Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

[RamboPreacher]

If you are so easily frightened maybe you should not venture so far from home. The internet is a kind of "free-for-all" and your mother cannot monitor everyone that comes into contact with you.

falasha:
I am not at all frightened. I am turned off by the ridiculous nature of most of the posts. There is no intelligent discussion here. For the most part, it is only a pooling of ignorance. The Biblical Archaeology Society will be embarassed by most of what is happening here, I am sure of that!

DThomas
[/quote]I understand and have added to some of that myself, unfortunatley.  How about you get us off to a better run.  what say ye?  do you have something intelligent to add; perhaps another thread that isn't so "cluttered", maybe you could start a new thread or two?

[falasha]

falasha:
I am not at all frightened. I am turned off by the ridiculous nature of most of the posts. There is no intelligent discussion here. For the most part, it is only a pooling of ignorance. The Biblical Archaeology Society will be embarassed by most of what is happening here, I am sure of that!

DThomas
[/quote]

BAS probably considered the ramifications of allowing us riff-raff into this forum before it was launched. If they are brave enough to risk it, you should be too.  I am still waiting for something original from your superior intellect.

[eliyahu hanavi]

My answer to the original question...

Support the Bible? No.

Confirm and strengthen one's faith in the validity of the Word? Yes.

I remember quite a few years ago when I was atheist (agnostic at best) and I sought to demonstrate how the chronology given in Kings and Chronicles was incorrect. After a few years of extensive research and working the numbers, I realized that I could fully reconcile (harmonize if you prefer) the chronological texts and I just used a few key astronomical dates and generally accepted dates for other events. After I was done and as I conducted further research, I found other archaeological finds that just fell right into the chronological period that I had written on paper.

Examples were...

The Moabite Stone

Assyrian Annals (referencing such names as Jehu, Menahem, Pekah, Ahaz, Jehoahaz, Ahab, Hosea, Hezekiah, Azariah, Rezin, Hazael, Hadadezer, etc.)

An inscription that mentioned Bar(Ben)Hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion.

A host of other archaeological finds that merely reinforce certain factual information presented in the Bible. When these finds are pooled together into a the larger picture of comparative history, then they tend to follow what the Bible has already informed us of for the past 3,000 years or so. Archaeology is fantastic! Cheers!

[archaeologist]

Support the Bible? No.

Confirm and strengthen one's faith in the validity of the Word? Yes.

is not finding cities, references to people,  and other events not only confirming but proving the Bible as true?

finding the words 'house of david' is more than confirming as it shows the Bible was correct.

finding namesof abraham , issac and jacob in use at the time of the patriarchs does more than confirm one's faith, it means the Bible used the right names at the right time which means the Bible is correct and being correct means being proven true which in turn strengthens the confidence of a person and their faith in the other parts of the Bible we cannot prove true via any human means and outside of faith.

[Elijah]

If I take a sincere look at what is available in books, what is the common view of history, what is taught and what is not, what is the emotional reasons for what they accept and not.... i have never seen any book picked apart more than the Bible.
If this is true, that a special attack is made on the Bible, then
it has nothing to do with archeology nor history nor chornology at all,
but rather it demonstrates a true fact that exists no matter what
family or book or nation or religion. People get offensive at controls,
and so in return attack, whatever they leave whether it be family, or nation, or religion, they then rip it all apart as if its evil and lies and untruth.

The writing in the Bible is not the only victim in this human behavior. Nor is Catholicism the only victim of attack (in return for those who felt attacked by it). In short, we are a last generation that has looked at all things as if nothing is true until we prove it, or until someone proves it, of which we can say they havent.

One of the most outstanding examples I dislike is the example of those claiming Daniels 70 weeks counts to Macabees, and then those who say it counts to Jesus baptized in 27 AD and then those who say it counts to his being baptized in 29 AD and on and on, making history fit not Daniel, not the Bible, but THEIR faith in their OWN chronology whether they be a school or a religion.

In chronology and archeology it is so easy to beleive what you wish to see. And even when you arent being biased (or you dont see that you are so),
there is always those claiming you are biased and wrong just to sink you down and raise themselves up. The real winning is to be right with God... excuse me, people think that means good in God's eyes; no i mean literally correct or right with the truth, the reality. And each person stands by himself on this, because even those who clan together pretend to believe the same and they dont.

I have read articles that say BEHOLD add this and that and the Flood is 10,000 BC just like the BIble says it is. Oh it does huh! But before you say Yep there are those kind who do that.... does it matter then if we look at ourselves and we say it was 21 years before they say, and 2 years before those say. Any miss might as well be a mile. I am not knocking this forum for educating others, and yet it is quite clear you must choose between the different beleifs presented. Gee now we have an asteroid knocking over the cities of Sodom onm its way to France and this is calculated as 3125 BC. what ever happened to Abram getting his nephew Lot out of Sodom that year. That's media hipe to present views that grab one incidence and ignore the record on the rest of it. Must be nice to make money on that, but Jesus cured the woman for her health and sanity was more important than the spirit speaking psychic predictions from her mouth that people paid her owner for.
My faith was tested in this same ethics of where the value is. Reading James Ussher in Latin was more important than leaving its pages uncut, so i cut them for the priority. Afterall, archived books arent suppose to be shipped out for public interlibrary loan use, so i regarded it as an act of God for me to be blessed to see those pages that i cut open to see.

