Does Archeology Support The Bible Record?

LOl, so basically the argument for the affirmative is: there is a whole bunch of "proof" out there, we just couldnt be bothered finding it

 

found it;
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/461341-why-does-israel-keep-making-peace-negotiations-with-terrorist-governments/page-2

[COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000]
damn the default colors for quoting really sucks
don't know about about all the code there, guess it got messed up with the site change or something[/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color]

 

The link is good.

 

the problem with a global flood, is that there just isn't that much water, even with all the ice melted and all the vapour in the atmosphere condensed into the sea as well. floods are a traumatic enough event, for their being so, alone, to be sufficient, to find stories of massive areas being inundated, in many parts of the world. like all such stories, the point in the telling of them, is to illustrate some moral concept, not to recount actual physical events.

some guy could have built a big wooden ship and loaded it up with mating pairs of many different kinds of species, but how he kept them all fed, without at least some of them killing each other, does seem like a bit of a stretch.
(not to mention the obvious sanitation problem, which i know has been many times)

a lot of the other references, sure. but claiming their existence proves anything is a bit of a stretch.

all physical references, are really a distraction from whatever point any spritual teaching is trying to make.
whether you can verify them or not, is really just completely aside from it.

 

I agree. there isn't that much water on the planet and these stories likely originated from a time when weather wasn't understood as it is today.

not to mention the fact that there are literally (hundreds of)millions of species of some types of animals such as insects, and "millions" of anything is quite a lot and takes up a lot of room anywhere.

the only way it's plausible at all is if a few species were taken which became the common ancestors from which the great variety of modern species evolved from. archaeology doesn't exactly support that though, and religion (Christianity) doesn't exactly support the notion of evolution either.

 

Archaeological support for the Bible is a mixed bag. Yes, there is evidence that Israel existed as early as 1200 B.C.E. --as a name on an Egyptian monument called the Merneptah stele commemorating the Pharaoh's victory over it. But it is not clear whether it was a state or a just a people. We have the Tel Dan Stele , the Mesha stele, and the Shoshenq relief making references to a David or house of David, and we have the ruins of a palace thought to be David's. But as yet no corroboration of the mighty kingdom said to be his. Nor is there evidence of Moses, and the available archaeological evidence goes against the idea of a massive Exodus from Egypt and a Joshua-style invasion of Canaan. The prevailing archeological thinking is that the Israelites emerged gradually from the local Canaanite population. See Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. There is evidence that Jericho is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, inhabited cities in the world, dating to 9,000 B.C.E. (3000 years before the creation of the world, according to the Young Earth Creationists). And the city was destroyed (between 1617 and 1500 B.C.E., according to radiocarbon dating). But the evidence is more consistent with an internal revolt than with an external invasion. So it goes.

Forgive me, Nox, for not quoting your extensive post. Most of it I'd agree with, but sometimes I find the interpretation questionable. For example, in citing the Mesopotamian flood stories as backing for the Biblical account you should probably address the more common explanation that the Jews borrowed their story from the Babylonians (probably during the captivity), who borrowed theirs from the Sumerians.

Similar issues are encountered with ancient Greek history and archaeology. For a long while, scholars dismissed Homeric accounts of Troy as pure myth. But now archaeologists tell us there was a Troy in modern-day Turkey. This of course can't be taken as support for the general truth of the Homeric legends. I notice that your list of archaeological finds supporting the Bible mention of the Hittites, who were once thought to be a biblical myth. We know now that they not only existed but were a major player in antiquity. As a matter of fact, the Trojans and the Hittites seem to have been the same people. Troy is now thought to have been the Hittite city of Wilusa. But of course this doesn't any more prove the general truth of the Bible any more than it proves Homer.

 

there wouldn't be, if the red sea boatmen were on the side of the fleeing monotheists, thus remaining on the far side, when their pursuers showed up. of course the idea of a mass migration taking place at one time, is more in the nature of a story told to make a point. which is by far the more logical thing to expect anyway.

i don't think its unreasonable to assume many egyptian monotheist would have sought to emigrate elsewhere after the death of akanatan. and that many of them may have succeeded in doing so. though as a coherient monolythic community, or even those within it which shared an ethnicity of possibly non-egyptian origen, seems considerably less likely.

a small percentage of them though, might well have congrigated around such a leader as their moses was reputed to be.

a much greater majority, more likely, simply settled wherever they were able.