Old Testiment and history

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Greyd
Again, people who haven't really studied Biblical archaeology/history shouldn't say too much about its reliability when it comes to its historical accuracy. From the little I've studied, the Bible has never been shown to be wrong when it comes to historical integrity. In actuality, the Old Testament has shown to be extremely accurate historically. There were people, names and places, that were never mentioned in secular sources, later to have been found existing after archaelogical excavation.

For example, critics attacked the Bible, because the ruler Belshazzar never existed in secular records only in the Bible. Arcaheological excavation found an inscription in UR which confrimed his existence.

In the mid 1900's, a internationally known and famous Hebrew rabbi/scholar, Dr. Nelson Glueck, used the Bible to discover something close to 2000 arachaelogical discoveries. All of which had never been found prior. (e.g. arachaelogical remains of King Solomon's reign,etc)

It is the rare occassion that you find competent, recognized secular scholars that disagree with Biblical accuracy when it comes to history.

Again the majority of my reading and studies has been little to date - but enough to see an overwhelming pattern to the positive affirmation of the accuracy and reliability of Biblical history.

please tell me how accurate completely flooding the earth and one man with an ark with all the animals on it can be anything other than a fairy tale. maybe you should read a little more of it, then tell me how you feel about great things in the old testament like:

Dt 13:6-8
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.' 'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.' 'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

or who can forget:

Dt 21:22
'If a man who commits a sin worthy of death is put to death, and you hang him from a tree...' '...his body must not remain on the tree overnight.' 'You must bury him on the same day, for a hanged man is accursed of God.'

or a favorite of mine:

Dt 23:1
'A man whose testicles have been crushed...' '...or whose penis has been cut off...' '...must not be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.'

1) Just because its improbable - doesn't mean its impossible. There are many archaeological evidences of a great flood that occurred in antiquity.

2) 2-3 (see above statements concerning Love and Holiness of God) In addtion to understanding the statements in those previous posts, you must assume one thing. Assume God is the real and only God. Assume that living for or worshipping anything besides Him means eternal suffering and death. (Holy standard of God) Now you know why God was so particular about not worhsipping other things. Incidently, the verse about the tree that you quote is also seen as a reference to Jesus Christ on the Cross (tree) - but thats a WHOLE nother can of worms.

3) The testicles/penis,etc had symbolic importance in that culture. To have it missing meant that a man was imperfect. Many of these ceremonial laws and traditions had the purpose of reminding people or something. (they had a purpose they were not just random ceremonies) In this case and in the following verses the point was that God was perfect, to be revered and nothing considered imperfect in a sense was to be brought in - cause doing so would be disrespectful to God. (somewhat similar to the tradition of standing when a judge enters a courtroom)

Remember...when facing these issues...to be 100% correct, one would have to know 100% of the facts,etc. I do not claim to know even close to that. However, those who don't believe in the Bible and Christianity can't assert this claim either. Therefore, when faced with the evidence (or lack thereof) one can make one of two choices 1) Take a step of Faith and believe or 2) Take a step of Faith and DON'T believe. But we need to AT LEAST look and pursue the knowledge and evidence thereof. Which I am trying to do throughout my life. :beer:

 

[StageLeft]

I have no clue about the old testament, but the new is very historically accurate - at least as accurate as other sources from the time. As greyd was saying about the old, the new has also cross-reference support from various sources. And, in cases where something just seems totally wrong (like a person being such and such a place), and many historians deny it as a real possibility, often such claims have in fact been proven as factual later on. There are plenty of well educated individuals with ample credentials in their field who believe in the bible, often times as a result of having begun their studies trying to "once and for all" refute it, and they are ultimately surprised at how difficult/impossible that is.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Alot of the contradictions I have read about are misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of the culture, literary style of writing,etc. There are some though that I have no idea what it is about.

I was quoting Ned Flanders.

Got me. Hahaha...thought it sounded familiar...but the tone of the thread was serious so.....

Who are you to bring humor into a religious debate??? :|:beer:

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Alot of the contradictions I have read about are misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of the culture, literary style of writing,etc. There are some though that I have no idea what it is about.

I was quoting Ned Flanders.

Got me. Hahaha...thought it sounded familiar...but the tone of the thread was serious so.....

Who are you to bring humor into a religious debate??? :|:beer:

Bringing humor into a religious debate? Isn't that redundant?

 

[Attrox]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused
That the bible has factual and proven hitorical events as a background for it's central story makes it no more a true story than the movie Forrest Gump.

