Bible Archeology
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2017, 07:51 AM
Bible Archeology
I came across quite a phew christians who said that there are lots of archeological evidence that the events happened. Now i try to be skeptical when i read these things so wish to ask you what events really happened. for example i heard the battle of jericho happened like it was told in the bible. Now I wish to know if you have Archeological evidence for or against the bibles tales wise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sneroul the thinker's post
16-01-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
It's called Google. Use it.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
16-01-2017, 07:56 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

Quote:Origins and historicity

In 1868, Charles Warren identified Tell es-Sultan as the site of Jericho. In 1930–36, John Garstang conducted excavations there and discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about 1400 BCE, the accepted biblical date of the conquest. Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated the site over 1952–1958 and demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period, and that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century.[4] Kenyon's work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries.[5] A small unwalled settlement was rebuilt in the 15th century, but the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries.[2]

Most scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[3] The book's origin is usually dated to a time far removed from the times it depicts,[6] and its intention linked with a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[7] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[8] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[9] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua led archaeologist William G. Dever to deem the biblical story of the fall of Jericho as "[not] founded on genuine historical sources" and "invented out of whole cloth."[10]

Bolding mine.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
16-01-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
(16-01-2017 07:53 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  It's called Google. Use it.

I was all set to chirp him too, but apart from Wikipedia most of the other links when googling "battle of jericho archaeological evidence" are by the faithful, for the faithful.

But yeah, OP, google is a thing. Learn it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
16-01-2017, 08:03 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
Some people mentioned in the bible have been verified archaeologically. Pontius Pilate, for instance, and King Herod.

There is some tenuous evidence that Jesus Christ existed but the evidence is, at best, scanty and open to intepretation. But there's no archaeological evidence of his divinity, miracle-working or resurrection.

OTOH, Israeli researchers and archaeologists have been looking for evidence of Moses and his throng escaping Egypt and wandering through the desert. So far they have found no evidence of the Exodus and have concluded that the entire story is mythical with no basis in fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
16-01-2017, 08:13 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
(16-01-2017 08:03 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Some people mentioned in the bible have been verified archaeologically. Pontius Pilate, for instance, and King Herod.

Not sure about this biblearchaeology site. I'd take their stuff with a grain of salt. At the bottom of the Pontius Pilate page:

Quote:WHAT DO YOU THINK? - We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.

What is your response?

Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
16-01-2017, 08:27 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
I agree, that page has a particular agenda.

But it's widely accepted, through evidence, that PP was a real dude. Here's another bit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people...84786.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
16-01-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
(16-01-2017 08:27 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I agree, that page has a particular agenda.

But it's widely accepted, through evidence, that PP was a real dude. Here's another bit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people...84786.html

Yeah, I'm reasonably happy with their page even given their sneaky lil' message... But what the message does do is it alerts me that I can't just use their page as a source, as who knows what their standards of reporting are? They might well cite accurate info, but it's always gonna be with an eye to the Bible. i.e. they might leave out contradictory stuff of gloss over it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
16-01-2017, 08:43 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
(16-01-2017 07:51 AM)sneroul the thinker Wrote:  I came across quite a phew christians who said that there are lots of archeological evidence that the events happened. Now i try to be skeptical when i read these things so wish to ask you what events really happened. for example i heard the battle of jericho happened like it was told in the bible. Now I wish to know if you have Archeological evidence for or against the bibles tales wise.

Nope.
All been debunked ... Jericho especially.



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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-01-2017, 08:43 AM
RE: Bible Archeology
(16-01-2017 08:40 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yeah, I'm reasonably happy with their page even given their sneaky lil' message... But what the message does do is it alerts me that I can't just use their page as a source, as who knows what their standards of reporting are? They might well cite accurate info, but it's always gonna be with an eye to the Bible. i.e. they might leave out contradictory stuff of gloss over it.
Agreed. Besides, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: