|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events | |||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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! Rich P.S.: Thanks for the welcome to the forum to all who welcomed me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Glad you found your way home.
Actually, there were many, many known and documented floods. So I don't doubt that whoever wrote that section of the Bible was familiar with flood stories. In addition, there are so many similarities with several of the other and older Flood Myths that it's very likely taken directly from one of them. But the big problem with the Flood and ARK story is that absolutely no part of it can stand up to any reasonable examination. No part of it. For me, the value to the Flood Myth is that it was a beautiful, simple story that would appeal to a pastoral community with parts that could be acted out by children to help instill a feeling of belonging and also pass on a political and social message. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
You mention reasonable examination. What qualifies as such? If you think you do, let's here your reasonable examination and I'll dispute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rich
I certainly see you as reasonable, at least so far, so let's give it a try. Instead of running through a whole bunch of ponderables, is it okay to do one at a time? I think we've covered the issue of a universal flood so I'll skip that one. What about the claim in the story about what animals were brought aboard? A few questions.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
I realize that this thread is a little late. However, I was a little offended by the condescending tone of your message I think if you read the previous messages from ‘Dr.’ bob, you would understand the tone of my post.
and felt it necessary to provide you with some of the facts that both of you failed to utilize in your arguement. It is hardly possible to cover every single verse in the Bible is it?
The following link provides historical veification to multiple references in the Bible: Your point is?
I hope this sheds some light on the darkness! Thank you for your concern, but I see just fine in the dark. If there is anything specific in my post that you wish to discuss, then I would be happy to support my opinions. Cheers. Brian. [This message has been edited Brian, 05-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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, Rich P.S.: I think your posts would be much more meaningful w/o the condescension and sarcasm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
I would like to comment on this:
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! Could you supply some historical verification for the conquest of Canaan as outlined in Josh. 1-12? Specifically: 1. What date would you propose for this 'conquest' and how do you arrive at this date? 2. What 'external evidence' (Albright always insisted on external evidence) do you have that there was a unified military conquest of Canaan? 3. How do you harmonise the military conquest of Josh. 1-12 with Judges 1 ? Many thanks. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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 Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Sadly I can't give you verification of this event. Thank you very much for your honesty here.
I'm aware of Dr. Callaway's exacavation of Ai, and Kathleen Kenyons work at Jericho, and I realize the possible conflict in chronology. There is not a possible conflict, the conflict is very real.
However, to say that these events didn't take place as mentioned in Joshua can't be concluded simply by a deviation in chronology. I agree, however, the deviation on chronology is the least of the problems. Apart from the fact that these sites were not inhabited at any of the two proposed dates for the 'conquest', they do not show destruction levels that can be harmonised. Then there is the added problem of no evidence of a break in the material culture of Canaan, there is no evidence that a new element had entered Canaan, and it has never been demonstrated that any destruction level at any LBA/IA transitional period can be attributed to the Israelites.
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. I think you need to check your dates here, the 'conquest' by Joshua would have been at least a thousand years after the dates you supply. Perhaps you mean 1400 BC and 1300 BC?
By no means do the archaelogical findings discredit the bible. I am afraid that they do. The Hebrew Bible, in Josh. 1-12, claims a unified militray conquest of Canaan. The archaeological data does not support this in any way, shape or form. If Josh. 1-12 was accurate, there should be a way to correlate destruction levels at the excavated sites in Palestine, this is not the case. The 'Conquest' theory of Israel's settlement in Palestine has been totally abandonned by Syro-Palestinian archaeologists for at least 20 years. Archaeology presents the conquest of Canaan with many more problems than Jericho and Ai. You have a major problem with Hazor and Lachish as well. Hazor was said to be taken by the Israelites in Josh.11:1-5, and they claimed to have killed Jabin the King of Hazor. Archaeologists date the destrcution of Hazor to 1250 BCE, too late for Joshua to be involved. (Dever, W. in Shanks .H., 1992 The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington. p31)Add to this the dating of the destruction of Lachish, which has now been dated, on the evidence of Ramesside scarabs, toaround 1150 BC, makes it impossible for Joshua to have destroyed these cities, unless, as Dever says jokingly he was carried out onto the battlefield on a stretcher ( ibid p32).
You ask me to harmonise Joshua 1-12 w/Judges 1. Could you elaborate please? Sure. Judges chapter 1 contradicts Josh. 1-12 as it posits a series of military action by individual tribes or several tribes acting as an alliance and not, as Josh. 1-12, a military undertaking by Israel as a whole (Weippert, M., 1971, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine SCM Press, London). Also, many of the sites allegedly conquered by Joshua and his armies, are mysteriously back in the hands of their original occupants in Judges 1. Cheers. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rich
I think the key point, at least for me, is that the Flood and Noah's ARK simply NEVER happened, even on a much smaller scale. Even if you allow every single fact mentioned in the story to be modified, it still will not stand up. But that is only part of it. If it turns out that every geographic location, every city and town, every ruler, every battle mentioned in the Bible is real, that still says absolutely nothing about the validity of the religious message. If it could be shown that Jerico existed (as it has) and that the walls were torn down (not once but many, many times) and that the walls got torn down about the time Joshua (or even at exactly the time) was there, it still adds no credence to the tale of supernatural intevention. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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 Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, no. If you could prove that the Exodus happened, it would show that the Exodus happened. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. No divine intervention.
For the issue of the parting of the Red Sea to stand up as divine intervention you would first have to show that
It's a fable, a morality play. It was meant to instruct and to help keep the people together. That's all. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RichCarlson Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024