Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
So your argument is that because we lack archaeological evidence from 12 thousand years ago the bible must be fables? How much evidence do you expect to find? Israel at it's height of power was a regional power who could defend itself from regional threats. It never buried it's history in hidden tombs like the Egyptians. Israel wrote it's history down and the bible represents copies of what has been preserved and passed down.
I don't know what conflict the Moabite narrative has with the Israelite historical books. That said; I also don't know why you would presume the Moabite narrative to be true and the bible wrong. Compare if you will the near history taught in an Israeli school today and the history taught in the West Bank or Syria. How about compare an American history book to a Japanese history book concerning the events surrounding World War II.
|
No, the evidence we do find contradicts the evidence we find in the bible. You are correct it never did bury it's history, because it never wrote it. What you have was penned centuries after Israel fell as a kingdom. There is no evidence they actually recorded their own history. I think referring to them as a "regional power" is a bit of a stretch. They were smack in between Assyria and Egypt who dictated their affairs.
The Moabite rebellion and the stone referring to Jehoram show that the biblical narrative might not be as accurate as it paints itself. it's pretty illogical to believe that every other source is wrong but the bible is always right. Statistically it's also pretty much impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
You seem to be referring to the time of Judges. The book takes place when there was no kingdom; Just a collection of tribes that were united by a religion and ancestry. Judges records the account of a handful of tribal leaders who would temporarily unite these tribes from time to time to push back from the seemingly constant raids from the surrounding tribes/nations.
The Egyptian raids in 1207 probably weren't mentioned because no "Judge" at the time rose up to fight against them. If they only came once they probably weren't as significant to the Israeli mind as the more persistent threats from regional foes anyways.
|
So they were united enough to record their history of their judges but not enough so to record a major campaign? Yeah, that's completely logical
. . It's more likely that the people in the 13th century had no ability to record history at the time. Writing comes with the development of strong central governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
Concerning Jericho what you have read and I have read seems to differ. Perhaps different archaeologists have come to different conclusions based on what has been uncovered. Is there even a consensus that it has been found?
The conquest of Canaan as recorded in Joshua consists of the destruction of a few cities that held control over the agricultural land around them. They took the territory they needed by force. The rest was still inhabited by the locals that had lived there since back in the time of Jacob. From then Israel slowly took on more of the territory as their population grew. Israel never came to populate the whole territory God said was theirs. The gradual population growth of the people of Israel you say archaeologists have observed through their digs seems to jive with what we read in scriptures.
|
You are missing the point here. Even if the territory conquered was small the settlement sites would still match the size of the people moving into the land. Since the Exodus is recorded as quite large we should be able to see that in the record. What we do see are very very very small settlements with a decidedly Canaanite feel to them. Small as in 30-50 families at most, and not large scale settlements
There are also no reputable scholars that disagree with that opinion. Carbon dating and the dating of pottery all confirm it was not inhabited as a major city from at the latest 1530 to at least the 11th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
What your saying is that most New Testament scholars who don't believe in the historical accuracy of the book of John believe that Jesus' ministry lasted only one year. Yah I can see that being true. I tend to believe the ones that don't discount parts of scriptures.
|
Most of them don't discount them entirely, they just realize that being John was written later, it's likely not as accurate. Also, given the nature of the region it's not likely an inflammatory teacher such as Christ would have been able to preach for that long. Common sense pushes us to a shorter ministry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
I agree that faith doesn't require evidence. But we are not talking about faith but, events that were witnessed by believers and non believers alike. The non believers left no record of the denial of events but, rather denied the conclusion that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The miracles that accompanied Jesus' ministry were incredible and numerous. If they were lies then they would have been revealed as lies by those who were there.
Simply put: You don't tell a big lie in front of the people who can refute it if you want to be believed. Successful cons don't work like that.
|
Those people weren't there when the books were being written or the stories being told either. It sort of makes it hard to refute the stories when you aren't in the area to do so. How far did you think the average Judean peasant traveled? That's assuming they would have even cared enough to refute the stories, or people would have believed their claims anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
You also don't tell a lie and willing die rather than recant. Sure people die for what they believe in all the time but, not to hold on to a lie. It would be illogical. We know by the "church fathers" that followed after the "eye witnesses" that that is exactly what happened. We also have them record of them dying in faith having believed the eye witnesses testimonies.
|
Plenty did recant actually. There are Roman records in which Christians are recorded as recanting and sacrificing to the Emperor. It's erroneous to believe that all Christians died for their beliefs. Christians were people as much as anyone else. Some are strong in their beliefs and others are weak when they have difficulty in life. To assume that somehow that is different than it is today isn't rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
Wrong. The first church was located in Jerusalem and it grew rapidly. You really have to discount the whole New Testament to deny that. The book of Acts gives strong evidence of the Jerusalem church's influence. It's strong Jewish influence lasted into the second century. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD its influence did begin to wain.
Christian persecutions by the Romans began under Nero in 64 AD. He blamed them for a fire which burned a chunk of Rome. The Emperor Domitian{81 to96 AD} also persecuted Christians demanding they renounce their faith or die. This continued into the second century with churches having to meet in secret for fear of discovery. If Christianity was a small sect why so much effort to suppress it?
|
The book of acts isn't a historical document and contradicts Paul's own letters on subjects. I would also point out that the early church growth is greatest in areas away from the Jerusalem which shows to me that it's message wasn't well received in Judea. You also have no mention by contemporary sources about them, meaning they weren't influential enough to write about.
Nero was looking for someone to blame and the Christians were strange enough due to their desire to buck social norms to fall into that. His desires were to direct the blame away from him and onto someone else. The Christians simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time was all. If they weren't there then you can be assured someone would have been blamed. With Domitian it's debatable since the stories come mainly from the church and he persecuted anyone who didn't agree with him. You don't really begin to see large scale persecutions of Christians until the end of the 2nd century. Even then it's fairly regional, and not linked to the entire empire until the time of Decius.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
