Reliable history in the Bible

I was responding to the Question as asked. If you want to respond one thing at a time, that it OK, but if you read the original question, it was a challenge to start with Genesis and go through the Bible. If you are so educated, then please start now by answering each one as provided. It shouldn't take long for you since you are so educated huh? Don't just sit back and make idle comments. Step up to bat and start responding.bk

You selected one topic yet?

meforevidence,Per the forum guidelines: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.Also the topic concerns reliable history in the Bible. Please do not bring scientific issues into this discussion.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Nighttrain,meforevidence gave his thoughts in Message 212. If you wish to respond to one or all that deal with reliable history in the Bible, then present your thoughts. Don't waste posts demanding meforevidence choose one for you.Move the discussion forward and keep on topic.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

I am planning to go through every event in Joshua and Judges(plus the Negev and trans-Jordan battles) that can be tested via the archaeological evidence.I was planning to go in chronological order,but will make 2 amendments.trans-Jordan will be taken last, since it is very complicated and will take ALOT of typing time compared to all the rest combined.I also have decided that the fundamentally important sites that "make or break" whether the Conquest ever happened should be taken first.The 4 sites are Jericho, Hazor, Shiloh, and Shechem.Ai and Gilgal would also be important but they havnt been identified correctly(Gilgal hasnt been identified at all, and Ai has been "found" at a site that it clearly is not).Et-tell CANT be Ai because Era 2:28 (which is considered accurate by all historians) mentions 223 men returning to settle in Bethel and Ai.Et-Tell has no occupation shown in the archaeological record for that time (either before 605-587BCE or c537BCE) so it has been falsified as for being Ai.(see post I am respond to for more details)Thus we will be looking very closely at Jericho, Hazor, Shiloh, and Shechem.Jericho and Hazor must show burn destruction.Jericho must discontinue in occupation for a significant period of time.Hazor may be repopulated some time after (it is in the north where Canaanites held their ground everywhere) but not without a conflagration during the Conquest.Shiloh and Shechem (as well as Gilgal if identified)must NOT have surviving Canaanites(Israelites didnt dwell in either location, so their should be any occuption for some time after the Conquest-with some exceptions for Shiloh which I will cover).These 2 sites were very important centers of Israelite activity just after(and frankly during) the Conquest, so Canaanites present would falsify the Biblical account BIG TIME.On the other hand, agreement would back up the Biblical account of a Conquest in the period of roughly 1550BCE or during the terminal Middle Bronze Age.Here is a brief introduction to what we will be looking for.I will quote a few paragraphs from the Kenneth Kitchen book On The Reliability Of The Old Testament.Fore 2 reasons;first he does not believe the Conquest happened in 1550 BCE so therefore his reading of the text can come in handy as a non-partial challenge for what too look for(I dont agree with his readings in every way though),and second:he is a great scholar and his readings can be trusted to have the best possible reading consistent with the Ancient Near Eastern mileu. So says the greatest biblical scholar of out time.He specifically makes the point (on page 223) that He responds to the oft-repeated Albright strawman.Its ironic but brian told me (around one of his latest posts) something like- Albright had to accept a 1200 Conquest once the evidence demanded it.I just learned that the main reason Albright rejected an "early Conquest" was that "Bethel" (Beitin) was unoccupied in the terminal Late Bronze Age period of c1400, yet destroyed in 1200!(see post I am responding to lol-below my post is link)Beitin was destroyed in the terminal Middle bronze age period of c1550 BCE and the sedentary population discontinued till c1400 just as the Biblical model would require! (well it would require a discontinuation for some time after the destruction)It was compounded by evidence showing that Debir (Tell beit Mirsim) was un-settled in 1400 but destroyed in 1200.The irony is that BOTH were destroyed in the terminal-MBA period of c1550BCE with Jericho and Hazor!Further irony is that at least one (Bethel) and probably both were misidentified.Amazing.Any this "sweeping,total conquest, and occupation" of modern scholars is "a whole myth of their own making" says Kitchen on p 174. If anybody reads p175-176; you will see that Kitchen shows that nearly every Canaanite name (well over a dozen) in the Joshua narrative is only current in the 12th-16th centuries BCE and not later.Kitchen is fluent in over a dozen ANE languages, and has read more texts than just about anybody (many leading minimalists and William Dever cant even read Hebrew).He references the usages of all names mentioned in historical records.Mostly Hurrian names.The Hurrians arrived in Palestine either about the same time as the Hyksos (likely) or about 100 years later. So much for late-invented texts.Anyway the terminal middle-bronze age is the target, and the 4 most important identified sites to test are clearly Jericho, Shechem, Hazor, and Shiloh.They will be taken first.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