I agree with the first part of your statement. Rarely is the Bible attacked on grounds of proof of the facts concerning historical events, places and people. In actuality, history and archaeology has shown that the Bible is one of the best documents out there.

Now, what you wanna do with that assertion/evidence is up to you. In the end, its a matter of Faith.

Why only the first part? Forrest Gump is historically accurate too in it's retelling of the background events for the central story. In 2000 years someone could make the assertion that the entire story is true based on that and be doing the very same thing people do with the bible.

Because, the amount of evidence that points to Forrest Gump as being fiction is overwhelming. This is not the case with the Bbile and its message. The more you study the Bible and its accuracy, you begin to see a uniformity in its message and support in the evidence. This has reminaed constant in the last several thousand years.

Are there any evidence that the old testiment documents actually exist and they actually existed in the correct timeline (ie: old testiment existed before the new testiment)? If so then people should not simply dismissed Bible as a mere fiction without looking more into it, especially given that some of the old testiment scriptures foretold what happened in the new testiment (ie: birth, death and ressurection of Christ).

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Alot of the contradictions I have read about are misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of the culture, literary style of writing,etc. There are some though that I have no idea what it is about.

I was quoting Ned Flanders.

Got me. Hahaha...thought it sounded familiar...but the tone of the thread was serious so.....

Who are you to bring humor into a religious debate??? :|:beer:

Bringing humor into a religious debate? Isn't that redundant?

Only when the nomex suits come out

 

[plastick]

*GASP* 55 posts!

All I wanted was some accurate info reguarding the history of Egypt compared to the Bible.

:beer: To the guy who quoted Ned Flanders! LOL!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: plastick
*GASP* 55 posts!

All I wanted was some accurate info reguarding the history of Egypt compared to the Bible.

:beer: To the guy who quoted Ned Flanders! LOL!

Hens love Roosters, Geese love Ganders, Everyone else loves Ned Flanders!

 

[zener]

1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.

 

[zener]

Totally forgot to address the Egypt thing. If you study the dates and pharoahs, you will find that the story of Moses is placed in the wrong time, but is loosely woven with actual natural events. The story was fabricated to possibly hide the truth and was not intended to be taken literally. I beleive that the same rabbi speaks to this as well. Also my brother is an amateur Egyptologist and has studied their history enough to put a lot of bullet holes in the Biblical story. It just does not fit into any time frame nor fits with the events. HOwever, the natural events described happend but not in the manner described. The events were meant to be allegorical which seems to be quite a lot of the type of literary type used. I do not know a lot as I would like but I know enough to determine that one needs to be extremely doubtful of bible authors and their initial bias. Truth matters more to me than blind faith.

 

[IEC]

History is written to favor the writer. So I would see why such devastating plagues wouldn't be mentioned by Egyptian historians.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Let's be rasonable. Maybe there is a god as suggested in the bible, but even if there is the stories of the bible are completely untrue. Perhaps based on certain actual events or people, but false for the most part.

First of all nearly the entire old testament can be traced back to Babylonian, Egyptian, and Sumerian cultural starts.

Let's look at noah and the flood: (borrowed from another site)

Noah's Ark
There is a tall tale in the Old Testament about Noah collecting two of every species, and keeping them on an ark during a flood. Do you have any idea how many millions of species there are?
Not even all the biologists of all time working full time have even begun to collect them all. Yet Noah supposedly collected all manner of insects, fresh water fish, South American tree frogs, Australian kangaroos, not to mention white and black rhinoceri from thousands of miles away.

One estimate is 6 million land species, another 30 million. The book An Inordinate Fondness For Beetles estimates there are between 350,000 and 8 million species of beetles alone. That does not even count the fish that would be killed by the salinity changes and temperature changes induced by the flood. If you have ever kept marine or fresh water fishes, you know how sensitive each species is to temperature, pH and salinity. A biologist friend of mine said it would take at least an hour to collect a pair of each species. That does not even count the time to prepare food and a suitable artificial habitat. Presuming the lower estimate, the collecting would take 6 million man hours. If Noah worked 24 hours a day, it would take 684 years to collect the species. By the time he had them all collected most would have died. Let's assume Noah had 1000 unmentioned helpers and they got the job done in a year.

Even if we assume God magically transported all the animals to the ark site, complete with a living supply of whatever food they needed, plumbing more advanced than any existing zoo to deal with the immense volumes of waste, and the electricity and advanced technology to keep them at the right temperature, pH, salinity etc., How could they possibly fit inside such a tiny ark? Just how much space would there be for each animal?