[eliyahu hanavi]

is not finding cities, references to people,  and other events not only confirming but proving the Bible as true?

That is redundant. I said precisely that. The term "confirm" is a transitive verb that means to prove something to be true or to establish the validity of a thing. To me, it means much more than just support as one (or a thing) can support another without confirming it. Cheers!

[Elijah]

i disagree, mainly because what is regarded as confirmation by one may not be by another, so confirm doesnt seem to imply truth as much as it does SECOND OPINION.  IN fact that sounds about right. I call the store to confirm whether the first phone call did find what i want on the shelf, the confirmation or second opinion says yes it is, and then i get to the store in 5 minutes and none there, yeh right tell me they sold out. So  much for confirmation being anything more than one more incompetent opinion. I have found fault with Moses too, in geometry any three points will establish a specific plane, but i find that any three points to establish a legal system should be nonsentient and nonsapient... you can find three facts to prove something and trust it more than trusting three people what they heard or what they see or what they say.

[RamboPreacher]

is not finding cities, references to people,  and other events not only confirming but proving the Bible as true?

That is redundant. I said precisely that. The term "confirm" is a transitive verb that means to prove something to be true or to establish the validity of a thing. To me, it means much more than just support as one (or a thing) can support another without confirming it. Cheers!

excellent - thank you.  This is how I fell as well.

[eliyahu hanavi]

i disagree, mainly because what is regarded as confirmation by one may not be by another, so confirm doesnt seem to imply truth as much as it does SECOND OPINION.  IN fact that sounds about right. I call the store to confirm whether the first phone call did find what i want on the shelf, the confirmation or second opinion says yes it is, and then i get to the store in 5 minutes and none there, yeh right tell me they sold out. So  much for confirmation being anything more than one more incompetent opinion. I have found fault with Moses too, in geometry any three points will establish a specific plane, but i find that any three points to establish a legal system should be nonsentient and nonsapient... you can find three facts to prove something and trust it more than trusting three people what they heard or what they see or what they say.

Then you did not "confirm" anything. If one has an issue with the definitions of "support" vs. "confirm", then take that up with Webster. One's perception of truth may be subjective, but confirmation is not. Evidence will not confirm more than one truth whereas man's interpretation of the evidence may mislead. The term "support" only has the connotation of upholding or backing an idea or thing such that one can support or back the idea that the likes of David Koresh was the Messiah or that a spaceship inside a comet will come and take people away but only if you drink poison first.

To wit, I can confirm that a person holds a second opinion (such as you described), but I cannot confirm that the second opinion is truth without other evidence. It is all in degrees.

@RP

It is all a matter of understanding which term by definition conveys more. Do both terms convey the upholding of an idea and/or thing? Yes. However, both don't convey veracity. Cheers!

[Elijah]

i dont see how evidence cant confirm more than one truth. If you eat a strawberry, its not just your sugar and protein and vitamin C, the one act of eating it does many confirmations of many life giving truths at the same time, including that you died from the DDT on it. Each one has his own Messiah, i had a messiah that taught me geometry that no other teacher could of as he did. If God took them inside a comet, better life to them. If not, it was there mistake; people at any age and every age sooner or later learn or die. Their neglect is not my neglect. And each opinion varies as to what is being neglected.

[EZWRITER]

Yes, the Bible has many good texts that archaeology has brought to light.

[Elijah]

that comment is quite empty since it brings to mind those who say yes archeology proves there was a Flood, it was local in Ur. And yes the Red Sea did part, archeology proved it was a tide in the red sea, a Mediteranean tsumnami in Goshen, yes it was the swamp of reeds, yes we found it in aqaba, no here in suez, but see see see it proves the  bible is right it did happen. Sorry but you cant say the bible proved one event happened 5 different ways in 5 different years. Culturally  i would say our level of knowledge holds up like a jelly fish out of water.

[Irishman]

As far as taking the Bible literally, I think that, if pressed, even the most devout biblical literalists would have to admit that every word in the Bible is not literally true.

For example, even though Jesus may have thematically or symbolically played the role of sacrificial lamb during the crucifixion, noone really believes he changed shape and became a lamb while nailed to the cross.

[Elijah]

Understood, that's why when my Wsiconsin water has been turning red on the porcelain toilet in 3 residencies over the past 20 years, i think of the red Nile plague. If the Douglas Bible dictionary is not true about natural succession of plagues because we must as WatchTower says insist it was actual human blood (cows blood), which type A? B? O? then will our moon turn into a sphere of blood as prophecy describes?

I have a great book that slams the spaceship and world collision theories by pointing out that metaphor exists. Venus meeting Mars in the sky doesnt mean they collided. And Freddy of My Fair Lady isnt on a coveyor belt when he says the pavement slips beneath his feet.
Few people reaize the court of Jesus likewise includes this, they claimed he was going to destroy the temple in 3 days.