" topic, as posted by AARD. Seems to me that this belongs in this topic:
quote:
KP- well you guys dont think the bible is credible and i dont know too many other things that are an accurate history of Jesus's time.
We don't think the bible is credible as a source of scientific knowledge. But I think even most atheists would agree that many of the moral teachings have validity.
Other than a few place names, I know of nothing in the bible that can be verified with scientific evidence. There is no evidence of Adam and Eve/garden of Eden. There is no evidence of the flood. There is no evidence of the Exodus. There is no evidence for the great age of the Patriarchs. There is no evidence for the great kingdoms of David and Solomon. Etc, Etc, Etc. Nor do we have any evidence for the myriad other religious doctrines from around the world.
This is an essay to get to started. Its not too long and will give you a place to start your own search. http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
This one is another short essay you might find interesting: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm
If you want a little more detail, try this site: http://www.bibleorigins.net/archaeologydatestexts.html
None of this should cause you any grief as far as your religious inclinations go. But it should make you reflect upon YOUR particular interpretation of the bible. You are setting yourself up for failure by following the false dichotomy espoused by YEC. It is not an either/or proposition.
On the other hand, we have very detailed evidence from other societies, that lived through the time of the flood. We have very detailed geologic evidence that a world wide flood never occurred. We have a very detailed sorting of the fossil record within the geology. We have observed evolution in action, about 100 unique speciation events in just the last 20 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. Now think about it, in the 150 years of evidence gathering, emergence of new sciences, and increases in our ability to measure, observe, and experiment, all this new knowledge has leant additional strength in the ToE. Not a single piece of evidence has been discovered that would cause the falsification of the theory (although adjustments have been made, good science).
Therefore, the reasonable person (the scientist in this case), must conclude on the basis of current evidence, that the bible is not a reliable source of scientific evidence.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 212 (6537)
03-11-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 8:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I found this one on ChristianAnswers.net - http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
--It seems to have alot of information on different biblical implications and evidence in non-biblical documents and the like. I looked through a couple breifly, it has some good information.

Actually,all this goes to show is that the old testament of the Bible is filled with recycled myths from earlier cultures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-12-2002 3:58 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 115 by Quiz, posted 10-29-2003 2:50 AM LudvanB has not replied

  
Ningishzida
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 212 (6692)
03-12-2002 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


Archaeology has revealed that a number of stories in the bible are not true. There was no Exodus or Conquest of Canaan. There never was a queen of Sheba, only kings reigned in this area. In the conquest of Transjordan and Canaan by Moses and Joshua, archaeology determined a number of towns were not in existence or were abandoned at the time of the Exodus. Some of the towns appearing in the book of Joshua as being distributed by him to the Israelite Tribes were determined in some cases not to have been in existence until the 8th century BCE (the Exodus commonly be dated to the 15th or 13th century BCE). The Prophets who predicted the Fall and destruction of Babylon and its consequent abandonment and desolation for all time turned out to be delusioned individuals whose prophecies were not fulfiled (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel). Jeremiah for instance predicted that God would cause Babylon to fall in battle to the Medes. God would also cause the broad wall of Babylon to be "leveled" to the gorund and that she would be "submerged beneath the Euphrates river" never again to arise from the river's depths (Jer 51:58, 59-64). Jeremiah is apparently alluding to 689 BCE when Sennacherib, king of Assyria, "leveled" Babylon for rebellion, dumping the debris into the city's canals, then diverted the Euphrates to flow over the ruins of the city submerging it beneath its waters. Who could of guessed Babylon would arise again from the depths of the river to destroy Nineveh in 612 BCE and take over the Assyrian empire ? Jeremiah is saying this event will not happen again. Well, Jeremiah turned out to be a false prophet. The city was never destroyed, nor were its walls leveled, nor was it submerged again beneath the waters of the Euphrates never to arise again. One can still visit Babylon today and admire its 20 foot high walls. Cf. the following urls for more info
http://www.bibleorigins.net/FailedPropheciesDateTexts.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
All the best

