Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[JapaneseKappa]

Umm… wouldn’t that be supporting evidence that the Israelites arrived later on the scene than the Canaanites?

No more than it would be evidence that the North Koreans arrived on their peninsula later than the South Koreans

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

ALL of ‘it’ happened.

By all means quibble, if you must, about what IT actually consists of - parable, allegory, dream, vision, semantics, nuance, natural or supernatural explanation - but please don’t argue from incredulity.

As long as the word “happened” is not defined as “historically correct” - with actual “physical evidence” - it is meaningless. There are many pieces in the Bible which are essential for Christianity. If there is no historically correct original sin, the whole Christianity collapses. The usual “excuse” like: “we don’t know what actually happened, but there must have been something that separated us from God and it was our disobedience” is simply unacceptable for rational skeptics. And the Bible is supposed to be the guiding light to help us to go back to God. If it fails in that respect, nothing else remains.

You’re talking straight past my comment.
I said “IT” happened - something - happened.
If you want to quibble that “IT” doesn’t mean what I think I think it does, that’s fine. Go ahead and make the case for your alternative (atheistic) explanation of what you think “IT” is.
You are entitled to hypothesize that eye witnesses were hallucinating or that the evidence was forged or that there’s not enough water to entirely cover the surface of the earth.

But for you to claim that “IT” is a lie or “IT” never happened puts the burden of persuasion on you. How do you know that “IT” never happened, unless you’re OK with the sort of special pleading that allows bible skeptics to claim greater knowledge of the same events about which you say biblical theists lack evidence.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

A) Textual evidence (e.g. too many anachronisms in the biblical story, no other contemporary reference to such a kingdom)
B) Archaeological (e.g. Caananite cities are found to be several times larger than Israelite cities at the time, indicating the Israelite cities were unlikely to be as significant a geopolitical power as claimed by the bible)

Lets examine this bit by bit, but first what is your basic premise what is your statement,

Is it that there were no kings?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Is it that there were no kings?

A big point of the old testament is that the Jews were God’s chosen people. Their post exodus successes are pointed to as evidence that God favored them. My point is that
A) Their origin story (i.e. the exodus) is not historical.
B) Their success (i.e. conquests ending with large powerful empire under Saul/David/Solomon/etc) is also not historical.

They almost certainly had kings, but the reality is that many of the biblical “kings” are more accurately described as “tribal leader” than king (i.e. the society was basically a bunch of farmers in the area around a military camp).

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

You’re talking straight past my comment.
I said “IT” happened - something - happened.

Funny stuff… you never stated what that “IT” might be? So I have no idea, what that “IT” might be.

If you want to quibble that “IT” doesn’t mean what I think I think it does, that’s fine. Go ahead and make the case for your alternative (atheistic) explanation of what you think “IT” is.
You are entitled to hypothesize that eye witnesses were hallucinating or that the evidence was forged or that there’s not enough water to entirely cover the surface of the earth.

But for you to claim that “IT” is a lie or “IT” never happened puts the burden of persuasion on you. How do you know that “IT” never happened, unless you’re OK with the sort of special pleading that allows bible skeptics to claim greater knowledge of the same events about which you say biblical theists lack evidence.

I have no idea what are you talking about. Which parts of the Bible are historically accurate, and what kind of evidence do you (or anyone else) has for that claim? As an example, the story of the original sin is essential for Christianity. If it is merely allegorical, then the whole crucifixion is also allegorical, with the obvious consequences.

By the way, I did not CLAIM anything. I presented a question.

The biblical account of original sin is accurate.
If you claim otherwise then I assume you have some evidentiary justification.
But since you freely note that you make no such claim (negation) then I take it you remain open-minded.

The point I’m making is that you (and ppl like you) need to be clear whether you are skeptical of;
a) Any/every description and interpretation of the biblical event claimed to have happened.
b) One particular interpretation of how the text describes that event.

Many bible skeptics accept that a historical Jesus was Crucified and that His body was found to be missing from the tomb. But they have a secular (non-theistic) explanation for the minimal facts.

Other skeptics assert that the Crucifiction of Jesus never happened because there never was a historical Jesus.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

A big point of the old testament is that the Jews were God’s chosen people.

Are you disputing that? They became Gods Chosen people with Abraham. We Christians are Abrahams adopted children too.

How can you say

A) Their origin story (i.e. the exodus) is not historical.

Do you have absolute evidence that Exodus did not happen?

B) Their success (i.e. conquests ending with large powerful empire under Saul/David/Solomon/etc) is also not historical.

And what evidence is there for this? Read Kings, the Bible refers to extra biblical document of what each King did during his lifetime.

They almost certainly had kings, but the reality is that many of the biblical “kings” are more accurately described as “tribal leader” than king (i.e. the society was basically a bunch of farmers in the area around a military camp).

What definition are you putting on King? A king is the head of his empire, society was more then a bunch of farmers, there was trade, travel, industry and manufacture.

 

[Gorgias]

If you don’t understand it, there is no reason to continue.