We shall start with one of the fundamental sites:Shiloh.It alone literally can break the claim that the Conquest happened if the archaeology doesnt add up in the terminal-Middle Bronze Age of c1550BCE and the early part of the Late Bronze Age.The first 4 Biblical books that "Shiloh" is mentioned in (via concordance) cover verses of Gen 49:10 , Josh 18:1, 18:8 , 18:9, 18:10, 19:51, 21:2, 22:9, 22:12, Judges 18:31, 21:12, 21:19, 21:21, 1Sa 1:3, 1:9, 1:24, 2:14, 3:21, 4:3, 4:4, 4:12, and 14:3.Those verses document every last quote of "Shiloh" before the book of Kings."Temple" isnt associated with any verse till Samuel 1:9.Excluding the Genesis prophecy (which seems to be late), all verses covered before Judges chapter 21 refer to the Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age transition (including the slightly later-perhaps 10 years-Danite Conquest recounted in Judges chapter 18).Judges 21 is during the Iron Age(though it isnt clear exactly when) when Benjamin is populated with a sedentary population(though in transition since references to "tents" as homes is well represented in these verses much like the early chapters of Samuel) and clearly alligns to the early chapters of Samuel.The gap in mentioning Shiloh goes from the Conquest (the terminal Middle Bronze Age period of roughly 1550BCE) to the period just before Samuels time (covered in scripture from around c1100-c1030).As far as the late MBA/Early LBA period , the Danite Conquest included in Judges chapter 18 is the latest mention of Shiloh and that is the extremely early LBA at latest.The more detailed references to Shiloh in Samuel presents us with a fact that the former "tent" or "tabernacle" has been built into a more permanent structure wih doorposts (1:9), doors (3:15) , and sleeping quarters (3:3).Consistently called "the temple" beginning in Samuel.The standard view is that the Ark and tabernacle (mishkan) were always in Shiloh from the Conquest-Samuel but that is more due to a lazy reading of scripture for starters, and then the pitfalls of "Biblical Archaeology" for near-starters (the false lead is based on the view that the Conquest was in the extreme late Bronze Age period and thus the early Iron Age settlement of Shiloh from c1175 to its destruction in c1050 at the hands of the Philistines was evidence of a settled occupation).Actually, scripture only tells us that Shiloh was used as a brief EARLY meeting place for the Israelite's while making land allotments for the tribes (Josh 18-19) , appointing cities of refuge (Josh 20-21), and of course the tent/tabernacle location (only in the early days).There was no settlement in Shiloh of any kind for more than the early decades of the Israelite arrival (which based on archaeological record of Palestine in its entirety, was the terminal Middle Bonze Age period of c1550 BCE) and it was just for tabernacle services and sacrifices. We only know that it could have been perhaps a few decades because of the reference to it in the Danite Conquest. The caps are added words in English.
In the Anchor Bible Dictionary under "Shiloh", the scholar makes the point that part of this verse is corrupt.Clearly the plain reading of the Biblical text is that the Ark was there shortly after the Conquest but moved around from tribe to tribe after.The Theological Dictionary Of The Old Testament has proven itself again and again to be a treasure trove of the best scholarship on planet Earth (here is yet another example where its commentary has embedded within it FACTS which most never even consider yet the dictionary just abounds with one incredible detail after another that a novice researcher wouldnt appreciate. )The articles are long and my quotes will be only a slim fraction of the text (the focus of my small quotes wont cover the main point of the article, which is to give a comprenhisive study of definitions of words and their background in the ANE)
(the word is "tent") Knowing what we know about the Israelites and their devotion to the burnt offerings and their cultic practices, there would have to be a complete absence of Canaanites anywhere near Shiloh in the years the Ark was there.(just shortly after the Conquest)Lets look at the archaeological record because this is one site (among other sites) where the scrutiny will be very very heavy and a falsification is very much a possibility if there isnt a resonable match. LB1 is from 1550-1400 roughly.Like Shechem, this site is very measurable with regards to the archaeological evidence due to strict time-measures when severe destructions are recorded in the Biblical texts.Those details are also severely important and can falsify the Biblical text if not met in the archaeological record. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