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 AM Peter has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 212 (6693)
03-12-2002 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-11-2002 10:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]I'm curious to know (and I've asked this in many discussions elsewhere
without much luck) if anyone knows of historial writings or evidence
which corroborates any of the events of the bible.
By corroboration I mean unequivecable corroboration.
I ask for this reason :: much of the conviction of creationists
against evolution, abiogenesis, etc. is founded in the belief
that the bible is a complete and accurate record of ancient
events.
I would like to know if this belief has a foundation in testable
cross-corroboration, or is a matter of faith.
---I'll get you the author when I go home today, there is an excellent book "Excavating Jesus" which discusses the validity or non-validity of Biblical accounts (obviously New Test) as they relate to Christ and his time on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 10:27 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Punisher, posted 03-12-2002 4:06 PM leekim has not replied
 Message 12 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 4:17 PM leekim has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 212 (6695)
03-12-2002 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by LudvanB
03-11-2002 7:56 AM


"Actually,all this goes to show is that the old testament of the Bible is filled with recycled myths from earlier cultures."
--Hm... You still just can't get yourself to suffice your ignorance on the situation, or did I just not see your statement (I'll close my eyes and you can get rid of it if you like). As you said yourself it is not 'iron clad' and it defenantly is not valid here. Furthermore, I found 80 million year old cow menuer in my back yard, guess the disproves Evolution! (please, give support for your assertions, I have been waiting for well over a month now).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 03-11-2002 7:56 AM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Xombie, posted 03-20-2002 9:48 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 25 by Peter, posted 04-26-2002 8:04 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 212 (6696)
03-12-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by leekim
03-12-2002 2:10 PM


Just curious; didn't the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) lend some credibility to the OT text? Also, shouldn't we apply the same standard to the Bible that we do to other ancient texts? For example: Has anyone ever questioned the authenticity of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, etc.? I'm not asserting anything; just curious if someone else has done more investigation. I read somewhere about original manuscripts and the vast number of NT copies in comparison to other ancient texts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-12-2002 2:10 PM leekim has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 12 of 212 (6697)
03-12-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by leekim
03-12-2002 2:10 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I'm curious to know (and I've asked this in many discussions elsewhere without much luck) if anyone knows of historial writings or evidence which corroborates any of the events of the bible.
There's plenty of reputable work in this area. Of course,not all the events can be corroborated. [QUOTE][b]By corroboration I mean unequivecable corroboration.[/QUOTE]
[/b]You'll be lucky! I doubt if a single event in ancient history could be unequivocally corroborated. Ancient history is just too ancient!
quote:
I ask for this reason :: much of the conviction of creationists
against evolution, abiogenesis, etc. is founded in the belief
that the bible is a complete and accurate record of ancient
events.
Your problem here is sorting out what is an historical event from a mythical event or legend. It is not too difficult to find historical sources to corroborate much of Hebrew history as presented in the Bible. As you read about ancient near east history you will discover the Bible to be a reasonably reliable and quite comprehensive source.
[b] [QUOTE]I would like to know if this belief has a foundation in testable cross-corroboration, or is a matter of faith.[/b][/QUOTE]
But what belief? The belief that the Bible is a good source of material for ancient history when used in conjunction with other historical methods? Sure - virtually every archaeologist in the world agrees with that. Or the belief that the Bible is inerrant in matters of all human and pre-human earthly history? That belief isn't based on the accuracy of the text, but on other theological considerations. If reasonable accuracy was the prime grounds for belief, we would all be as well worshipping Julius Caesar and reading his Gallic Wars for spiritual enlightenment.
However, these web sites may be of interest to you. They present a reliable picture of ancient near east archaeology and history which accords reasonably well with the historical matter which can be gleaned from the historical, theological and poetic documents of the ancient Hebrews.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/nepage.htm
http://archnet.asu.edu/
http://www.imj.org.il/archaeology/index.html
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by leekim, posted 03-12-2002 2:10 PM leekim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AARD, posted 03-12-2002 9:23 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
AARD
Inactive Junior Member


