There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

IN deference to Percy's wishes I will try to focus on points relevant to the topic, rather than your numerous other errors.

quote:

---

Why? I have no expectations of what a miracle should do or not do "exclusively" in relationship to existence of what the physical evidence warrents

---

So you admit that you didn't care whether your response to Rahvin made a relevant point or not.

quote:

---

Further, when I do present evidence form the existence of God, you say, its no evidence.

---

By which you mean that I truthfully pointed out that simply asserting that God's existence is evidence of miracles is not in itself evidence. And also pointed out that even if you could demonstrate the existence of God, it would not be evidence for any specific miracle.A valid response would be to present actual arguments to the contrary. Clearly you have none.

quote:

---

While, admittedly it is an argument that involves some imagination,

---

It's handling of the Biblical text is pure imagination. We can only suppose that you do not belong to a sect that objects to "adding to the Bible".

quote:

---

it on the other hand incorporates (inculcates, for Subbie) all of the available evidence at hand, to include the apperance of an ancient earth, fossils, the obvious fact that finite things cannot create themselves or come from nothing.

---

As I have already pointed out evidence that it does not incorporate, this assertion has already been refuted.

quote:

---

What other verse are you speaking about that you say suggest there is a contextual contradiction to the Gap therory

---

My earlier post dealt with this point. However since you obviously cannot be bothered to go back and read it I will point out one example from the verses you quote. The Gap theory proposes billions of years worth of days between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Genesis 1:5 deals with the creation of the first day.

quote:

---

If by physical evidence you mean ToE,

---

Aside from the fact that I would never make the glaring error of calling a theory "physical evidence" all you had to do was look at my earlier post to see what I meant. In fact you would do very well to review older posts whenever they are relevant since you obviously cannot remember even your own pasts posts. It would save you from many errors that look like intentional dishonesty.

quote:

---

In my view the Gap theory explains this "seeming" problem and is still consistent with the Word of God,

---

Which simply means that you accept that the evidence indicates that the miracle in question did not occur. Thus you accept my point.Which renders the rest of the paragraph redundant. Although it is interesting to note that your earlier assertion that you "had no view" on what evidence would be left my miracles is untrue. Now you assert that the evidence should be expected to indicate that the miracle did not occur.

quote:

---

This is exacally what I mean. In my view to make such a statement is simply ludicrous, not you but your position. ( I have got to be careful here because, because I am not one of the favored children here and I will get suspended if I refer to you in such a manner.)
"that which may be Known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, so that they are without EXCUSE" Romans 1.
Now I dont want to get into a discussion about design here I only quoted this to demonstrate that anyone can reject anything but they will not do it from a lack if Evidence.
What would you consider as evidence of the lack of support for Gods existence?

---

Obviously I know what is and is not obvious to me. Therefore I can say that ROmans 1 is quite definitely wrong on this point.And it is silly to ask for evidence of a lack of evidence ! What am I supposed to do ? Go through everything I know explaining why it is not evidence that God exists ?

quote:

---

How is my guessing that he does not believe in miracles a personal attack, your language is way to strong.

---

Of course that is not what I said you had done, nor is it what you did do. Can we start with the point that "arrogant little turd" IS a personal attack ?

quote:

---

Go ahead and present your "evidence" for this, if you will.

---

Since my assertion is that there is a consensus of experts, here is what on such expert says. Since he is the very expert quoted by aish.com - a quote which you copied _ I would think that his statement carries some weight.From {URL=Page not found | SD JEWISH JOURNAL San Diego Jewish Journal[/URL]
Also, on hte arhaeological evidence for the existence of the Israelites he adds: And it must be remembered that Dever tends to the maximalist side of the mainstream (which is why Aish quoted him). He is not biased against the Biblical account.His book on the origins of the Israelites may be found on Google books

quote:

---

Besides this Noah is mentioned in the Bible, if we are not going to immediately exclude it as evidence.

---

Might I suggest that since you so obviously hate admitting that you have made an error you try harder to avoid making them in the first place ? Repeating an obvious mistake -as you have done here - only compounds the problem.

quote:

---

Reality would suggest that there is nothing wrong, incorrect or even inaccurate about a simply refering to a Scholar, even if a "logical fallacy" designates it as Unsound or Invalid.