We now come to Shechem.It was an extremely important site which in Joshua 24:1-27, saw a covenant rite performed.If the archaeological record shows Canaanites then the Bible is falsified: PERIOD. There quite simply has to be a desruction of Shechem and then the sedentary population gone for a fairly clear period. The evidence fits.But also keep in mind that this was a city where the Israelites sister was raped (the rape of Dina in Genesis 34), so the feelings (of Israelites) should be very very raw. Using a higher chronology (than is used today) the Anchor Bible Dictionary placed the destruction of the later LBIIA town (which I didnt quote) at around c1310BC.The LBIIB is generally assumed to un from c1300-c1200, but lately the trend has been to lower the end to around c1175 or even c1150, and thus that pulls down the start of LBIIA slightly, perhaps to c1290.This Encyclopedia (below) places the destruction of the LBIIA as late as c1300, and that is even with an internal chronology that has the 9th dynasty starting 1318BCE. A ctual dates have it starting at 1293BCE today.So the LBA clearly ends a decade or so after 1300. This Encyclopedia uses a very high (and outdated) Egyptian chronology and the sloppy scholarship that lowers Israelite chronology by 350 years.Actually the Conquest happened around c1550BCE according to the Bible, and then 258 years (plus time allowed for a Judge briefly mentioned but with no year length, and time for the period from Joshua till Judges chapter 1-3) later Abimelech salted the city and burned it.The lower chronology that is standard today will place the end of LBIIA sometime slightly after c1300BCE, in line with the destruction of Judges.If not for the messed up chronology, then it would be a no-brainer as the encyclopedia I quoted clearly shows.Shechem is the only site (during the rule of the 12 Judges,which excludes the early and later chapters of the book of Judges) during this period that can be archaeologically tested.It fits and fits well.As is the case with every clearly identified site:the details fit for every period and in every way.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

The OT has to be the world's most authentic and vindicated document in existence - more so than writings 2000 years later. Every few months a find is made evidencing a stray passage in its copious array of books - affirming its ancient historical narratives:Tiny tablet provides proof for Old TestamentNews: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph
By Nigel Reynolds, Arts Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:18am BST 12/07/2007The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum's great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years.This fragment is a receipt for payment made by a figure in the Old TestamentBut Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry last Thursday. He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.advertisementThe small tablet, the size of "a packet of 10 cigarettes" according to Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, is a bill of receipt acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin's payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in Babylon.The tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 595BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem.Evidence from non-Biblical sources of people named in the Bible is not unknown, but Nabu-sharrussu-ukin would have been a relatively insignificant figure."This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," Dr Finkel said yesterday. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."Cuneiform is the oldest known form of writing and was commonly used in the Middle East between 3,200 BC and the second century AD. It was created by pressing a wedge-shaped instrument, usually a cut reed, into moist clay.The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IamJoseph:Per the rules: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.Please refrain from copying whole articles into threads.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Kool.

Runningstrong, your message has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.If you want to post it as a new thread in the Coffee House forum you may do so.If you do it again, further action may be taken.Aside from that, welcome to EvC.Edited by AdminPaul, : Completely irrelevant to topic. But not obvious spam.