Message 13 of 212 (6706)
03-12-2002 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mister Pamboli
03-12-2002 4:17 PM


Thanks Minn, for moving my post over here, a much better place.
MP - I haven't had time to digest your sites yet. But I found some inaccuracies in the first one. In general, the site appears to be taking the biblical account of the Hebrews and inserting that account into the actual verifiable history. Not very scholarly. If you read the sites I posted before, you will see what the archeology actually shows.
If you want to get into specifics, please present any evidence that the Hebrews were in Egypt, show the evidence that there was a King David or Solomon of Israel, etc.
Here is one that is particularly devistating to the chronology of the bible and your first site. According to the bible, Abraham traded camels. The latest evidence for domesticated Camels in this region dates to about 1000 BC. Thus, the latest date you can give to Abraham is ~1000 BC, additional evidence puts it closer to 500 BC. Of course you still have to find some evidence that someone named Abraham was leading the Hebrews.
Check out the links above for some detailed information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 4:17 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 10:32 PM AARD has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 14 of 212 (6713)
03-12-2002 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AARD
03-12-2002 9:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by AARD:
MP - I haven't had time to digest your sites yet.
Or my post apparently.[b] [QUOTE]But I found some inaccuracies in the first one. In general, the site appears to be taking the biblical account of the Hebrews and inserting that account into the actual verifiable history. Not very scholarly. If you read the sites I posted before, you will see what the archeology actually shows.[/b][/QUOTE]
I think the sites I posted are quite good actually and certainly show the methodology in general use in ancient near east studies. I think your comment that the first one "inserts" the Biblical account into "actual verifiable history" is a bit odd to say the least. One has to wonder "actual verifiable history" means. A historian who did not take account of the laws, genealogies and legends compiled by the Hebrews would be very foolish indeed. The Bible at the least is a rich source of historical discourse - from it can be gleaned much of what the Hebrews "thought" their history was and this is of enormous value.
[b] [QUOTE]If you want to get into specifics, please present any evidence that the Hebrews were in Egypt, show the evidence that there was a King David or Solomon of Israel, etc.[/b][/QUOTE]
I love getting into specifics, but I'm not sure why you are asking me this? I have no idea whether there was a David or Solomon. I think it most likely that there was, but whether David was a great king or a tribal guerilla leader from a rich traditional music background (like Radovan Karadic in Bosnia) I have no idea. I suspect the latter. Solomon, I imagine was a legendary king with his roots in a real character or a melding of characters: like King Arthur.
[b] [QUOTE]Here is one that is particularly devistating to the chronology of the bible and your first site. According to the bible, Abraham traded camels. The latest evidence for domesticated Camels in this region dates to about 1000 BC. Thus, the latest date you can give to Abraham is ~1000 BC, additional evidence puts it closer to 500 BC. Of course you still have to find some evidence that someone named Abraham was leading the Hebrews.[/b][/QUOTE]
You're right, I'm devastated!
And I always thought Abraham was a quasi-legendary founding figure onto whom was projected the aspirations and qualities of the age that wrote his story: you know, in the way that early philosophers appear in 15th century dress in renaissance paintings.
BTW, when you are "refuting" references and posts you should take some care to be accurate in your criticisms: the site I quoted does not mention camels in association with Abraham. Neither I nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details.
I certainly would not claim that Abraham as a historical figure can be pinned down with the accuracy of, say, Herod Agrippa. But I do say that the Bible is reasonably correct as historical documents of its age and nature go.
Your example was merely devastating to any facade of care, accuracy or objectivity you were attempting to erect.
Oh by the way I looked at your sites from the other topic. One (at bidstrup.com) was amateurish and jumped to conclusions far too readily: the idenstification of the Hyksos with the Hebrews is an example of wishful thinking leaping over patchy evidence. I am however a great admirer of Ze'ev Herzog, though the web site you list is a somewhat polemical review of his work rather than a sound intruduction to near east history in context: he deserves much better representation than that. Visit his faculty site at Tel Aviv University for better links: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/
And your other site at BibleOrigins.net ... o dear! Clearly written by someone who thinks he's a very clever fellow to discover that an ancient document isn't accurate about what was already rather old history when it was compiled.
I'm no fundamentalist - read my posts if you like to find out. But I do take the Bible seriously and I don't think polemics get you anywhere. The sites you quote all look at history in a very old fashioned way as if dates and personalities were all that mattered. No discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AARD, posted 03-12-2002 9:23 PM AARD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AARD, posted 03-13-2002 2:26 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
AARD
Inactive Junior Member