---

In saying that all you are doing is echoing my point that it is a way of arguing that is - if done correctly - "good enough".Yes, you can argue and argue and argue. The problem is that you prefer arguing to the truth.

Since I'm in Percy mode I'm only suggesting, not moderating, but what I was actually pointing out is that when someone demonstrates they can't think or argue rationally, you can't remedy this with rational arguments about how to think or argue. After all, such arguments are of the exact same type that the person has already demonstrated they don't understand. You'll only tie yourself in knots.So what I was trying to suggest was that it would be better to explain Bertot's errors to the broader audience, who might understand them, rather than to Bertot himself, who obviously does not.--Percy

This is a crap load of information in five or six posts and will take an considerable amount of time to respond to most of the entirity of the posts. I will try and work on them some today and tommorrow.D Bertot

Still working on my reply to the numerous posts I recieved last time should have it completed today or tonite.D Bertot

Percy writes: I understood completely you posts in this connection and what you expected others to do. My point was that since I was not an expert in the matters of archeology, etc and that I could only post what others that are versed in theses areas have to say, in conjuntion with the fact that "all" possible evidence, and specifically that to which I am now addressing could be taken in consideration, since no one else was stepping up to discuss the isssue.
Cavediver writes: My simple point was that the information contained in the scriptures should not be excluded immediately and discareded without any consideration as possible evidence to the contrary. Again,you dismissal of the accounts contained in the scriptures where there is a lack of specific evidence, ignores the fact that even in those instances some general evidence exists, and in many many other instances, it gets things absolutely correct. Great!! So then what you are saying is that when we bring the Bible to the table you will take all that it has to say in connection with its "claims", correct, which ofcourse would include the miraculous. Or, are we only going to use the scriptures the way and manner in which you dictate? So if I undersand you correctly in this thread:
1.We are not allowed to talk about a lack of evidence for a specific item in the scriptures to demonstrate that it does not constitue alack of evedience overall, even if there are many things that are supported with evidence in the scriptures
2.We are not allowed to discuss that which does support the Bible as evidence, as it is for all intents and purposes vauge and irrelavent to the current thread.
3.We are not allowed to really quote or use sources that corroborate our position, because they are unscholarly and biased. We can only use the sources yourself, Brian and others refernce because they are the only ones we can trust.
4. We are not allowed to use the scriptures in any other manner than that which you dictate, because that would constitue circular reasoning.All of the things we are not allowed to discuss ofcourse would lend specific credence to the question at hand.5. We are allowed however, to discuss only the parts that currently have little or no evidence from a physical standpoint,depending on ones view and interpretation of the physical evidence, and this ofcourse constitutes the Bible as unreliable overall and Christains as idiots for trusting it, correct?
Wow, that is really a nice set up there. I guess I really dont understand the purpose of this thread, ha ha. Consider the following statement from Nemesis Juggernaut
Nemesis Juggernaut in post 8 Cavedicer writes: But isnt that the point? So much of the "evidence" in this connection and having to with this time period is general in character and not alway rock soild. The resason the Bible lives to fight another is that there is some general evidence or information in connection with this concerninng the time period in question. In connection with the claims of the Bible that involve the miraclulous, I have demonstrated that in connection with your question in the OP, that it depends what a person accepts as evidence and what one is willing to include as evidence in this connection. This is where I entered the discussion and only wanted to point out that those items could possibly change the physical aspects of what we now see. It has been my further attempt to discuss the rest of the "lack of evidence" as you call it, based on what the experts have to say in that respect. It seems as though there is a different point of view depending who you consult in those matters and that overall there exists some general evidence to support the claims, atleast with regard to he time period in question. Your stance of , no evidence at all, is much to to categorical.
Brian writes I am sure there are some that actually do "misrepresent" the actual facts in the matter. However, to brand all scholarship to this type of accusation is unwarrented. I am certain that many fine scholars do not come to the same conclusions that you and others hold in these matters.
If you do not view the scriptures as a collection of supernatural books initially, that is fine. But I would ask you to at some point toconsider why we do view them as such and the arguments that suppor t that position. I am willing to examine all the information in the physical evidence question to see what conclusions have been drawn by those that understand what is involved withthe evidence at hand. This would show a bit of objectivity on my part. Fair enough, I have a couple of good books I will be taking ot work with me to read in this connection. 'The Bible and Archaeeology', by J. A Thompson. AM writes: Well one thing is for certain, Idont know when it was, exacally, other than to say a really long time ago and much of the information in its respect might be misinterpreted by our observations of what the physical evidence "is" and how we interpret it. Even after the "facts" are in there could be other mitegating circumstances that were a part of history that would alter what we expect to find, possibly.
Rahvin writes Some may, alot dont and for very good reasons as has been pointed out (reasons) to yourselves and other s and you are not listening. Its not, if you consider what should be viewed as evidence in the first place..
Rahvin writes:No he is not.My young friend you miss the point again.. Its not that one or theother has to be corroborated independently, or that they are independent claims and the such like, that fine if you wish to proceed in that manner, its that if the scriptures CONTINUALLY misrepresented history and continually got things wrong, people, places and things or that NOTHING of its claims could be corroborated, it would fail as to any of its greater claims immediatley. The scriptures do not proceed in this manner. Then we come to the "evidence" that is interpreative based on the course of evidence you wish to pursue or the sources you wish to entertain. All of these things are going to influence your perspective. This is funny, you say no burning bushes but nearly every example is connected with a Biblical miracle. Question is God really in the process here or are we just assuming that as well? Remember our lesson on miracles? http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/39_exodus.html The second article , the "related article" provides some alternate explanations and considers further the definitons and possible translations of words that would change the actual numbers of the people involved and could explain, the lack of so-called evidence in these matters. This was a long time ago and much COULD BE misunderstood in translation, possibly. The point is that the scriptures dont need to be inaccurate rght off the bat. But I am sure others will find problems with these estimations and conclusions by these so-called "Webmasters", and I will await those replies.