According to Genesis 6:14 the ark could fit in a giant box 300 × 50 × 30 cubits. A modern cubit is 18 inches or 45.72 cm or 0.4572 meters, that gives a volume of (300 × 0.4572) × (50 x 0.4572) × (30 × 0.4572) = 43,006 cubic meters.

[The largest wooden ship ever was the Great Republic built in 1853. It was 334 feet long, 53 feet wide, and 39 feet deep. It would fit in a box of only (334 * 0.348) * (53 * 0.348) * (39 * 0.348) = 29,095 cubic meters. Any larger ships had to be made of steel. Noah supposedly funded and built by far the biggest wooden ship of all time supposedly all on his own, with primitive hand tools, all after the advanced age of 500 years. Uh huh.]

On average, how much room then does each animal get for itself and its food and water for the for the year long voyage? Presuming the low estimate of 6 million species: 43,000 ÷ (6,000,000 * 2) = 0.0036 of a cubic meter, or a box about 15 cm or 6 inches on a side. That would be rather cramped. Perhaps what Noah really did was collect DNA samples for God to somehow revive. Perhaps God miniaturised all the animals and put them in suspended animation for a year so they would not need any food or water. How come Genesis does not explain this?

Consider the problem of dealing simply with the koala. Somebody had to sail all the way to Australia to collect a pair. Koalas only eat live eucalyptus leaves. Because eucalyptus are such a low grade food source, koalas need a lot of them. So Noah also had to bring back a small forest of eucalyptus trees and find room for them on the ark in that 0.0036 cubic meter allotted them. He had to go to North America, South America and Antarctica, even though no one at the time even knew of these places.


Or just visit this site for more analysis: debunking the myth

I actually do believe in a higher power, but I'm aware that the bible is, in any literal sense, utter nonesense and fairy tales.

 

[DAGTA]

The flood and Noah is one story I had a very hard time believing when I first started reading The Old Testament and studying Christianity.

Now, we don't have the ark today, but there are many documented stories, as recently as the last 50 years, of people claiming to have either seen the ark or found pieces of it way up near the top of Mount Ararat.

Many of these accounts are from soldiers passing through the mountains during war times, such as World War I.

-DAGTA

 

[DAGTA]

Excerpts from Babylon Rising: The Secret on Ararat

The Samaritan Pentateuch - 5th century B.C.
-- Talks about the landing place of the ark.

Targums - 5th century B.C.
-- Talks about location of the ark.

Berossus - 275 B.C.
-- A Chaldean priest: "It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in Armenia ... and that persons carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they use as talismans."

Nicholas of Damascus - 30 B.C.
-- "Relics of the timbers were long preserved."

Josephus - A.D. 75
-- "Remains which to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them."

Theophilus of Antioch - A.D. 180
-- "And of the ark, the remains are to this day seen in the Arabian mountain."

Eusebius - A.D. 3rd century
-- "A small part of the ark still remained in the Gordian Mountains."

Epiphanius - A.D. 4th century
-- "The remains are still shown and if one looks diligently he can still find the altar of Noah."

Isidore of Seville - A.D. 6th century
-- "So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen."

Al-Masudi - A.D. 10th century
-- "The place can still be seen."

Ibn Haukal - A.D. 10th century
-- "Noah built a village there at the foot of the mountain."

Benjamin of Tudela - A.D. 12th century
-- "Omar Ben Ac Khatab removed parts of the ark from the summit and made a mosque of it."

James Bryce - 1876
-- "Mounting steadily along the same ridge, I saw at the height of over thirteen thousand feet, lying on the loose rocks, a piece of wood about four feet long and five inches thick, evidently cut by some tool, and so far above the limit of trees that it could by no possibility be a natural fragment of one..."

Fernand Navarra - 1952
-- He claims to have found a large part of the ark in the ice and retrieved pieces. His story and evidence are 'suspect', though. Google will find stuff about him readily.

The book also goes into calculations of the size of the ark, the number of animals, and the size of space needed for all the animals. The numbers do work, straight out of the Old Testament.

The last parts: How Noah got all the animals and how the earth was flooded... those take faith to believe.

-DAGTA

 

[Inside me]

Originally posted by: Arkitech


Does anyone else find this disturbing? A God of love kills every first born in an entire country, something is very wrong with that account. Same applies to the account about Noah and the ark except for in that situation every human on the planet with the exception of Noah his family were killed. Then you have Job, Satan convinced God that he could make Job break his faith. In the end God allowed Satan to kill all of Job's children (I think he had 10 kids).