The MBA (Middle Bronze Age) ended in 1550 according to the 2003 Carta book Sacred bridge by Anson Rainey.the standard sate for MBII is from 1750 to 1550. (the terminology varies, some call the first half "MBIIB" and the second MBIIC" , others call the entire period MBIIB, and William Dever calls the 2nd half MBIII)However, the (only)2 expert archaeologists that debated the time of the end of the MBA (in the Egyptian and Palestinian area of debate for the MBA) in the High, Middle, or Low convention (in the 80s featuring cutting edge research, it was published into a book) were Manfred Bietak and William Dever.Dever places the end of the MBA during the early part of Thutmose III's reign.Dever uses a much higher chronology than most and has him rule from 1504 to 1450, and his first campaign into Palestine at 1482.Dever has the MBA end as late as "1482" (1457 according to the accurate chronology),but generally has it go from 1750 to 1625 for the first half ("MBII" he calls it), and 1625-1500 for the 2nd half ("MbIII").To make matters even more confusing , he feels most of the MBA cities were destroyed by Ahmose and according to Devers super high chronology, he destroyed them in 1551BCE.Bietak has a solid chronology that has the entire period ending at almost the same time.No chronology delays except minor ones.He has first part (MBIIB) run from 1700-1570 (he has MBIIB end as late as 1550, roughly 1570-1550), based on his standard setting Tell ed Daba dig of recent years.He has MBIIC last from c1560 to c1450 with Thutmose III destroying the Palestinian towns in c1457BCE.The main difference is that Dever has the Hyksos period start around 1675 , Bietak (like most) starts it arounnd 1633BCE.Both have the final half of the MBII (usually called MBIIC but Dever calls it MBIII) start roughly half way inbetween the Hyksos rule of Egypt (it ended in 1525, though Dever has it end in 1551, and Encyclopedia Britanica has it last from 1630-1521. The standard chronology has it last from 1633-1525 and by 1521 Egyptians defeated Sharuheen in a 3 year siege).Dever has a chronology that ends all over the place.Bietak has his fixed with a clear end and clear beginning.Bietak has also been one of the first mainstream archaeologists to notice the fact that carbon dates start to diverge with Egyptian chronology roughly the time of c1400 and back(everything matches till then but archaeological dates end up roughly 150 years younder than carbon dates indicate.) Ill cover more on this later(with many sources).Just this year in Biblical Archaeology Review he made the point that the Thera eruption carbon dates to 1630 BCE but the archaeological stratum in Palestine and Egypt places the pummice loads during the reign of Thutmose III who reigned from 1479-1425.The Biblical chronology places then destruction of Jericho at roughly 1550 BCE.With Solomon ruling from 970-930BCE.The mainstream literature also places the destruction at 1550BCE.A PERFECT fit.But I may have to adjust my views if current evidence contradicts the Biblical chronology.The fact is that the 2 leading archaeologists have the MBA ending sometime after Thurmose III begins his co-reign (Dever is a confused mess though).On to Hazor. Roughly 1700-1200, there are archaeological discoveries that show Hazor leaders with the name Jaban (as the Bible describes for 2 Kings of Hazor from the c1550 Conquest to a batte roughly 180 years after the Conquest, though there was no archaeological discovery that names the leader from the terminal-MBA destruction)So, the 4 most importand sites the Bible mentions has details that match the terminal MBA situation (I didnt include Laish/Dan due to the fact that its destruction is slightly debatable as to when the Bible's chronology places it).EDIT-- I just spent about 3 hours on my longest post ever but my computer crashed.With my mistrust of computers (this is my 3rd major crash and the biggest loss of post ever--it was on the Negev sites), and with the Negev and Trans-jordan coming up(very long posts), I doubt I will be attempting any more trys like that again.I may be done posting.My computer actually didnt crash but my keyboard and controls wouldnt register.i cant waste any more time like this.Maybe I will be back in several months.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

I have not read all 16 pages of posts as I do not have the time so I apoligise if any of the following discrepancies I have found have already been posted:Herod was dead for 10 years before the birth of Jesus (well actually that depends on where you put his birth but at best it gets to a 6 year difference), how exactly did he murder the infantsJericho never had the walls that were supposed to be destroyedNazareth did not exist as a city in the first century the bible firmly asserts that it was suchRoman taxes worked nothing like they were supposed to have done to make Joseph move to Bethlehem nor is their any historical backing for this taxing bar one sevral years too late in addition not ordered by the emporor as the bible says it was but the regional governorThe lineage of Jesus even the bible can't make up it's mind on the thatThe world is significantly older than 6 thousand more in the region of four billionBackup for ANY of Jesus's life events is sadly wanting bar the bibleThe biblical Jesus is a composition of sevral other "Jesii" (there were a great deal of these alleged saviours at the time, many of whom people such as Josephus talks about in much great detail than the biblical one) and God's predating the compostion of the bible or the alleged existance of the man himself.I will continue this when less tired it currently being 2.50, I also realise I have yet to back up any of my claims when challenged I will do so, please point out specific points you wish me to address and I will do so.

just a question, has anyone brought up toe topics of Tyre and Sidon yet? or the book of Daniel?

you have made a lot of extremely unqualified statements, and provided that you are willing and not just a headstrong stubborn man i am willing to address most of them within my area of expertise.first of all, your first statement is extremely ignorant or just a lie because there were many King Herod's and yes one was alive at the time of Jesus' birth (assuming 5 -7 BC)secondly there have been excavations on the walls of Jericho which you claim dont exist, and these excavations claim that the walls were torn down in an unconventional manner, rather impressive conclusions from an excavation of something that doesnt exist dont you say? third, I know many Jewish scholars who would say that Nazareth did exist
Nazareth - Wikipedia
third paragraph under history, i know that doesnt sound very convincing, but there were people there around that time contrary to your claim.forth, the lineage of Christ is different because their intended purpose is different. Matthew wanted to prove that Jesus had a legal claim to the throne of Israel so he traced all of the legal heirs back to David; Luke wanted to prove Christ was human so he traced every person back to David.fifth, your statement about the age of the earth belongs in a different thread, but you cannot prove that statement either. in fact it wouldn't be science to say anything on this topic at all, because science is the study of repeatable events.sixth, try Josephus, the "Q" quote collection, or the silence of the Jews of the time speaks volumes, not to mention all of the church fathers and disciples. Not even the Jews refute that Christ existed.