This however, would explain from an evidenctal and logistical problem much of that that is currently concerned with the so-called physical evidential problems involved. Now it may very well rasie some other questions, concerns and problems as well, but it points tothe fact that there are explanations that would account for what appears to be contradiction or lack of evidence. Speaking of the Hyksos, A.J. Thompson in his book, 'Archaeology and the Bible', Foreword by the evil, unreliable and biased F.F. Bruce, states:
Quote: No, the Egyptians would never do such a thing as suggested by this author, would they.? I suppose you will contend that there is no arcaeological evidence that the Egyptians ever did such a thing, correct?.
Its not that there is a lack of evidence as contended by you fellas, its that you refuse to see or interpret "any" general evidence as related or relevant to the time period in question. You set up your own rules for evidence, then dont even follow them when deciphering the supposed evidence that supports the ToE.
It is of significance to note that there was a continual influx of Semitic peoples as traders and slaves in and out of Egypt all the time. The Isrealites as a seperate and distinct people would have been hardly indistinquishable from any of the other Semitic peoples or slaves. That the Egyptians could have cared less about about the individual ethnic distinctions of these Semetics, much less there claims of thier religions doctrines as was indicated in Pharaohs statment to Moses "Who is the Lord (or Your God), that I should harken unto him"? The same author above writes:
Quote "It is to be noted that there was a continual stream of Semetics into the Delta Zone for Centuries. The Israelite element was only one of the groups. We have a great deal of evidence to that Semetics from the general area from Palastine were drifiting into Egypt, as early as 2000 BC."......."especially at the time of the Hyksos rulers."... The armies of the Hyksos rulers were chased out of the land and were pursued into palestine. The large Semetic poulation of Egypt remained in the Delta area. We can suppose that the little group of Israelites lived there unnoticed among a mixed collection of Semetics. The reaction of the Egyptians was to place these peoples under some sort of supervision, lest the same fate befall Egypt again."
Again, here we have an example of evidence, that while specific details are not corroborated outside the scriptures, there is much evidence to suggest that the general conclusions about the Israelites is true and factual. If then we then substantiated the general information with the history in the scriptures it forms a close to accurate picture of the details that are involved.
It certainly demonstrates, that it is far from being an appauling lack of evidence for the scriptures veracity
Consider the following statement from IamJoseph
IamJoseph, post 19, the thread 'Merneptah, the Exodus and the Irealites'.Rahvin writes Again, these types of assertions are silly because they suggest that all the evidence in these instances, are in and the door is closed on the matter. Initially I would say none of these supposed circumstances presents any lack of evidence on the Bibles part since, we do not know what the exact circumstances were in these instances, the method of disposal or the obvious reasons for not recording such events. Your assertions or estimations beg the question. We are back to square one. What the "evidence" does not support in one instance presently, has nothing to do with the veracity overall.
There are many instances and things in History, that are considered true, even if each individual claim has not been presently verified. It is your assertion and rule that you have formulated in this post that says otherwise. Its simply an assertion. It is silly to assume that every claim has to be corroborated before the thing can be considered reliable. Even in this instance, the assertions that there is an appauling lack of evidence in specific things is refuted by the fact that there is general information about the circumstances that lends credence to the specific events. How far under ground would you expect these things to be at present, considering these things happened four to five thousand years ago? Are we looking in the right place? Were the numbers as great as the interpreters translated the words as indicated above in the article? Would currents, ebbs and flows redistributed many of these items, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the miraculous results that brought the event about in the first place. Your contentions are far from demonstrating an appauling lack of evidence in these matters. They are speculative at best. Because they are speculative they do not challenge the overall veracity of the scriptures, because the general evidence in these areas, where there is a lack of specific evidence (at present) indicates that these events could have and more than likely did happen, if "all" the evidence is included in the question. You overall standard of what evidence is and how to apply it, is an appaulingly lacking method of comprehension and understanding.
"Totally Lacking" and "contradicted by real objective evidence" do not descibe the events you have given as examples. You conclusions are only speculation and conjecture in light of all the possibiltes and scholarly positons on the matters. I would suggest that it is you who is appalling due to the fact that you cannot distinguish simple priciples of reasoning, that, there being a lack of (specific) evidence for a specific item, does not negate or repudiate the overall reliabilty of a source or document.
Secondly, you fail to realize that you yourself are an apologist for the positon you maintain, what ever it maybe. Yet you accuse me and speak of it as if it is substituion for actual evidence or the ability to be objective or reasonable, niether of which are true.Rahvin writes This line is characteristic of an attitude that is completlely unobjective, for this is simply far form the truth. The two examples you listed that do not include the "burning bush" miraculous, are supported by general evidence to the contrary. Again, many things in history lack specific evidence for each detail, while the general story is accepted and believed to be true overall. You have simply set up some rules that are too incredulous.This constitutes an initial response to Percy, Cavediver, Brian and Rahvin. I will work on Paulk's today.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add missing close quote.

