Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2016, 08:00 AM
Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Here is my question-

There is a ton of archaeological evidence of early texts and manuscripts and most are accurate in representing history as we know from sources outside the bible.

This is a point that is theists aften bring up as their "ace in the hole" when arguing with a supposed man of science.

While I understand there isn't any evidence for a lot of the things that happened in the bible, the absence of evidence cannot be considered as the evidence of absence.

It definitely seems odd that somebody would write anything that has just enough truth to be historically accurate but everything else as a sick prank just to f*** with future generations.

What were the motivations of the writer/author of these texts and manuscripts?

As an atheist you must have "your side of the story" to justify your beliefs...

I am not saying that since some of it is true, all of it must be..
I am just trying to understand why any of it is true.

The texts regarding the Judeo-Christian God span over centuries! Which probably means that belief in our version of God can be dated to atleast 200BC (according to the dead sea scrolls).

Also, its very hard to find atheists talking about archaeological findings meanwhile creation is brought up every two seconds..

I am not pointing fingers, I just think religion completely turns even the sanest of men into prejudiced extremists..(exaggeration gets the point across :P)

As I said earlier, is there any evidence of absence??

Also a man named Jesus existed and lived in Galilee is a fact, right!??( I am actually asking!)
If so, then he would have done something to grab so many people's attention, enough so to make them write absurd things about him, even going so far as to proclaim him as the saviour of Jews..

If you are an atheist and believe that Jesus as a human being walked this earth, what are your opinions on all this?

I am not trying to start a war, even though I am legally Christian, I am not really religious. Now, I believe the time has come for me to choose for myself what I want to do.
All your comments will help me make a choice.I really hope to have a civilized conversation about these things with you folks..
Thank You.

TL:DR;
Can you refute Christianity from an archeological point of view?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Hello there! Welcome to the forum, and thank you for presenting a post with cogent questions and comments. Sadly, this has been an issue lately with Christian posters. I am a Jewish theist, and I have had no problem having lively discussions and debates with the members here. You will encounter people who disagree with your viewpoint, but if you write intelligently worded posts and treat everyone with respect, we will treat you the same.

A few points of clarification to your post.

Only one group of people recognizes the “Judeo-Christian” god. Jews do not recognize any of the traits or characteristics that Christians have attempted to superimpose on their G-d. I make that point because when Christians use the term “Judeo-Christian” it lumps a group of people in with them who really don’t want to be associated.

Jews are not, were not, and have never been looking for a savior as defined by Christianity. This theology goes completely against Jewish teachings, and with careful study of the original texts in their original language, it becomes clear that early Christians took many liberties in interpreting their “old testament” which was in itself, a translation of a translation. What Jews are looking for is a messiah, who is to be a regular human who will live a regular human life, and who will usher in a very normal and not super-natural messianic era of human enlightenment. Sure, the Jews were looking for a messiah at the time that Jesus was claimed to have lived, but Jesus did not meet the qualifications of the Jewish messiah in any significant way. (No, there is no reliable evidence that Jesus was a real person at all.)

I am on my way out the door for the day, but I’d love to address the actual question in your post, “Can you refute Christianity from an archaeological point of view?”. I’ll let the atheists take a crack at refuting Jesus from an archaeological standpoint, and then when I have a good chunk of time, I’ll take a crack at refuting Christianity from a Jewish perspective.

Again, welcome to the forum. I'm looking forward to having some interesting conversations with you. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Aliza's post
28-10-2016, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2016 08:42 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Can you refute Christianity from an archeological point of view?

Doubt it very much, any person can write any character into any real place. But we cannot see what is not there, different people see different things and/or record them in different ways. One place can look like another. Errors get perpetuated from one "historian" to another. Mistranslations are made.

And so on.

Dating of carved symhols can be achieved, mostly and we kkno certain buildings. But assuming a place is the same because it, sort of, matches a decription in a 1000+ year old text? Hmm Dodgy

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2016, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2016 09:33 AM by jennybee.)
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
There are archaeological findings that have been at odds with the Bible's accounts for things--camel domestication, circumcision practices (The Egyptians were doing this way before the Jews), the wall at Jericho, etc. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein is a really great book, if you are interested in learning more about this type of thing.

All that said, there are many things written in the Bible that reflect the lives of the people at that time. The Bible is actually a rich account of literature, culture, society, law (of the time) and history. As such, it's not surprising that accounts of these people (I'm talking about people, places, things, not the magic parts) would line up with *some* archaeological findings. It's certainly not evidence of a magical deity. It is evidence of myth and storytelling, something common to other cultures and societies across the globe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like jennybee's post
28-10-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(28-10-2016 08:45 AM)jennybee Wrote:  There are several archaeological findings that have been at odds with the Bible's accounts for things--camel domestication, circumcision practices (The Egyptians were doing this way before the Jews), the wall at Jericho, etc. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein is a really great book, if you are interested in learning more about this type of thing.