Oh, i understand it quite well… you’re the one who seems to be unaware of logical fallacies!

Proofs and the “null hypotheses” are reserved to axiomatic systems. Is that news for you?

Are we even talking about the same thing, here? It almost seems like you’ve never heard of the null hypothesis before? Very literally, we’re in the realm of empirical, experimental analysis here, and not axiomatic systems.

I merely observe that there is no list of verses, which are alleged to be “historically correct” and another list, which is merely “allegorically correct” (whatever that might mean).

And what in the world do you think that proves?

It says that the article has ecclesiastical approval which is enough to show that there is at least one Roman Catholic scholar who says that God is immovable.

No, that’s not what it shows. In fact, are you certain it’s a literal description?

If there is no historically correct original sin, the whole Christianity collapses.

Hmm… there are a couple of problems with your assertion here, and they seem like they’re problems in properly understanding the terms that you’re using. Let’s take a look …

When you say “historically correct original sin”, I see two problems:

• you seem to be conflating “the first sin of our first truly human parents” with “original sin”. These two are not the same thing. In Catholic theology, when we talk about “original sin”, we’re not talking about the personal sin of Adam and Eve; we’re talking about the fallen human nature that all of their descendants inherit. So, I can only imagine that what you’re attempting to talk about is the first sin of Adam and Eve?
• By demanding a “historically correct” account, you’re misunderstanding what the Church asserts about Genesis 3. In the Catechism, the Church says that Genesis 3 (the “fall of Man” narrative) is a figurative narrative. That means that it is an allegorical account of a real event in humanity’s pre-history. So, to ask for a literalistic historical account – as if we could turn on the evening news and see cell phone video of it – is unreasonable. Would you demand the same standard of any event in antiquity, let alone pre-history? So, again, your misunderstanding of Catholic claims makes it difficult for you to proceed rationally here.

Hope that helps!

 

[EndTimes]

IOW, the stories in the Bible are true, just as fairy tales are true?

Sacred Scriptures are Solid as a Rock

Satan seeks to undermine Scriptures…

 

[goout]

And the absence of evidence is a very good evidence of absence. No scientist ever says: “there is no evidence against arbitrary hypothesis”, therefore it is reasonable to accept it as a working hypothesis.

No scientist, ever…says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Ever. If they do, that’s not science, it’s a personal conclusion.
You simply don’t have evidence to prove the item you are looking for, nothing more or less. In fact, there are things that science doesn’t even know it’s looking for out of it’s own ignorance. If absence of evidence were proof of absence, you wouldn’t even have the concept of science. It would be pointless.

A scientist might form a negative conclusion based on an empty search but that is nothing more than an informed opinion. Granted, we make sense out of our lives with well informed opinions, but an empty search does not disprove the existence of a thing. That’s a step way too far. And it is in fact a superstition itself, ironically.

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Perfect-teleioi, telos, related to teleology. Implies that a search is underway, life is going somewhere, and that which we don’t completely grasp is searchable, and is worth looking for, and that material evidence which is currently in our possession cannot fully give meaning and purpose to life.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Do you have absolute evidence that Exodus did not happen?

The evidence is quite sufficient. Please review the link I posted earlier.

And what evidence is there for this? Read Kings, the Bible refers to extra biblical document of what each King did during his lifetime.

…Archaeologists dug up the Israelite “cities” and that is what they found.

What definition are you putting on King? A king is the head of his empire, society was more then a bunch of farmers, there was trade, travel, industry and manufacture.

Right. And archaeologists have found that the Israelite societies of the time did not appear to have any significant industry, and were mostly farmers around a military encampment, as I explained earlier. That is why the term “King” is misleading in this context.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can see where you’re coming from, calling them “cute”. They definitely appear like that through the context of those little kids Bibles.

There are plenty of children’s Bible cartoons and comics that manage to strike a balance between toning down the gore for kids and still presenting a serious, sometimes scary, issue. There used to be some cartoon series like “The Flying House” and “Superbook” that did this pretty well.

When I was a kid, there was a Bible comic that ran in the Sunday paper and I learned a great deal of OT from that comic. It was not “cute”, it was on the level of a superhero or a police comic, and the villains were real, evil villains and the heroes got in danger. The same paper would run comics like “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” which featured stories about people getting killed going over Niagara Falls and a guy who held his hand in a fire till it was completely consumed. Children kinda like gore. It’s the adults who get squeamish.

 

[EndTimes]

YES-

There’s a Multitude of Facts connected with the historicity of the Bible

Billions of Christians

Jews

Jerusalem

And the list goes on and on…

_

 

[goout]

…

You are in error when you talk about the “argument from ignorance”. Some (many) apologists assert that since there is no “proof” for God’s nonexistence, it is reasonable to accept God’s existence as a “working hypothesis”. This would be the true “argument from ignorance”. On the other hand, the stance of: “since there is no physical proof for God’s existence, it is reasonable to doubt it” and that is NOT the argument from ignorance.

