Evidence for the Biblical Record

Hi Zen,
great topic. the only problem with this is that the bible wasnt written by one person. It was written by 40 different individuals over a period of 1600 yearsthese writings were then collected together and when compared, they proved to corroborate each other....even though some lived several hundreds of years apart. The canon is based on those writings that are in harmony and complementary of each other. They were also only put into the canon if the history they contained was accurate.So you cant look at the bible as a novel. The prophecies of the bible prove it to be true. It was actually when prophecy was fulfilled that the isrealites knew who the true prophets of God were and so these prophets were held in high esteem and their writings preserved.The archeological evidence that has been discovered has added weight to the fact that the bible was recording the events of real places and real people. The kings of the nations it mentions have been confirmed by archeology, the customs of the various nations has been confirmed and even the building work and landmarks mentioned in the bible have been discovered by archeology. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Nimrod did exist. He is mentioned in Arabic traditions as Nimrud or Nimroud. In the Sumerian-Akkadian didactic poems report his heroic deeds. And Jewish historian Josephus refers to him by name.while its true that archaeologists have been unable to identify ancient ruins as definitely being Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, they have found over two dozen similar structures in Mesopotamia.the German archaeologist Walter Andrae did extensive digging in this area at the beginning of the 20th century. he found evidence of these towers (known as ziggurats) with a shrine at the top which supported a gate. these gates were said to be the entry point where God decended to earth. This is interesting because the name Babel is derived from the words Bab, meaning gate and ilu meaning God. therefore the city was a place where God could ascend and decend to the earth.If the story in the bible about the Tower of Babel was nothing more then a myth, then surely they wouldn't have archeological evidence for it. It was much more then a myth...it was a real place with real people.

So is yours.we also have non-fiction writers in the world today... according to your reasoning, we should assume that there is only fiction in this world.

a house in the middle of the desert is also evidence that a house exists...we dont assume that its existence doesnt prove that it had a builder... reason tells us that it had a builderUnless of course you believe that ALL matter comes together without direction? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

the bible records historical events that are confirmed by secular sourcessuch as the destruction of Babylon... the city is still laying in ruins todaythe invasion of the Nebudcannezza into jerusalem...the kings of Judah being taken captive into foreign nationsCyrus the great releasing jews from captivityAlexander the Great conquering the world of his time, his untimely death and his kingdom being divided among his 4 generalsthe rise of the roman world empire, the fall of the roman empireSeriously... no historical evidence my foot.

I cant prove the miracles to you just as I cannot prove them to myself. But its the testimonial evidence of eye witnesses that convince me of their truthfulness.The fact that the bible is a book of truth, of reliable history, of accurate prophecy adds weight to the words of the people who witnessed the miracles and wrote about them.But i've got that confidence only because i've studied the bible... i can understand how someone who perhaps hasnt studied it might be skeptical.

the only way they can be refuted is by sceptics claiming that it was written after the fact... or added in laterRemember the book of Daniel... oh yeah! That was a complete forgery written in the 1st century LOLIf the only way a prophecy can be disproved is by claiming that it was added in later, then i dont think your analysis passes the sniff test. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Buz, i think you are taking it a bit far to say that prophecy in Rev is refering to televisionsI can see why you might put it to television, but i dont believe that's got anythign to do with televisions.

The image could actually be a world wide political organization....one that is represented by every nation.If you think back to Daniels prophecy, which is similar in terms of wild beasts being mentioned, you'll see that the angel tells Daniel that the beasts represented political figures. Alexander the Great was the hairy he goat and the 2 horned ram was the empires of Mede's and Persians (a dual empire)Why would revelations beasts be any different to political entities?

Regarding the beast of Revelation 13:1, 2, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible points out that it combines in itself the joint characteristics of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision ... Accordingly, this first beast [of Revelation] represents the combined forces of all political rule opposed to God in the world.The only thing in this world that hold authority over people, is government. That is also borne out by Revelation 13:7, which says of the beast: Authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.Its the entire political system of the world.

The story of Babel most certainly is based on fact which is confirmed by history, archaeology and folklore.
North of the Marduk temple in Babylon once stood a huge tower, and in this area archaeologist George Smith discovered a tablet with an account about the confusion of languages. The table reads in part: The building of this illustrious tower offended the gods. In a night they threw down what they had built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. Their progress they impeded. This wasnt a bible tablet, it was a babylonian one.And the folklore found in various nations provide further evidence that the story was not only a bible story because many of these nations did not have the bible. These tower stories do vary among themselves, but the fact that they all say there was a tower and that men’s tongues were changed is noteworthy and gives the authentic Bible record support.Modern linguists have also created a chart of human language and they've found there there are parent languges from which all other languages are derived. This is in harmony with the bible account.Here is some more info which shows that the evidence is against any evolutionary origin of speech or of ancient languages: Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David but in 1993 archaeologists uncovered a basalt stone called the Tel Dan Stele, dating back to the 9th Century B.C. that experts say bears the words House of David and king of Israel.the thing about this stone is that it wasnt made by the isrealites but is actually a victory monument erected by the Aramaeans.

Well i certainly didnt make it up myself.The evidence is out there and its just funny that when such evidence is hightlighted, the focus suddenly shifts to the dishonesty in where it came from.I'm not George Smith, so does that mean that i cant use his discoveries to provide someone with the evidence they seek??

They didnt 'steal' anything. The isrealites were not the only nation involved when the languages were confused so its only natural that many different nations have the same story.It actually proves the so called 'myth' rather then disproves it.

I pulled it from wiki did I? Then i claimed that it was from an encyclopedia??if you are refering to the George Smith quote, it comes from his book 'the chaldean account of creation' and many people use it because its a fairly important discovery with regard to the tower of bable... its evidence outside of a biblical source as was requested by ZenMonkey.If you are refering to the other quotes that actually have the encyclopedia cited with page and paragraphs, then they are from the encylopedia and if you dont believe me you can simply use the citation i gave to confirm it.

and this does not present a problem for the biblical account of the confusion of languages because according to Genesis, completely new languages were given to the people. We should see completely unrelated languages in the world and the fact that we do adds weight to the bibles account of how they got here. how in the world did you conclude that my assertion that all languages can be traced to a parent language are false? According to the genesis account, there should be several parent languages....which there are.aside from the fact that not all linguists agree with the basque language hypotheses (likely because they just dont have enough information yet) what makes impossible that it itself is not a parent language? Hahahaha thats funny.Can you prove that the hypothoses about the basque language is true? I dont think so. So its a bit of a stretch to claim victory with the example you've given.but if it makes you feel better, ok, you win. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.