All that said, there are many things written in the Bible that reflect the lives of the people at that time. The Bible is actually a rich account of literature, culture, society, law (of the time) and history. As such, it's not surprising that accounts of these people (I'm talking about people, places, things, not the magic parts) would line up with *some* archaeological findings. It certainly not evidence of a magical deity. It is evidence of myth and storytelling, something common to other cultures and societies across the globe.

Wish Heinlein had based a book on it!

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2016, 08:56 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2016 10:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Here is my question-

There is a ton of archaeological evidence of early texts and manuscripts and most are accurate in representing history as we know from sources outside the bible.

This is a point that is theists aften bring up as their "ace in the hole" when arguing with a supposed man of science.

While I understand there isn't any evidence for a lot of the things that happened in the bible, the absence of evidence cannot be considered as the evidence of absence.

It definitely seems odd that somebody would write anything that has just enough truth to be historically accurate but everything else as a sick prank just to f*** with future generations.

What were the motivations of the writer/author of these texts and manuscripts?

As an atheist you must have "your side of the story" to justify your beliefs...

I am not saying that since some of it is true, all of it must be..
I am just trying to understand why any of it is true.

The texts regarding the Judeo-Christian God span over centuries! Which probably means that belief in our version of God can be dated to atleast 200BC (according to the dead sea scrolls).

Also, its very hard to find atheists talking about archaeological findings meanwhile creation is brought up every two seconds..

I am not pointing fingers, I just think religion completely turns even the sanest of men into prejudiced extremists..(exaggeration gets the point across Tongue)

As I said earlier, is there any evidence of absence??

Also a man named Jesus existed and lived in Galilee is a fact, right!??( I am actually asking!)
If so, then he would have done something to grab so many people's attention, enough so to make them write absurd things about him, even going so far as to proclaim him as the saviour of Jews..

If you are an atheist and believe that Jesus as a human being walked this earth, what are your opinions on all this?

I am not trying to start a war, even though I am legally Christian, I am not really religious. Now, I believe the time has come for me to choose for myself what I want to do.
All your comments will help me make a choice.I really hope to have a civilized conversation about these things with you folks..
Thank You.

TLBig GrinR;
Can you refute Christianity from an archeological point of view?

Yes. Entirely.
1. The essence of Christianity bears NO relationship to it's (supposed) cultural origins. (A long complex subject, but "salvation" is entirely "non-Biblical").
2. There is no evidence that Jesus actually existed, and many reasons to think he didn't. (See the many works of Richard Carrier and others ... we can never know for sure).
3. The archaeology IN NO WAY supports the OT. (See below)
4. As far as "why would they write things to fuck with future generations" goes :
----- a. the priests who cooked up the texts were writing FOR THEIR OWN TIMES, in a form of literature that was not "historical". The Hebrews had no concept of "history" as we do. In fact they didn't even have a "word" for it, that means what we think of as "history".
------b. The scrolls that were eventually (non-unanimously VOTED) into the Biblical canon contain all kinds and forms of ancient Near Eastern literature.
"History" is not one of them.

We know where the Hebrews got Yahweh (the 40'th son of El Elyon, who the war god "the Lord of hosts", a host being an army in battle array). It wasn't the Bible. It was Babylon and Babylonian mythology. There is archeological evidence for that. We also know the Hebrews worshipped more than one god, until AFTER the Exile, (when the pressure of CULTURAL factors, having to do with the rise of the human notion of "individuality" (as opposed to the prior concept of "family identity") pushed the leaders (prophets) to insist on a form of monotheism ... an "individual" god.)

Quote:If so, then he would have done something to grab so many people's attention, enough so to make them write absurd things about him, even going so far as to proclaim him as the saviour of Jews.