You do realise that all these 'ifs' and 'buts' really are just confirming Cavediver's stance?All I see is circmustantial evidence, outdated and refuted hypotheses, and not a single piece of direct evidence for anything.Let's, just for the moment, say that the Merneptah Stele is certain proof of the biblical Israel. You do realise that this would be the ONLY piece of direct evidence for the ancient Israelites? It is hardly proving Cavediver's opinion wrong is it?It's all well and good people claiming that the recorded Semitic tribes wandering in and out of Egypt, and dwelling in the eastern delta during droughts and famines, then claiming that some of these Semities MIGHT have been the Israelites, but it is pure conjecture, it is NOT evidence of Israelites.On a very basic level, all anyone has to say in repsonse to people who take this stance is to ask the proposer to prove it, and I can state without a single ounce of doubt in my mind that they couldn't.Therefore, all your links are just supporting CD's stance.Regarding bias of researchers, you have many problems to over come.For example, how do you explain bias against the Bible for people like the conservative Christians William Albright (father of bible archaeology) and Joseph Calloway, the Rabbi Nelson Glueck, or William Dever?Re your claim about there may not be evidence found yet, this doesnt take into consideration the sites that have been found and excavated to virgin soil or bedrock. Sites like Jericho and Kadesh-Barnea (there are many others) have been gutted by archeaologists and nothing has been found to support the Bible's version of events, in fact, the findings have shown the Bible to be incorrect.Perhaps, in the future, we may discover the origins of the Israelites, it looks more like they came from within Palestine and not from without, but one thing is certain, their origin will not resemble the Bible's version.But keep reading, it is a huge field of study that has been going for about 150 years, but with the rise of the 'New Archaeology' of the late 1960's and 70's, the face value reading of the biblical text for the origins of Israel has been almost completely abandonned.I would check the date of Thompson's book, if it is the 1970's or 80's version then some of it may be outdated.

