Reliable history in the Bible

Brian,I figured you were just simply trying to nudge people into your thread. I just found your tactics annoying. Anyways, you answered me well enough.

---

Thanks
trossthree

There's no better motivation for anyone than to prove a smart arse wrong. Sometimes people take a while to catch on to my tactic, especially on forums, but I am much nicer to my students. (I think)And if you are annoyed, just think how poor Cold Foreign Object feels!Brian.

I never had time to read this whole thread, but here is some newly surfaced evidence that demonstrates some reliability of the Bible: Old Testament figure named on 2600-year-old tablet on News.com.auAlso found here: Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truth - TimesOnline.co.ukAlso, in addition to this, I will make clear what I know to be true:No archaeological discovery has ever proven the bible to be untrue. Facts have not changed, only perceptions and conceptions of those facts. Anything that may appear to "counter" the biblical account is only a "perception" or a "conception", but never a proof. Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

---

~Lysimachus

All quotes are taken by the 2007 book The Quest For The Historical Israel CONCLUSION (MY own): The Bible accurately recorded every Egyptian invasion, in the main Israelite region, from the c.16th century Conquest to the late 10th century invasion of Shiskak.The Judges period is 100% accurate on Egyptian involvment though the multi-undred year history covered only covered smaller local episodes as a rule.Here is another quote from a severe Bible critic (Mazar even rejects the historical claim of a United Monarchy and certainly rejects the Conquest) LOL he couldnt mess up on the PLAIN reading of the post-conquest details (immediately after Joshua's quick initial campaigns and then later history throughout Judges) , since its effects lingered on.Notice I said "post-conquest" details werent messed up.His artifical date (1200) for the Conquest has little to do with what the Bible actually says.Unhistorical indeed. (His Conquest scholarship though he does represent the less miserable state of mainstream post-conquest scholarship which is actually solid)Lets see some really flawed logic from this book(Patriarchal period) Even Mazar gave credit for the Ur-Haran road matching the archaeological record in the Bibles chronology.Finkelstein typically uses the fact that most towns in the early Bible stories were the ones populated in the 7th century B.C.E. as proof that the earlier Biblical events are unhistorical. (Conquest, Judges, United Monarchy , etc.)He used that logic when refering to Haran.NOW THE CRAZY PART....But then he used evidence that major towns WERENT mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives as proof that they arent historical.He seemed to expect that every last one should be mentioned.I wont begin to explain the complete uselessness of a life-sized map of the world (I hope Finkelstein never attempts to pass an economics class) , but I will say that its Shocking that the clear implication actually SHOULD BE that this proves that the biblical writer actually didnt just use current (ie "7th century") major towns when "making up history".Finkelstein typially attempts to find a "7th century" or Post-exilic explanation for every last early story *except*, it seems, when it doesnt suit him.Jerusalem wasnt mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives? Neither Hazor? Nor Megiddo? Nor Gezer?Great, then that disproves everything Finkelstein has said about pre-"7th century" biblial history. (ie "they only used this 7th century town disguised as that 15th century history to justify this 7th century claim or integrate that 7th century group")Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

I think part of the problem that certain Christians (such as Buz, Ray, and Lysi)have is that they think people such as myself completely reject everything in the Bible as unhistorical, and this isnt the case at all. Sure we have rejected a great deal of it, such as the face value biblical Exodus and Conquest, but we, at least I do, acknowledge that the Bible starts to become accurate the closer we get the the exilic period.Personally, I think there is a lot of reliable history in the Bible, but I also think that from Genesis through to the end of Judges there just isnt very much that is reliable.After the book of judges, it starts to improve a little.

Only 9 posts left until End of Thread.

​

It is a good time to start winding down and presenting summaries, conclusions, or final comments.

​

Thanks for debating, carry on.

Wow! This is an excellent description on the Reliable history in the bible you have given very good reasons encountered in reliable history of Bible. I totally support your points in this. Thanks for sharing your information.Edited by AdminPhat, : removed spam-a-link. One warning!

What is it in particular that impresses you?

Lysimachus, Do you mean "theorize" instead of "know"? Drop this hat it will not go anywhere here. Just simply find the error in the idea here and it will suffice.Edited by KISS, : No reason given.

---

Thank you
KISS

Brian,Or maybe you're interpreting the evidence incorrectly?P.S. I am not claiming that you're but I am claiming the possibility.

---

Thank you
KISS

Of course this is a possibility.However, part of the problem with the prehistory books of the Bible is the complete absence of evidence for many events, add to this the mythical tales, aetiological tales, and a host of absurdities, then it is difficult to take these early books seriously.No historian should claim absolutes about their theories, personally if I am writing a formal piece I always use words such as 'unlikely' or 'it is difficult to imagine', or it is 'reasonable to assume', and other non absolute claims. We never know what may be found on the future, so we really cannot say this or that definately didn't happen.

Welcome kingdomofgod123,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Brian, It is silly to take anything in relation to "origin of life" seriously. There are plenty more topics which one can take seriously. In "reality" there is no proof to deny the existence of "paranormal" rather it be by means of the Bible or any other means. However, I do find it interesting why masses of beings since the "foundations of the earth" have believed in the paranormal and have claimed to receive revelation. Hoorah!However, in relation to "is there reliable history in the Bible?" I would say "who cares". In anycase, having no reliable history in the Bible, does not mean YEHWEH is a false God.Edited by KISS, : No reason given.Edited by KISS, : No reason given.

---

Thank you
KISS

tthzr3,We do ask that members not abuse the alias feature. Changing several times within a short time frame is frowned upon and makes it very difficult for people to know who they are engaging in discussion.Please pick an alias and stick with it.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