Not really. There were originally many Christianities, some very different. He didn't do much to "grab" anyone's attention. If he existed, he was executed by standing order, during the Pax Romana, without a trial, for causing a ruckus in the temple. The entire notion of "savior" is a later concoction. In Acts, the disciples ask him "Wit thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel". Even THEY did not see his role as "savior", and the role of a messiah was NEVER to save anyone from sin. Christians made that up. Read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God, the *exaltation* of a Jewish preacher from Gallile". Paul fully expected the end-times in HIS own life-time, as did Jesus. When that didn't happen, they needed a reason to continue the new cult. Another thing is, the early members of the "Way" sect, (Christians) were very much still JEWS, for a long long time.
At the end of the First Century, the Jewish High Priest, demanded that the "expulsion curses" be read in the synagogues, as the (Christians) were STILL attending and causing trouble. In the year 400, St. John Chrysostom, in his Christmas sermon, (we have a copy), tells HIS congregation to stop going to the synagogue. Not such a simple picture now, was it.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid169834
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...+Testament
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...=salvation
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid159006
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid49743








Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-10-2016, 09:16 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Hello! Big Grin

I look forwards to chatting/posting with you and reading along and learning from others posts here.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Here is my question-

Hi. Welcome to the forum. Nice to meet you.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  There is a ton of archaeological evidence of early texts and manuscripts and most are accurate in representing history as we know from sources outside the bible.

Uuuuuum, no. Not even close.

Firstly, you need to be more clear. "Texts and manuscripts" regarding what? What sources outside the bible?

Secondly, you are making a claim. You need to cite sources and provide evidence to support that claim. Name some texts and manuscripts and evidence and link to your sources.

Thirdly, none of the miraculous or supernatural aspects of the bible have been proven. Most have been disproven.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  This is a point that is theists aften bring up as their "ace in the hole" when arguing with a supposed man of science.

When a theist claims to believe that a person rose from the dead and performed miracles, their understanding of science needs, MUST, be questioned.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  While I understand there isn't any evidence for a lot of the things that happened in the bible, the absence of evidence cannot be considered as the evidence of absence.

There is NO evidence to support any of the miracles or supernatural aspects of the bible. NONE.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  It definitely seems odd that somebody would write anything that has just enough truth to be historically accurate but everything else as a sick prank just to f*** with future generations.

No one here, to my knowledge, has made that claim. You are making a strawman argument.

Speaking for myself only, I consider the biblical myths to be no more accurate than the Greek myths. The Greek myths are also better written and more entertaining.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  What were the motivations of the writer/author of these texts and manuscripts?

I would recommend the books of Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and other biblical scholars, if you are really interested in those topics.

Are you aware that the books in the bible were written by different (mostly) unknown authors over hundreds of years?

Are you aware that there are multiple versions of the bible in use by different churches?

What is your opinion on the apocryphal books of the bible?

What about the forged gospels and apostolic letters?

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  As an atheist you must have "your side of the story" to justify your beliefs...

As an unbeliever, mine is the default position.

I reject any explanation or belief that relies on faith and ignores evidence.
I reject any explanation or belief that contradicts science and supports miracles.

My "side of the story" is the natural world as we see, experience and understand it.

If you have evidence of something beyond that...

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  I am not saying that since some of it is true, all of it must be..

Actually, you are saying that.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  I am just trying to understand why any of it is true.

The fact that the bible contains some accurate historical information does not validate the supernatural aspects.

We have an extensive collection of books, movies and other media, documenting the existence of Spiderman. Since this evidence contains accurate information (New York, the United States, etc. all exist) will people worship Spiderman in 2000 years?

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  The texts regarding the Judeo-Christian God span over centuries! Which probably means that belief in our version of God can be dated to atleast 200BC (according to the dead sea scrolls).

No. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish/Hebrew. They are not Christian and contain no references to Christian theology. Any claims to a Christian connection have either been proven false or remain unproven.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Also, its very hard to find atheists talking about archaeological findings meanwhile creation is brought up every two seconds..

Well when a book starts off 100% completely wrong, you tend to cast doubt on the remainder.

Also, don't generalize. Many of us here are more than willing to prove you wrong about archaeology and the bible.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  I am not pointing fingers, I just think religion completely turns even the sanest of men into prejudiced extremists..(exaggeration gets the point across Tongue)

As a matter of fact, you are pointing fingers. Doing something, then denying the fact does not erase the fact that you did the thing in the first place.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  As I said earlier, is there any evidence of absence??

Is there any evidence of presence?

Please provide evidence of that unicorns do not exist.
Please provide evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a god.
etc.
etc.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Also a man named Jesus existed and lived in Galilee is a fact, right!??( I am actually asking!)

Probably. There are entire threads dedicated to that question here. Books written also.

Question: Why would you ask that to some atheists on the internet, instead of doing the actual research yourself? Why believe us?

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  If so, then he would have done something to grab so many people's attention, enough so to make them write absurd things about him, even going so far as to proclaim him as the saviour of Jews..

So you know nothing about how religions are formed? The Roman Emperor Constantine? Saul of Tarsus?

