Does Archeology Support The Bible Record?

Well, Noah lived mostly before the flood and he was vegetarian so it is possible

 

Plus, humans were closer to perfection then

 

It seems that we are getting a little off topic. It seems the question is does archeology support the Bible? In fact the Bible has oftimes supported archeology and has helped archeologists to find helpful artifacts that they may not have found otherwise. As for the other way around, archeology will never "prove" the Bible but archeology has often shown that was once thought of as a Biblical myth or contradiction was actually true.

For example, at one time Matthew 20:29 and Mark 10:46 which speak of Jesus healing the blind beggar Bartimaeus as Jesus was leaving Jericho seemed to contradict Luke 18:35 who reported this happened when Jesus was entering Jericho. This was long pointed to as a obvious contradiction.

Archaeology, however, has thrown additional light on this apparent discrepancy. Early in the twentieth century A.D. excavations were made at Jericho by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society (1907-1909). The excavations showed that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city. The old Jewish city was about a mile away from the Roman city. In the light of this evidence, it is possible that Matthew is speaking of the Jewish city which Christ had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Christ had not yet arrived. Thus, on his way from the old to the new city, Christ met and healed the blind Bartimaeus.

 

Parts of Genesis are closer to mythology than history and it is worthwile to regard it as such, any person with critical thinking skills and the urge to apply them can see that. It doesn't mean that archeology (and historical sources) doesn't support other parts of the bible.

 

Can you give an example (or two)?

 

For example?

 

The Exodus..
:alien:

 

Well, archeology is certainly backing up the fact of certain people's existence, which before has (even) been questioned...and still is, by some.

The fact that the bible serves as an excellent history book is also questioned...which to me is blinding oneself to knowledge that is easily accessible to all.

But hey, different strokes for different folks...I'll agree to that

 

I don't doubt that some of the things in the bible did actually occur (as seen by the people who wrote it down, through the lens of the ideology at the time). After all, these things were written down in real time periods.

Some fundamentalists would argue that the Bible contains all the knowledge that is necessary. I disagree, because that can't possibly be so. For example, the Bible may contain 1000-2000 pages of text. If you want to truly become an expert on history, and truly understand history and how things became the way they are, and where we came from, I'd suggest reading at least a stack of books as high as the ceiling on that subject. At that point you might be considered an expert. Same is true for any other subject.

 

Keep in mind, I'm saying this is the history of the Jews, not everybody in the world. Its quite interesting to see a race's history so well recorded and detailed - and available for public viewing - for the period of time its been available.

Literally hundreds of years. more than a thousand...it is said the Vatican holds certain documents that are never meant to be seen (again).

I'm just saying that the need for separation of church and state didn't originate with the USofA, and we are privy to the beginnings of a race of people through a public book.

If nothing else, this should be of great interest to anyone that calls themselves knowledgeable.

Oh...(and edit) as far as history being written by the "winners"...in the bible, the worldly "winners" were not the writers. Lots (the whole New Testament and much of the OT) is chock full of writing/recording by those that do not consider themselves winners, not by a worldly standpoint. Of course there are exceptions...but if one will let oneself, they will see the truth of the history, if nothing else.

 

The history of the Jewish people contained in the Bible is only a fraction of their total history though. It doesn't include the last 1500 years or so of said people's history, and a lot of things can happen in 1500 years.

 

I agree! However, by 1500 years ago, there were and have been documents - from various sources - that would show intervening years...I think the bible is the history of their very beginnings...and no, I think there are parts left out of the standard (today's) King James Version...although I think it is as good a representation of the bible as one is subject to find now-a-days and/or easily.

Interestingly, you might be surprised as to how much thought I've given to wanting to learn aramaic and/or greek...just to see what was originally written. I think that (some copies of the originals) might show some things differently, or have omitted things.

Omissions and "tricks with words" are what I think have happened, for what its worth, to certain parts...

but I do think the message remains the same...

oh yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with the OP huh.

 

The sickening Holocaust is some of their history, and there are people that want to deny that.

 

Technically not an artifact.

 

and yet not a single archaeological artifact supporting the story of Exodus..

 

Not the miracle(s) part I guess. But I think they found some proof of a community of jews living and working in ancient Egypt.

 

a while back this came up in another thread.
I posted about 100+ links to research, sites, papers, etc., etc. supporting the idea that the Bible can be considered a relatively good historical document of high veracity, but I'm too lazy to try and search for it now.
Sorry.

 

I can relate. I am not that good at finding old threads myself anyway

If you happen to come across that thread though, please do drop the link here! It is sometimes a bit frustrating how often we have to repeat the same stuff because the older threads are snowed under.

 

I must apologize to you and withdraw my statement. The problem with being a voracious reader with a poor memory is that you remember interesting things but forget where they came from. I will continue to look for where it came from but do not want to keep you hanging.

 

I must apologize to you and withdraw my statement. The problem with being a voracious reader with a poor memory is that you remember interesting things but forget where they came from. I will continue to look for where it came from but do not want to keep you hanging.