Message 15 of 212 (6722)
03-13-2002 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mister Pamboli
03-12-2002 10:32 PM


MP, Thanks for the links. I will, over the next few days, digest them. The Arizona link looks interesting and a great resource.
MP - Or my post apparently.
AA - No need to get nasty right away. I read and understood your post. You are claiming that not ALL the details are correct, but, the bible is reasonably accurate, and can be shown to be reasonably accurate.
MP - I think the sites I posted are quite good actually and certainly show the methodology in general use in ancient near east studies.
AA - Is the methodology to insert the biblical account into the record at their convenience? Sorry, if that seems a bit sarcastic, but that seems to be what you are saying here. I am only questioning the chronology here, and the chronology is wrong based on my current understanding. If the chronology is wrong, why is this a good site? I am more than willing to have you correct me.
MP - I think your comment that the first one "inserts" the Biblical account into "actual verifiable history" is a bit odd to say the least. One has to wonder "actual verifiable history" means. A historian who did not take account of the laws, genealogies and legends compiled by the Hebrews would be very foolish indeed. The Bible at the least is a rich source of historical discourse - from it can be gleaned much of what the Hebrews "thought" their history was and this is of enormous value.
AA - I don't think it odd at all. I read through the chronology, which seems to follow what is generally known and can be verified, perhaps a poor choice of words above, but the idea stands. But then they simply insert the biblical account at the points where the biblical interpretation says they should be located in time. That is fine, if the evidence shows this to be true. But the evidence does not. Even if we assume the genealogies of the bible are correct, starting with Abraham ~1000 BC, that information alone destroys the chronology presented in the first site. That make the chronology as posited in the first site, incorrect, and apologetic to boot.
Just because the Hebrews "thought" their history was, as represented in the bible. Doesn't make it of "enormous value" in a historic sense. Especially if the evidence will not verify the account.
MP - I love getting into specifics, but I'm not sure why you are asking me this?
AA - I thought you might like to discuss the issue? You seemed to have a bit of knowledge in the area. I am not interested in a fight, you can whip up on the creationists all you want (like shooting fish in a barrel), but I would like to discuss this issue. I'm not an expert, but it has been a bit of a hobby for the past couple of years. Something to read on those long cold winter nights.
MP - I have no idea whether there was a David or Solomon. I think it most likely that there was, but whether David was a great king or a tribal guerilla leader from a rich traditional music background (like Radovan Karadic in Bosnia) I have no idea. I suspect the latter. Solomon, I imagine was a legendary king with his roots in a real character or a melding of characters: like King Arthur.
AA - From what I know, you are pretty close on David. Solomon, no. I am leaning toward the idea that the Hebrews took the David story from the Babylonian God, David. Great kingdom, chronology, and sketchy evidence.
MP - You're right, I'm devastated!
AA - That sarcastic side again? LOL. I wasn't trying to devastate you, but the chronology presented in the first site. In this case, I'm glad I was helpful!
MP - BTW, when you are "refuting" references and posts you should take some care to be accurate in your criticisms: the site I quoted does not mention camels in association with Abraham. Neither I nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details.
AA - I think it is accurate to present evidence in support of assertions. The camel reference, was another piece of evidence against the chronology you presented in the first link. I introduced it as an additional source of data.
MP - I certainly would not claim that Abraham as a historical figure can be pinned down with the accuracy of, say, Herod Agrippa. But I do say that the Bible is reasonably correct as historical documents of its age and nature go. Your example was merely devastating to any facade of care, accuracy or objectivity you were attempting to erect.
AA - You just said above that neither you "nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details", but are now saying it is reasonably accurate for its age and nature. Are you saying that the details may not be accurate but the overall account is accurate? If so, then I have to disagree. First, because we have far more accurate histories available, the Egyptians for one, and second, because at this point in my knowledge, neither the details or the overall account is accurate. I will read your links to expand my knowledge.