I was raised in a christian household so I'm very familiar with the bible, yet it makes no sense to me why a supposed God of love would cause or allow events like that to take place.

Anyone else every think about stuff like that?

It is made very clear in the Old Testament that if you didn't do as God told, you would be punished. If that meant being struck down by lightning then so be it. In the New Testament God is not vengeful at all. He understands the flaws of humans and gives them more freedome in choosing his way or Satans way.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: zener
Totally forgot to address the Egypt thing. If you study the dates and pharoahs, you will find that the story of Moses is placed in the wrong time, but is loosely woven with actual natural events. The story was fabricated to possibly hide the truth and was not intended to be taken literally. I beleive that the same rabbi speaks to this as well. Also my brother is an amateur Egyptologist and has studied their history enough to put a lot of bullet holes in the Biblical story. It just does not fit into any time frame nor fits with the events. HOwever, the natural events described happend but not in the manner described. The events were meant to be allegorical which seems to be quite a lot of the type of literary type used. I do not know a lot as I would like but I know enough to determine that one needs to be extremely doubtful of bible authors and their initial bias. Truth matters more to me than blind faith.

Actually, more and more historians are arguing not so much about the actual existence of Moses, rather the question exists of exactly WHEN and during what reign he existed. Rather that seems to be what the consensus is leaning towards. Of course, there still needs to be much more excavation to determine exactly what happens - but everything seems to point in that direction.

The following excerpts are from a program that the BBC did on Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt.

Hebrews in Egypt: Text

Interview with David Rohl (egyptologist): Text

Interesting point concerning the name "Moses" pointing towards verification of existence of Moses in Egypt.
Text

If you read alot of these articles , especially from this section
evidence

- there is much evidence that supports the historical existence of Moses. It seems that there is enough that even the secular scholars in this program tend to argue time not so much existence.

Faith need not always be blind. And I find that skepticism suffers from blindness as much as faith does.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.

1) The Bible is not one or the other as it is a combination thereof. Books of the bible had varying purposes as in terms of literary style and function. Some were historical accounts, some sections were words of wisdom (e.g. Proverbs),etc. Again, I emphasize the fact that hostoricity of the Bible has become more and more proven as archaeology grows.

2) I think that your reference to biblical inerrancy is misunderstood. There may be a translation in which the sacrificial ceremony was distorted, but there are a greater number of other documents that include it.

3) There is very little evidence that Buddhist philosophy was widespread and accepted. Where is your evidence. To believe a jewish society that was so rigid upon their morals would welcomingly include foreign philosophies and teachings is absurd. The majority of what Jesus and Paul speak of is reflected in the Old Testament theology and doctrine - it was not just "made up at the time." In addition, there are some truths that tend to be universal. To find them widespread among cultures is not suprising.

5) I am glad that you are questioning. You need to know why you believe in something. That is something I try to do with my own faith. But be careful that on your quest for your personal truth that you don't compromise integrity. Seek truth not skepticism.

 

[TuxDave]

I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.

 

[spunkz]

i love how having an open mind means you can believe in everything except Christ.
its like people who preach tolerance of all religions depite the fact that most religions say their way is the only way.
or people who are all for saving the animals and loving all creatures but are pro-abortion.
its not true for you, but its true for me!

grrr....hypocrites bug me.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.

The lord works in mysterious ways...

 

[0roo0roo]

well its proof god condones aborting even newborns lol

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused
That the bible has factual and proven historical events as a background for it's central story makes it no more a true story than the movie Forrest Gump.

i would have taken the exact opposite stance.

historical accuracy is not the point when the intended message is spiritual and not historical.

historical accuracy is not proof of its spiritual accuracy/truth and vice versa.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

show me any document, story or written work with NO contradictions and i'll show you a work of fiction.

truth can seem contradictory, history can seem contradictory because often we don't have the complete picture.

contradictions in a story or written work is not proof either of it's truth or falsehood.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Would it help if I told you that the 'great "Earth" flood' only happened in the Mediterrarean\Black Sea? That is a little easiar to swallow. Like I said, most facts are exaggerated to gain the attention of the reader and to make the big man in te sky seem more powerful.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

show me any document, story or written work with NO contradictions and i'll show you a work of fiction.

truth can seem contradictory, history can seem contradictory because often we don't have the complete picture.

contradictions in a story or written work is not proof either of it's truth or falsehood.

Allow me to point your attention here

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

I was quoting Ned Flanders.