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  If you are an atheist and believe that Jesus as a human being walked this earth, what are your opinions on all this?

My opinion is that you have not read anything about biblical history other than the bible. You need to put that down and pick up some other books.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  I am not trying to start a war, even though I am legally Christian, I am not really religious. Now, I believe the time has come for me to choose for myself what I want to do.

"Legally" a Christian?

If you are willing to base your beliefs on what a bunch of random people on the internet tell you, then you are making a very big mistake.

Verify things. Investigate for yourself. Don't take things at face value.

For example: You claimed the Dead Sea Scrolls supported Christianity. I denied that. Prove me wrong. Prove yourself right.

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  All your comments will help me make a choice.I really hope to have a civilized conversation about these things with you folks..

Will you remain civil when your views are questioned and debunked, I wonder?

(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Can you refute Christianity from an archeological point of view?

Can you prove Christianity from an archeological point of view?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-10-2016, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2016 09:34 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(28-10-2016 08:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  Here is my question-

There is a ton of archaeological evidence of early texts and manuscripts and most are accurate in representing history as we know from sources outside the bible.

This is a point that is theists aften bring up as their "ace in the hole" when arguing with a supposed man of science.

While I understand there isn't any evidence for a lot of the things that happened in the bible, the absence of evidence cannot be considered as the evidence of absence.

Spiderman takes place in New York. Raiders of the Lost Ark went to Egypt and portrayed Nazis. Fiction is commonly set in real places and references real people and events. The supernatural claims have to be able to stand on their own.

Quote:It definitely seems odd that somebody would write anything that has just enough truth to be historically accurate but everything else as a sick prank just to f*** with future generations.

What were the motivations of the writer/author of these texts and manuscripts?

The motivations were probably varied. Some may have wanted to fuck with others. Some probably believed what they wrote. Some did it for political or personal prestige.

Quote:As an atheist you must have "your side of the story" to justify your beliefs...

My "belief" is that I don't see good evidence to believe that the supernatural claims of any religion are justified. Atheism is a rejection that the claims of gods, angels, devils, etc have enough plausible evidence to be accepted.

Quote:I am not saying that since some of it is true, all of it must be..
I am just trying to understand why any of it is true.

If you were going to write a story about a god interacting with humans you would start with what you know and add the extra elements. It's not hard to understand.

Quote:The texts regarding the Judeo-Christian God span over centuries! Which probably means that belief in our version of God can be dated to atleast 200BC (according to the dead sea scrolls).

Older god stories lasted even longer before they got replaced. The popularity and length of a belief is unrelated to whether or not it is true.

Quote:Also, its very hard to find atheists talking about archaeological findings meanwhile creation is brought up every two seconds..

There's little question about archaeology. If it says a particular village existed at a particular time and can show the hard evidence to support that then it is believable. If they can show that a city was destroyed around a certain period then that too is fine.

Creation is brought up because it is a claim without any supporting evidence.

Quote:I am not pointing fingers, I just think religion completely turns even the sanest of men into prejudiced extremists..(exaggeration gets the point across Tongue)

As I said earlier, is there any evidence of absence??

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if evidence would be expected. If you tell me you own a dog but I go to your house and see no dog, no dog food, no bedding, and nothing to indicate that you do have a dog then that's reason to not believe you.

Quote:Also a man named Jesus existed and lived in Galilee is a fact, right!??( I am actually asking!)

That is a debatable question. It may not be unreasonable to believe that the stories are based on a real person but it is largely irrelevant. You can find many stories today about how David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, and many others performed miracles in front of their followers and while the people certainly existed the stories have no substance. We accept that George Washington existed based on mountains of evidence but not that the "I can not tell a lie" story about the cherry tree is true.

Each claim must stand or fall on its own. Part of a story being true is not evidence for the while thing being true just as part of it being shown false doesn't mean it all is.

Quote:If so, then he would have done something to grab so many people's attention, enough so to make them write absurd things about him, even going so far as to proclaim him as the saviour of Jews..

If you are an atheist and believe that Jesus as a human being walked this earth, what are your opinions on all this?

I lean towards him not existing but, as I said, it doesn't matter if he did. We have absurd stories about all sorts of messiah figures over the centuries. The Jesus story just won out in popularity and got boosted by political power for centuries. None of that tells me anything about how true it is.

Quote:I am not trying to start a war, even though I am legally Christian, I am not really religious. Now, I believe the time has come for me to choose for myself what I want to do.

Not sure what "legally Christian" means but civil questions are always welcome.