Okay, so we now have to question these passages (and others) :Exodus 1:7 but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them. and this:Exodus 1:9 "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. Your link seems to ignore the reason FOR the enslavement, it was because the Israelites were becoming too numerous.This hardly sits comfortably with this: If we discount women, old men, and children, then we probably have Israelite men of fighting age numbering about 2000, and we are asked to accept that the most powerful Empire in the Ancient Near East was concerned about them?Use your brain Bertot, is this really believable?Just because there was no enslavement, Exodus, or Conquest as per the biblical account, doesn't mean that you can't have Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Brian writes:These two statements seem to make no sense. If there is a piece of direct evidence as the Stele confirming thier obvious exsistence, then it would confirm that they were apart of the Smetics in that region druing that time period.Further the Stele would indicate that thier existence had to be established long before the time of the Stele, and that battle if they were, "laid waste" and were "no more', even if the Stele is an exaggeration of that King, it would indicate they were a force to be reckoned with at any rate.What other Israel would you expect this to be refernced by the Stele?Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The Stele would only confirm that they were in Palestine.Also, the Stele indicates that 'Israel' was not a settled nation in Palestine, as the name is prefixed with the determinative for a foreign people. All the other names on the Stele are identified as cities or lands, so this 'Israel' was not an established nation.The Stele does not say where this 'israel' came from.There's another big problem as well. Where the Stele indicates where this Israel would be expected to be found there is NOTHING at all in any settlements there from the 13th century BCE that can be described as 'Israelite'.BTW, it is not a given that the Stele says 'Israel'.

Hi Bertot,I think you misunderstand the underlying premise of this thread. Cavediver opened the thread by quoting Beretta: Cavediver went on to say that statements of this sort are often accompanied by claims like that there's more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar.In other words, the thread isn't about the historical/archeological evidence for the Bible. It's about the mistaken Christian belief that the Bible is well supported by historical/archeological evidence when that is definitely not true. There is not more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar, there is not more evidence for the events at Jericho than for the Prussian War, and there is not more evidence for Noah's Flood than for Alexander's conquest. In its lack of corroborating historical/archeological evidence for most of its accounts the Bible stands in stark contrast to most events, people and places of known history.It is the typical Christian's unawareness of this fact, indeed his mistaken belief that the exact opposite is the case, that this thread is about.The fact that you're deep into the details about obscure inscriptions of ambiguous interpretation with Brian only makes the fact of the lack of historical/archeological support for Biblical accounts more clear.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar and punctuation.

I havnt read beyond the first few posts (will read all if I have time), but I need to point out that the vast majority of historians, archaeologists, and scholars believed David to have actually existed BEFORE the discovery at Dan in 1993. (I have read endless books from all the leading experts in the field plus have lots of journals)It is commonly stated claim that most felt David was un-historical before the discovery in Tel Dan.Not true.There was (and still are) a vocal group of scholars who were among leaders in their scholarly field who questioned the accuracy of Iron Age related events described in the Bible-and mainly publish in scholarly journals like Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament & Scandinavian Journal of the Old testament-but they were never a majority.Even leading historians closely associated with these "minimilastic" views, like Gosta Ahlstrom, believed David and Solomon to be historical.See his massive 990 page book History of Ancient Palestine(1993).That was before the Tel Dan discovery.Since its discovery, actually most evidence (archaeological) has done more to disprove the United Monarchy claims of the Bible than enhance it.And there are some alternative non-majority views of the Tel Dan discovery which question conclusions reached from it.See the book Jerusalem in History and Tradition (2003) by Thomas Thompson and check out roughly pages 46-67 by Niels Peter lemche for a brief outline of disputed issues.The book is expensive to buy, but the library loan program will enable people to read it for free.The Tel Dan discovery didnt really add anything truely revolutionary to the discussion, even if the widely held conclusions on it are accurate.In no way, shape, or form does it prove the United Monarchy.I remind people the Israel Finkelstein never questioned the existence of David infact believes he existed.Davids existence isnt so startling.The Tel Dan discovery is over-rated.It adds something to our knowledge of ancient Israel and Judah, but didnt really over-turn established opinion.

