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.
The absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. Why? for several reasons. The lack of durable materials. Cultural conditioning in which victories are celebrated but defeats are hidden or erased and archaeology takes time to reveal facts.
Anyone remember the Bible account of Pontius Pilate in which Pilate was considered fictitious, that is, until a stone was discovered in 1961 confirming Pilate's existence?
The absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. Why? for several reasons. The lack of durable materials. Cultural conditioning in which victories are celebrated but defeats are hidden or erased and archaeology takes time to reveal facts.
It's not just that archaeological evidence is absent - it's that archaeological evidence of 2 million people wandering around the Sinai for forty years is absent. Not to mention that 2 million people, having fled Egypt, wandering around the Sinai is a bit of a stretch. But if you said there were maybe as many as two thousand (some suggest 200,000? ) people living in the Sinai for forty years, then lack of archaeological evidence would seem reasonable. Archaeological evidence for earlier populations have been found in the Sinai. That's what makes lack of Exodus evidence suspicious.
The absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. Why? for several reasons. The lack of durable materials. Cultural conditioning in which victories are celebrated but defeats are hidden or erased and archaeology takes time to reveal facts.
Anyone remember the Bible account of Pontius Pilate in which Pilate was considered fictitious, that is, until a stone was discovered in 1961 confirming Pilate's existence?
It seems the majority of atheists and fundamentalist posters share one thing in common. Very dogmatic.
I find your post very disappointing.
To begin with, you're correct -- the absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. But that absence CERTAINLY doesn't prove an event.
What is the dogma of atheism? Dogma is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". In atheism, who is this authority? What is said to be incontrovertibly true? And in all of world history, has there been any organization which has been more dogmatic than religion?
The absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. Why? for several reasons. The lack of durable materials. Cultural conditioning in which victories are celebrated but defeats are hidden or erased and archaeology takes time to reveal facts.
Anyone remember the Bible account of Pontius Pilate in which Pilate was considered fictitious, that is, until a stone was discovered in 1961 confirming Pilate's existence?
It seems the majority of atheists and fundamentalist posters share one thing in common. Very dogmatic.
I have heard this accusation many times before. 'David was considered fictitious', 'the Hittites were considered fictitious', 'Pilate was considered fictitious'.
I never heard any such claim. Rather David and Solomon were considered real. Pilate and Jesus' crucifixion were considered real. The Hittites-as yet another Canaanite tribe- were considered real. I did once dig into this 'The Hittites were denied' thing, and it seemed to come down to one article by an old historian about the wealth of the a Hittite prince in the Bible.
I believe that this argument comes out of some monument turning up proving tangible evidence of some Biblical person or event. Then it automatically gets turned into an argument that 'atheist professors' have now been 'proved wrong' by archaeology.
Nobody denied that the Hittites of the Bible existed - as a Canaanite tribe, which they were, in the 10th c BC and later after the Hittite empire disappeared. After all Ramesses' account of the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites had been long known. Just, nobody suspected that they had one been a great empire. We certainly don't hear that from the Bible.
So in fact Archaeology rather refutes the Bible account in that they seem to know of no history before the 10th C. True, they seemed to have heard of Caphtor (The Egyptians Keftiu or Crete) but they know nothing of the Invasion of the Sea peoples. They picked up a wiggle that Ur was the earliest city and they conveniently had Abraham come from there, but their ludicrous 'take' on the ziggurat of Babylon (tower of Babel) has to be nonsense. There was a diversity of peoples and tongues even before Babylon was a country with a capital city.
The inscription speaking of the house of David is indeed evidence that such a ruler existed. But archaeology (under Finkelsten) has rather debunked the idea that he won and ruled a great empire. Even Jerusalem seems to have been a rather piddling town in his day. Even Solomon's supposedly great empire is vanishing as buildings ascribed to him seem rather to be the work of Omri.
So what of Pilate? Nobody denied his existence. After all Josephus and Philo both wrote about him. And what they wrote rather debunks the Gospel account of a whimpering crowd - pleaser, intimidated by the Sanhedrin into crucifying a man he considered innocent (but he must have known that he wasn't. Pilate rather seems to have done whatever he pleased and the Sanhedrin went along with it, even if the Jewish people often didn't. Pilate and Caiaphas worked together over his entire time as Roman Prefect so the hint (as one would expect from Jew- hating Greek Christians) that Pilate was on Jesus' side and knew the Sanhedrin were a bad lot isn't supported by the history.
Nor of course is much of the gospels. Nazareth of Jesus' times didn't seem to have existed - certainly not big enough to have its' own synagogue, as Luke supposes, when he invents his messianic declaration at the start of Jesus career; an event that none of the other writers mention.
It's also become evident that if Jesus was popped into Arimathea's own tomb (and i will agree here that some skeptics do argue that Arimathea never existed ) it certainly is neither of the tombs shown to the Religious tourists gawping at the Sepulchre, or, alternatively, the 'garden tomb', as in Jesus' day, all burials were being moved to the mount of Olives as that area had become urbanized, and all the tombs were being emptied. No, Arimathea's tomb - if it existed - would have been on the mount of Olives and, if you believe the Bible account, the Crucifixion site had to be there too, simply so the Soldiers could look down onto the Temple and see the veil being torn (not to mention a line of Zombies shanking over Herod's bridge into the temple to access the streets of Jerusalem, unless they trooped to the north and shambled in by the north gate, but really does anyone believe Matthew's tall tale - again, mentioned by nobody else - including any historians at the time?
I won't try everyone's patience with rehearsing why archaeology is making the whole account of the exodus and conquest look fictitious. But the point should be clear: the 'spiderman' apologetic is sound. Just because a place (known to people of the time) is used as the setting for a story, it doesn't mean that the story has to be true.
p.s I will have to 'weary your ears' with one point folks, as i had a quick shufti at the last of those links tossed at us in lieu of an argument. Yes indeed the Merneptah stele does mention Israel being clobbered as part of his Canaanite campaign. But this is a campaign by a son of Ramesses II. Fine in itself as if Ramesses was the Pharaoh of the exodus, then Israel could have just started to appear in Canaan. But it's odd that there is no mention of Pharaoh coming and clobbering all the Canaanite nations - including Israel - in the Bible.
I have also to mention that after Merneptah's time, later Ramessids fought the sea peoples and Ramesses 5th (I believe) defeated them and settled the remainder in the Gaza area where they became the Philistines. But then, how could the Exodus of Ramesses IInd's time have gone into Sinai to avoid the land of the Philistines when it didn't even exist yet? How could Ramesses' son have been eliminating 'Israel's seed' in Canaan before the 'Philistines' had even appeared in the middle east for the Exodus to later be avoiding.
It's like history and the nativity - you end up with the Bible giving you one dat, and the history says that it ALSO has to be a different date. So...we get what we get in these apologetics links - pick anything that looks like it Proves the Bible, and ignore any problems.
Because we know, don't we, of Raff's law. That science is fine, fine, fine, so long as it doesn't contradict the Bbible, but atheistic lies if it does.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2019 at 01:36 AM..
Nobody denied that the Hittites of the Bible existed - as a Canaanite tribe, which they were, in the 10th c BC and later after the Hittite empire disappeared. After all Ramesses' account of the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites had been long known.
Quite so my dear old bog-snorkeler. My answer to that particular apologetic ca-ca has always been... '...and the battle of Kadesh?'
Quote:
Even Solomon's supposedly great empire is vanishing as buildings ascribed to him seem rather to be the work of Omri.
Indeed old bogsquirt. This 'Golden Age of Solomon' appears to have gone un-noticed by it's neighbours.
Quote:
So what of Pilate? Nobody denied his existence. After all Josephus and Philo both wrote about him.
Correct again my dear old wart. Philo wrote to Caligula, c. 40 CE, complaining about what a miserable toe-rag Pilate had been. Also, unbelievably, he never mentions that Pilate had killed someone who 'multitudes' hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed supposedly 'came back to life' which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that 'god' or 'the gods' were not happy with Pilate's action (yet another nail of the 'Jesus the Christ was real' coffin).
...and yet the apologist puff up their chests and tell us that nobody believed Pilate existed... but the Bible knew. Balderdash says I.
Quote:
Nor of course is much of the gospels. Nazareth of Jesus' times didn't seem to have existed - certainly not big enough to have its' own synagogue, as Luke supposes, when he invents his messianic declaration at the start of Jesus career; an event that none of the other writers mention.
No more than an isolated hovel or two, old scrot...as you know.
The absence of archaeological evidence does not disprove an event. Why? for several reasons. The lack of durable materials. Cultural conditioning in which victories are celebrated but defeats are hidden or erased and archaeology takes time to reveal facts.
Yet we have evidence of small groups of people from 100,000 years ago, but no evidence of between 2 and 3 million from 4,000?
No rubbish, no graffiti, no toilets, no camp fires?
And the Jews in Egypt around 400 BC celebrated the Passover, but not once did they mention the Exodus version. They showed no knowledge of the Pentateuch at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Anyone remember the Bible account of Pontius Pilate in which Pilate was considered fictitious, that is, until a stone was discovered in 1961 confirming Pilate's existence?
Thats just one instance.
We already knew Pilate existed, as his contemporaries wrote about him. Philo for example. So who are these mysterius people ho considered Pilate fictitious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
It seems the majority of atheists and fundamentalist posters share one thing in common. Very dogmatic.
Yet you posted the false claim about Pilate that apologists always post.
The inscription speaking of the house of David is indeed evidence that such a ruler existed. But archaeology (under Finkelsten) has rather debunked the idea that he won and ruled a great empire.
Possibly. But the two inscriptions I know of my not actually have mentioned the house of David, that is just possibility. If I have time later, I will search for my references, but maybe someone else has information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Even Jerusalem seems to have been a rather piddling town in his day.
Have they found evidence before 800 BC? The last time I looked into this, there was no archaeological evidence for Jerusalem before this date.
There are claims that Mt Sinai where God presented himself to Moses and gave the Ten commandments is in Saudi Arabia. However, the site that is believed to be is off-limits to archeologists by the Saudi Arabian government and the mountain is surrounded by barbed wire and guards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjrxHqNy5CQ
Saudi Arabia is off-limits to archeologists and even if the Exodus happened, they would have trecked in parts of Saudi Arabia. Plus there are carvings of bulls and evidence of ancient historical occupation at the supposed site of Mt Siani in Saudi Arabia with ancient writings that exist there. There are Christians that believe it is the site, as well as some Muslims and some Jews that believe it true to be the site, but not a lot is known there as it is off-limits.
Have they found evidence before 800 BC? The last time I looked into this, there was no archaeological evidence for Jerusalem before this date.
There appeared to have been some occupation up until the Assyrians came knocking, then nothing until around 60/70CE when it began to be be occupied by Jews fleeing the Jewish wars but at the alleged time of JC, nothing but a few isolated farms.
There appeared to have been some occupation up until the Assyrians came knocking, then nothing until around 60/70CE when it began to be be occupied by Jews fleeing the Jewish wars but at the alleged time of JC, nothing but a few isolated farms.
Jerusalem?
I have had a quick check on Wikipedia, apparently there is archaeological evidence Jerusalem existed, so either my source was wrong or I did not understand it.
It is always good to learn new things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
) people living in the Sinai for forty years, then lack of archaeological evidence would seem reasonable. Archaeological evidence for earlier populations have been found in the Sinai. That's what makes lack of Exodus evidence suspicious.
. Pilate rather seems to have done whatever he pleased and the Sanhedrin went along with it, even if the Jewish people often didn't. Pilate and Caiaphas worked together over his entire time as Roman Prefect so the hint (as one would expect from Jew- hating Greek Christians) that Pilate was on Jesus' side and knew the Sanhedrin were a bad lot isn't supported by the history.