Quote:All your comments will help me make a choice.I really hope to have a civilized conversation about these things with you folks..
Thank You.

My choice is to refrain from believing any claims for which there is insufficient evidence. The Christian god is in the same bucket for me as bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, unicorns, and leprechauns. There are LOTS of stories and testimonies about all of them but no actual good reason to believe that the claimants are not mistaken or lying.

Quote:TLBig GrinR;
Can you refute Christianity from an archeological point of view?

Christianity is not true by default unless refuted. The time to believe something is when there is evidence to support the claim. Archeology does not offer support for supernatural claims so it is a red herring.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like unfogged's post
28-10-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
I'm always a little curious what exactly Christians mean, when they say that archaeology "backs up" the Bible.

I suspect they're just repeating what a preacher (or a book written by one) told them, but leaving that aside, why do they think that such is the case?

Most of what Christians call the "Old Testament" we now know to have been written during/around the time of the Exile of the conquered Judeans, in Babylon (the ten northern tribes of Israel had already been conquered and scattered by the Assyrians), or soon after their return, just before 500 BCE. They get most of the history of that period correct, regarding the peoples and cities of the region. This surprises no one.

They clearly wrote down their various traditional stories (the older stuff like Job and the Psalms), emphasizing their powerful origins and relationship to their tribal War God, Yahweh, in a form that would help to congeal the survivors of their conquest into a more-unified whole, to prevent cultural collapse and assimilation back into the other Canaanite peoples from which the Jewish tribal identity emerged. For those devastated survivors, their priests helped them to explain where they came from (including fabricating a history of lost power), why God was allowing this stuff to happen, and what they needed to do in order to survive as a people.

But they get a LOT of stuff wrong, when they crafted their legends, getting worse the farther back in time it goes from that point. The stories mention peoples and cities that we know from archaeological records did not arrive (or were not yet founded) in that region until centuries after the stories allege they were there. They describe an Exodus that simply could not have happened, based on what we know about Egyptian history and the wars in Canaan between the Egyptian Empire and the predecessors of the Hittites (short version: Egypt controlled the "Promised Land" in the centuries where the Exodus could have taken place-- they would have fled from Goshen to a place crawling with Egyptian soldiers because it was an Egyptian territory and the site of numerous battles between them and their main enemy at the time), and numerous other discrepancies between what the stories allege in terms of pre-6th-century-BCE Israelite power and territory and what we actually find in the record. Even more clearly, the numbers of Israelites in the Exodus are simply not supportable by what is found in the region-- it alleges that the Israelite army, made up of the refugees, was bigger than the Roman Empire's military at its peak!, and bigger than that of the Egyptian Empire at the time-- nor by the archaeological digs of early Israelite settlements. It gets most of the details of the wars between the Israelites and the Philistines wrong, as attested to both by records from neighboring empires that we now can translate and also by archaeological digs at the cities of the Philistines and the Israelites of the time.

Was there a Semitic people who would come to call themselves the "chosen of God" and identify as the Israelites, who established a tribal identity and modicum of power in the Canaan region? Yes. Does it match the claims of their later propagandists from 500 BCE? Not even close.

The simple fact is that the Bible (the "ancient history" claims of the priests in the Exile period, that is) makes several claims that are simply not supported by archaeology or the histories recorded by larger powers in the region.

So to answer your question, I'd have to say that it's not supported in the way that you seem to be asserting. Without more specific information on what you think it supports, I can't do more than this very general refutation, but I agree with the previous posters who suggested you get a good book (from non-Christian sources, so it's not a risk of being simply a biased account seeking to internally confirm what it already presupposes) on the history of the region and/or of the Jewish people... because I absolutely guarantee that much of what you currently think, in order to even ask us what you asked, is not the actual case.

Also, as others have pointed out, I'd like to ask why you come here to ask atheists about it, instead of simply doing the research and learning about the actual history of the Israelite/Jewish peoples. If your intentions are honest, and you really want to know, we're not the people to whom you should be turning for such information.

Being an atheist just means we don't accept your religion's claims as legitimate. It's not our job to learn your scriptures and the pseudo-history it claims, in order to refute every part of it, when we can clearly see that the overall arc of the story is bogus. You do the same thing, if you think about it, with the Hindu scriptures and claims to historical information. Imagine if Hindus popped onto a Christian forum and asked why you don't accept the Historical Truth™ contained in the Hindu scriptures like the Bahagavad Gita and the Vedas.

TL; dr version - The Bible gets most of its older historical claims provably wrong. What the hell do you mean, then, when you say that archaeology backs up the Bible? (And why would you ask atheists about it, anyway?)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: