A
adawgj
Guest
I was reading somewhere I don’t remember where, but the person writing said that The Bible only contains literature and myth and not history. So I am wondering if The Bible does have historical evidence?
Does it have historical evidence for what?I was reading somewhere I don’t remember where, but the person writing said that The Bible only contains literature and myth and not history.** So I am wondering if The Bible does have historical evidence**?
King David and King Solomon are real, to the dismay of many Bible skeptics who thought they were an imagination of a Jewish nation trying to justify its existence in Palestine. Archaeological digs over the last century (including some more recent and ongoing digs) have proved that not only did they exist but they ruled a kingdom that included all of current day Israel as the Bible reveals. Many historians use to dismiss the Bible completely, but many now realize the importance of using the Bible as a guide when reviewing archaeological finds and relating it to history.I was reading somewhere I don’t remember where, but the person writing said that The Bible only contains literature and myth and not history. So I am wondering if The Bible does have historical evidence?
you’re reading the wrong stuff.I was reading somewhere I don’t remember where, but the person writing said that The Bible only contains literature and myth and not history. So I am wondering if The Bible does have historical evidence?
The record of the kings of Israel and Judah are **very **accurate. They also tie in with Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian records.I was reading somewhere I don’t remember where, but the person writing said that The Bible only contains literature and myth and not history. So I am wondering if The Bible does have historical evidence?