You have a bit of a Christian apologist straw man there. Christian apologists are not justifying the search for God because there is no negative evidence against God.
Christian apologist observe revelation, nature, etc…the way things are, the way human beings behave.
We can observe that human beings in fact look for meaning, purpose, identity, transcendent things that are not subject to material evidence. And Christians would say we are looking for God here. You mighty not want to use the word God, fine, but you have evidence: The search itself is evidence of something transcendent to be found, or that it is reasonable to keep looking. Or maybe we are all nuts searching for meaningless nothings…

But that search isn’t in response to your failure to find evidence. It’s reasonable to accept God’s existence for positive reasons.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

It is well documented that the Exodus is a myth. The foremost scholars on the subject are actually Israeli Jews. Just to start, despite the massive amount of documentation regarding the Egyptian civilization, there is not one mention of the Exodus. There is also zero archeological evidence in the Sinai.

Just because there is no physical evidence, after thousands of years, does not = something is a myth.

It simply means there is no remnant artefacts.

Who and where was this link published for it to be the absolute final say

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The evidence is quite sufficient. Please review the link I posted earlier.

Are you also posting as jan10000. I am confused about the link in both posts.

Archaeologists dug up the Israelite “cities” and that is what they found.

Again , when a dig happens, it is only a snapshot and not the entire place, and does not seek to credit or discredit Biblical goings on.

Right. And archaeologists have found that the Israelite societies of the time did not appear to have any significant industry, and were mostly farmers around a military encampment, as I explained earlier. That is why the term “King” is misleading in this context.

of what time? which areas, Israel, Judah, Palestine?

What, again is your definition of King ? Have you read Kings?

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

But you are making a physical claim.

I have made no claim there are artefacts for Exodus outside Scripture and Jewish custom and tradition.
We cannot look at archaeology to prove or disprove events of the Bible. It is not science to do so, and whether there is no artefact today, there might be in 2, 20 or 200 years. Archaeology is a very slow paced activity that relies on so much to be successful.

If we finally found the Ark of the Covenant, which some say is in Ethiopia, some say is somewhere under the Temple site, people would still dispute

We do find different artefacts that support kings and people and biblical events.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Again , when a dig happens, it is only a snapshot and not the entire place, and does not seek to credit or discredit Biblical goings on.

Early middle eastern archaeology was undertaken with the explicit goal of confirming the biblical account. But as time went on and methods improved, the findings, or “snapshots” as you call them, were pieced together and it was discovered that there was no room for the biblical goings on. In other words, the archaeological evidence is complete enough to conclude that the biblical accounts are not real; there is no hole in the jigsaw puzzle large enough to accommodate them.

Thomas L Thompson:

There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine’s tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough.

 

[Lion_IRC]

There’s plenty of evidence for kings Saul, David and Solomon as well as the capital city described in the bible which was originally called Jebus.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Yes we can. …

We would not look at archaeology to prove or disprove flooding, we would look at geology. The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old anywhere in the Old or New Testaments, so that is a non starter. One man was created by God out of the earth, Adam, Eve was then created from flesh and bone, the rib of Adam. We already have some nice DNA tracking that looks at origins of humanity, that is the topic for another thread really because it is so big. Archaeology wont prove or disprove any of those examples.
We have p(name removed by moderator)ointed where in the Universe the big bang type event originated though, with geothermal mapping.

Such a discovery would be celebrated, not disputed…

People would disbelieve it and say it is a fake, a UFO, or any other theory. Science is not superior to dogma and should not be set in competition to Sacred Scripture. They are two separate disciplines, religion and science, they complement each other but do not provide answers for each other or even proofs.

But in the past 50 years, there have been massive undertakings to research the claim - even by Jewish researchers

A Jewish researcher is just like any other researcher, there is no single mode of opinion, research or being. We cannot make a blanket statement

They themselves have come to the conclusion that the Exodus is a myth.

I am not sure what evidence is going to be left of peoples wandering deserts for 40 years a very long time ago, and if there is evidence found, how do we know what culture it belongs to, many at that time were nomadic or in transit due to climate conditions and wars and trade.

Early middle eastern archaeology …

Early Archaeology began in the middle east with a thrust of biblical type scholars from USA and UK who went to the Holy Land and began looking for proofs. They soon realised that this really needed an approach that included quite a few disciplines and then the science of Archaeology became a robust and better verified scientific method.
The older way of digging to prove or disprove God and Jesus and the Jewish history was abandoned. There are several very good early archaeologists who were there, teach or have taught in the States and UK and speak of this time. There is also an excellent body of knowledge on this in academic centers within Jerusalem itself.

I suggest look at the entire history Your final quote where is it from and who published it and in what article?
because
It might be out of date or not well researched. There are artefacts.
Here is the Tel Dan Inscription

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society

There are quite a few artefacts such as inscriptions that talk about who beat who in war and what the spoils were.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

For example evidence of the Exodus is scant to non-existent.

The scant evidence for the Exodus reveals bad Egyptian chronology. When the chronology is correct there is abundant evidence. See Bible vs. Archaeology http://www.scripturescholar.com/BibleArchaeology.pdf