G. E. Wright, though one of the leading Bible apologists of our century, didnt believe the Jericho destruction was part of Israels history.Like Frank Moore Cross, Werner Keller, and others he did believe in the Conquest but felt incidents like Jericho and Ai were etiological stories and/or borrowing from Canaanite history.Jericho was situated on a fault line and was destroyed dozens of times from 3000-2000 BCE alone. It was last destroyed in 1550 BCE before the Israelite period (commonly dated at 1220 BCE).He also didnt belive Genesis 1-11 was historical.Neither did Albright and other Bible "believers".

Even if true (and I find this very hard to believe) it is irrelevant. The issue is the extreme lack of evidence for David's existence, not who believed in his existence.

My main gripe was more with Christian spologists who use the Tel Dan discovery to claim "before this amazing discovery, the existence of david was doubted".You havnt noticed it I see, but I have heard it claimed numerous times.And, I see you have swallowed the fundi-apolegetic line.There is a view among fundamentalists to view the conclusions of mainstream scholars (mostly negative to the Bible) as somehow reflecting a pre-concieved bias against the entire Bible.Infact, the view was nearly universal that the Bibles history covering the period after 1000 BCE was very accurate only decades ago.I am merely pointing out that the shifting sands of mainstream archaeological opinion have actually moved somewhat against the major details of the Bibles early monarchy in the last few decades.Im not taking sides.Im simply trying to prevent completely false views of our understanding of mainstream scholarly consensus (especially past views).I feel like I am constantly swimming against the tide.(on a side issue, I also have a peeve with regards to people thinking there was ever a fundamentalist view that held to a c1220 Conquest.Actually, nearly every believer in a Ramses-era Exodus rejected major parts of the Biblical Conquest account since it contradicted the archaeological excavations.More ironic, is that lay-fundemantalists like IamJoseph actually think that a c. 1220 Conquest actually is compatible with their fundemantalist faith in the entire Bible text being 100% historic.)

I don't think Biran did himself any favours by piecing the three fragments together before anyone else could inspect them, also the textual conclusions arrived at by Biran and Naveh have been heavily criticised. This is a good example of where Bible inerrantists display their misunderstanding of what archaeology and history actually is, and it is a good point you make.Too many people simply accept that if David is mentioned on a Stele then everything else about David in the Bible must also be true. And if I was to be pedantic, the Tel Dan inscription could refer to a legendary David that foreign people associated with the Israelites.This lines up with what I have been trying to explain to Bertot in regard to the Merneptah Stele. What does the Merneptah Stele actually tell us about the 'Israel' mentioned on it? All it really says is that there was an entity in Palestine called Israel that was obliterated by the Egyptians, and it gives clues (if the ring cycle is accurate) to the location that this entity. it says nothing about where this Israel comes from, nothing about the religious practices of it, and nothing about Israelite society. But we have people who think that the Mernaptah Stele confirms the Exodus and the Conquest! Personally I don't really know how to categorise people who abuse in this way. I am not sure if they are just naive about the archaeology/history , too biased towards the Bible, deliberately conning their readers, or something else.But, as you have said previously I believe, there is possible evidence of the Conquest, but how do we go about proving that destructions were caused by Joshua and his armies?Doesn't this picking and choosing of evidence undermine the biblical accounts to such a degree that we have to conclude that the early books of the Bible are unreliable as an historical source?We have to be aware that the destruction of a town or city that has been allocated to the Israelites may in fact have been caused by some other people and we may be giving their history to Israel, and at the same time we are actually doing Israel a disservice by giving them a false past.