If the bible is reasonably accurate, as is your contention, then it is incumbant upon you to show the evidence in support of that contention. My contention is that the chronology, you presented as evidence for accuracy, is incorrect (with the supporting "ameteurish" evidence).
MP - Oh by the way I looked at your sites from the other topic. One (at bidstrup.com) was amateurish and jumped to conclusions far too readily: the identification of the Hyksos with the Hebrews is an example of wishful thinking leaping over patchy evidence.
AA - Yes, it is amateurish, and far to brief to cover all the history. Although from what I have read, it is reasonably accurate. Which is why I said it was a good place to start.
Is there anything about the bible that is not patchy evidence?
We know from the evidence that the Hyksos were in Egypt. We are reasonably sure, from the lack of any evidence, that the Hebrews were never in Egypt in any numbers. It would seem reasonable to use a known event, to verify the biblical account. Whether it is true or not, is up to the reader to explore. There are several possibilities as to who exactly are the Hebrews. The Hyksos are as good a possibility as any others I have seen. Bibleorigins.net presents another possibility. Do you have another suggestion?
MP - I am however a great admirer of Ze'ev Herzog, though the web site you list is a somewhat polemical review of his work rather than a sound intruduction to near east history in context: he deserves much better representation than that. Visit his faculty site at Tel Aviv University for better links: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/
AA - I will. But, doesn't Finkelstein's work give additional credence to the ideas presented? I don't see the polemic you see, could you explain?
MP - And your other site at BibleOrigins.net ... o dear! Clearly written by someone who thinks he's a very clever fellow to discover that an ancient document isn't accurate about what was already rather old history when it was compiled.
AA - If you were taught that the bible was a literal/accurate history, then this clearly would be NEWS to you. If you are inclined to dismiss the bible as myth, then your view of his work is correct. But, we are not discussing the Greek gods and their mythology, we are talking about the bible, a book presented as literal and accurate history. In that context, it has a great deal of useful information in this discussion.
And as the "polemic" article discusses, this knowledge is already ancient history, yet people are still touting creationism based solely on the accuracy of the bible! Go figure!
MP - I'm no fundamentalist - read my posts if you like to find out. But I do take the Bible seriously and I don't think polemics get you anywhere. The sites you quote all look at history in a very old fashioned way as if dates and personalities were all that mattered. No discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research.
AA - I have no interest in your religious convictions. They are not an issue in a historical discussion unless they bend your perceptions of the data.
These sites take the literal/accurate interpretation of the bible to task. They are beginning level material, not intended to be the end all. Just a start. There is plenty of other information to be read. Yet, I have not found any information that supports anything in the biblical account, outside a few place names. If you have that information, for I find it hard to believe that none exists, Please let me know.
Could you explain how "discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research" would improve the accuracy of the dating and chronology you presented? While those technigues can help us understand the thinking of the Hebrews, unless we first define some historical parameters (from that old fashioned history) is seems rather meaningless to discuss the more refined aspects. Can't build a house by shingling the roof first.
I fail to see the polemics, that you seem to see so clearly. Maybe an example would help. We are talking history here, not religion? I am not interested in the spiritual "sense" of the bible, which I assume you are "taking seriously", just the history surrounding the mythology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 10:32 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Punisher, posted 03-13-2002 7:28 AM AARD has replied
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 2:58 PM AARD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024