Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events

Dear Brian,I realize that this thread is a little late. However, I was a little offended by the condescending tone of your message and felt it necessary to provide you with some of the facts that both of you failed to utilize in your arguement.
The following link provides historical veification to multiple references in the Bible: Forbidden. Just click on the "Adobe" archaelogical chart on the right. I hope this sheds some light on the darkness!Thanks,Rich

Dear Jar,As far as a flood that covered the world, you may be correct. However, it wasn't until quite recently that we discovered that the world was round. So, I think it's safe to say that the term "world" is relevant to the writer's knowledge of the earth's geography. Which leads to my point: there is conclusive evidence of a great flood in multiple areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, particularly "Urartu" or the "Mountains of Ararat", which is/are the geographic location mentioned in the bible. Reader's, please don't spin this off into a tangent. I'm not saying this proves the Ark existed, I'm simply saying it (in no way) has been disproven!RichP.S.: Thanks for the welcome to the forum to all who welcomed me!

You mention reasonable examination. What qualifies as such? If you think you do, let's here your reasonable examination and I'll dispute.

Dear Jar,I'm not sure why you insist on questioning Noah's Ark. I've previously expressed the writer's concept of "world". Therefore, how can we question the relevance of terminology within the text? For example: If I believe the world to be my immediate surroundings, I certainly (with some effort) could collect animals of all sorts, and take them with me. Relevance is the key here. Noah may not have even collected all the species that were habitants of his own geographical location, much less the world. You are questioning the literal meaning of passages. I really don't care to debate literal meaning. However, if you have another reference to historical verification of Biblical accounts that you would like to question, I'd be happy to continue with this!Rich

Hi Brian,In no way am I trying to cover every verse in the Bible, that would be absurd. I simply offered some historical verification of biblical accounts (which Dr. Bob failed to mention).Thanks,RichP.S.: I think your posts would be much more meaningful w/o the condescension and sarcasm.

Brian,Sadly I can't give you verification of this event. I'm aware of Dr. Callaway's exacavation of Ai, and Kathleen Kenyons work at Jericho, and I realize the possible conflict in chronology. However, to say that these events didn't take place as mentioned in Joshua can't be concluded simply by a deviation in chronology. The fact that they both were found to have happened within a hundred yr's (Ai:2400BC, Jericho:2300BC) of each other lends at least some credibility to the Biblical accounts of Joshua. By no means do the archaelogical findings discredit the bible.
You ask me to harmonise Joshua 1-12 w/Judges 1. Could you elaborate please?Thanks,Rich

Brian,It appears that Jar is not the only one who questions the literal meaning of Biblical verse. I previously stated that I don't care to debate this issue.
As far as chronology or dates are concerned, I don't need to check my dates, they were correct as found by Callaway, and Kenyon. Erosion is an obvious explanation (even stated by Kenyon in her works) for the lack of evidence to support the Biblical chronology. A lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, it only leaves it in question.
As far as Hazor is concerned, I'm afraid your wrong Brian. Both Garstang(1920's), and Yadin(1950's) found evidence to support the outline of biblical narratives. Chronology is what is questioned once again. Why does chronology carrie so much more weight with the bible, than any other historical document to come under scrutiny. Shouldn't all history be judged by the same standards?
Joshua 1-12 and Judges 1: Judges 1 is not a chronological 'next' of Joshua, rather, it is a recount of the Israelite conquest or settlement of the Land. Although it differs in context (Joshua: sweeping conquest, Judges: smooth settlement), they both cover Israelite entry into the land. This should answer your question concerning land back in the hands of original occupants.
As far as contradiction is concerned I would simply call it 2 different perspectives of the Israelite settlement of the land.Thanks,Rich

Jar,You mention "it still will not stand up", stand up to what? Please be more specific.
Certainly historical verification of the biblical accounts of the Exodus (the parting of the Red Sea in particular) would give proof of divine intervention.Rich

Jar,I've given reasonable historical verification (archaelogical findings, etc.) for various statements in my posts. I'd appreciate the same from you. i.e.: "border troops that were readily available", as verifiable by what or whom?; "troops that were stationed on the other side", verification of such claim?, furthermore, are the requirements that you list the standard for verifying historical accounts? I'm afraid not. They're simply your opinions.Your sarcasm: "the (sic)Egyptions then simply went home and dried off" is unnecessary, and really takes away from the meaning of your posts.Rich