Veracity of Biblical History

Can anyone demonstrate that the plain historical accounts in the Bible are not accounts of actual history? The Bible has been the primary roadmap for archaeology in the Middle East because of its accuracy, so it's obviously a great source for ancient history, but can anyone prove that stories in the Bible are false?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you give us demonstrations of how it is a great source for ancient history?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sumerians right, Assyrians right, Canaanites right, Hittites right, Jericho right, Nile Delta cities right, Genesis 10 (Table of Nations) confirmed by linguistic and cultural studies, Levant cities right. The early modern archaeologist took great advantage of the Bible's accuracy, and they still do today, haven't you heard?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about Noah? Do you honestly believe that two of every animal in the world were put on a boat? For how long? Wasn't it 40 days or something like that? Must have been one hell of a boat!

Any book that putts forward an item like that cannot possibly be "a great source for ancient history".

 

But it seem to be, the historical facts of the bible check out to be true, and that can't be denied, that is the strange thing, everyone wants to deny the Bible but it's historical statements of history are correct.

 

There is no evidence for Exodus.

While landmarks and places may have a connection to real places, who is to say if events are recorded accurately?

 

Spidergoat makes a good point:

I've read "The Stand" by Stephen King and his descriptions of landmarks are accurate. This does not mean it is a true account.

The Bible was written by people who lived in that region of the world that is supposedly records. Of course some things may end up being accurate. That is not to say it is any less of a story than "The Stand".

 

The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt. Figuring in women and children this would be at least somewhere around 1.5 million Israelites.
This is a problem because archaeologists can’t find their camps. Huge groups of people would have left behind large amounts of campfire remains, broken pottery, etc…
The Exodus story was likely fabricated as part of a grand explanation of Israelite origins. The story starts with the Israelites arising from the sophisticated Egyptian culture, escaping slavery, and triumphantly conquering the land of Canaan. In reality, archaeology shows that the Israelites simply arose out of the lowly Canaanite culture over a long period of time.
http://www.goatstar.org/did-the-exodus-really-happen/

 

No campfires proves it didn't happen?

And where is your evidence that the Jews "arose" out of the Canaanite culture?

 

No accountings of history are history's actualities.

They're just competing after-the-fact accountings.

Is that not demonstration enough?

 

So... like coral?

I'm not sure I see where Ice was going with this. It is my understanding that groups of specialized single cell organisms is the basis for evolution to higher life forms. Not exactly supporting biblical theory.

Ice, the time and effort would be wasted. I've looked back at some of your other posts and noticed a trend. You ignore evidence shown to you as well as make claims without evidence. As far as noah goes, the idea is so patently ridiculous that I'm surprised anyone would need it disproved for them. Besides the obvious problems of fitting all of those animals on a single vessel, feeding, waste management and whatnot, there was no flood. So the whole boat thing is moot.

Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

More info can be found here

So, now that I have most likely wasted my time, feel free to ignore this evidence and rebut with a statement without evidence. Perhaps a quote from the bible would help? (Geez I'm a sucker, I just couldn't leave it alone could I?)

 

Look up a geologic cross section, there is your Deluge evidence, vast sedimentary layers, usually stacked conformably, grading into each other, with billions of creatures entombed therein (99% of which are marine creatures).

And read Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, it will get you up to speed.

 

He just gave you the proof there was NO deluge. The undisturbed icesheet of greenland.

I'm quite sure there are local sedimentary layers as you implied. The idea was however that the flood is not local, but universal. Positive proof of a flood locally doesn't proof Noah.

Local absence of a flood does disprove Noah's story.

Welcome to the world of logic.

Obviously you are going to ignore this again.

 

The Ice Age occurred after the Deluge, because of the then warmer ocean waters.

The "annual" ice layers are not necessarily such, increased snowfall and ash falls don't necessarily occur annual, particularly not during the Ice Age, with the much warmer ocean waters which allowed the mammoths to live near the shoreline in the Arctic then. Now it's too cold there.

 

I see you have been reading your fairytale book.

As bubber has mentioned ice cores from greenland date back as far as 40,000 years, the ice sheet itself being as much as 110,000 years old.

Are you claiming Noah lived before that?

 

The Ice Age, according to mainstream dogma, was over a million years long, so where's the 900,000 years of "annual" ice layers?

And do you really think that the integrity of "annual" layers would be maintained after being pressed down by thousands of vertical feet of ice?

 

You are avoiding the pertinent question again.

 

in jesus' time, nazareth did not exist.

fault enough, right there.

 

According to you, Devil, when did Nazareth come into existence?

 

not according to me, according to historical fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

the name "jesus of nazareth" actually should have been "jesus the nazorean" nazorean meaning "little fish", the name given to the local essenes....a group that jesus' teachings coincide directly with, in relation to their break from judaic doctrine.

do your research before spouting off, please.