archaeological evidence supporting the Bible

[MzrtMusic]

Per my post in "Does believing in God help you play better" I am supplying archaeological evidence to back it up.

There are three basic litmus tests you can put the Bible through. The first one is the one that will not satisfy most of you, but it's pretty simple: changed lives. I've read the Koran. I've read the Rubaiyat of Omar Khyham. I've read the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I've read numerous texts that have spawned religions. While some of them (like the Rubaiyat) contained great poetry, there was never anything in them that "Changed my life" like reading the Bible has. Why are people willing to die in countries where Christianity is outlawed, just for the chance to read a few verses out of this book? The Bible has been printed in more languages, and sold more copies than any other book ever written. It has changed lives in ways that no other book has ever done. And that makes it special.

The second test you can use is an internal test. The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [1] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind.

Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke (author of the Gospel of Luke) made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. That’s a LOT of geography. Everything he said about how they related to each other, and who was where when is accurate.

The third test is archaeological evidence. I'm going to list what I came up with after researching for just a few minutes.

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [2]

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed.

Norman Geisler explains Ezekiel's prediction that the city of Tyre "would be destroyed and its ruins cast into the sea (26:2). This provoked scoffing because, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, he left the ruins right where they fell--on the land. But 200 years later, Alexander the Great attacked Tyre and the inhabitants withdrew to an island just off the coast for safety. In order to reach them, Alexander threw all of the debris, stones, timbers, dust, and everything else, into the sea to build a causeway that would reach the island." [3]

Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was second to none in issuing statements about manuscripts, said this about the New Testament: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest existing evidence [i.e. the earliest copies we have] become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially has having been written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." [4] He further said that "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading." The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.

Isaiah 20:1 says Sargon, king of Assyria, captured Ashdod. Absence of confirming evidence caused skeptics to question the existence of Sargon for many years. But then his palace was discovered in 1843 and a victory stela commemorating his victory over Ashdod was discovered in the ruins of Ashdod itself in 1963.

Thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in different places in the middle east which date to the time covered in Genesis. One large cache of tablets was found at Tel Mardikh in Syria. These tablets are from the Empire of Ebla dating from around 2,000 BC. They confirm many details found in the Biblical stories about the Patriarchs. Versions of the Biblical stories about creation, the flood, and the tower of Babel have been discovered. Many of the specific social rules and customs described in the stories about Abraham and his sons have been verified as the current practice among the Semitic people in that time and region. This would include such things as the adoption custom, Genesis 15:4, having a child by a handmaid, Genesis 16:1-2, selling one's birthright, Genesis 25:27-34, selecting a son's wife, Genesis 24:10, and the price of slaves, Genesis 37:28. What's more, many of these tablets are written in a language very similar to the ancient Hebrew in which the Bible was written. They refer to many of the places visited by the Patriarchs, and they confirm the current use of names such as Abraham, Esau, Ishmael, Israel.

2 Kings 18:13-19:37 describes the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Many of the details of this story have been remarkably verified by archaeological discoveries. The Assyrian siege of Lachish has been verified by excavations and a large relief found in Sennacherib's palace. The fact that Sennacherib was unable to take Jerusalem is verified by his own account recorded on a monument known as the Taylor Prism which dates to 689 BC. The Bible records that Sennacherib was murdered by his own son, 2 Kings 19:37. This fact was verified when a clay tablet was found in the royal archives of Nineveh giving the same account.

1. I (the author, Matt Perman) have personally looked into the issue of alleged contradictions, and after thorough investigation, have never found one to hold. Norman Geisler, who has studied the Bible exhaustively for over forty years and been confronted with numerous dificulties, is of the same conclusion. A valuable resource for further investigation on this mater is Geisler's When Critics Ask.
2. Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), p. 43.
3. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990), p. 198.
4. Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper and Row, 1940), pp. 288, 289.


I have much more where this came from, but this post is already quite long. If you have made it all the way down here, thanks for your interest!

Love,

Sarah

[Derek]

It seems to me it would be a daunting task to refute all your research, Sarah.  I obviously wouldn't as you know, ha.

[f0bul0us]

*This coming from a Catholic, btw

Those are all very nice unrevolutionary findings that could (potentially) be Internet gossip, you certainly don't have proof to deny that. So what exactly does this great book of exciting bedtime stories say about priests who molest, and why was the church considering a "3 strike" policy for priests that are convicted? I guess the real question is, is anybody really that forgiving? "But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" Be real, after two convictions of child molestation how many other cheeks does he have to turn? Perhaps the two on his ass?

I'm not saying I don't believe in the stories of the Bible, I'm saying that when put under the microscope is it as easy to hold dear the beliefs we've grown to learn and accept? Is all this a test to measure our faith, I don't know, but I do know that we're swinging back and forth causing a pendulum-like effect trying to balance the question of is believing in this great book going to be the cause of Christianity's downfall?  :-/

[Derek]

Fabulous,

I don't think anyone pretends that humans are ever exempt from sin, catholic priests included. It is unfortunate that corruption exists among clergymen in churches, but this is no reason to dismiss Christianity or to lose faith in its spiritual substance.

[faulty_damper]

So where does God come in and make us a better musician?

About the litmus tests:
1.  Changing lives:  Liszt's life changed when he heard Paganini play the violin.  Off tangent: he later became a religious fanatic.  But because of his hearing the "devil" play, he wanted to play just like that on the piano.

Anything can stimulate/influence one to do something.  Not just the Bible.  Just as there have been many who converted to Buddhist philosophy.

2.  Internal evidence:  Consistencies?  Genesis opens with a contradiction of creation to name the first obvious contradiction.  There is no way Perman or Geisler can refute this, can they?  I'm sure their is more to what they've studied but I've never read them.

Consistencies: this is also to say that many books written on a particular topic, say the origins of the piano, are consistent amongst each other.  The authors may get a few facts wrong but overall, the origins of the piano are rather consistent.  Then of course, more modern writting on the topic will use those previous literature to create new literature upon them.  And the authors of the modern writtings may use inconsistent facts depending on his material research.  And since the piano is a global instrument, authors can write the origins of the piano in English, German, Spanish, Chinese, etc.  This is the same as the collection of literature called the Bible.

Anything can have consistencies as long as most agree.

3.  Archeological evidence.  It points that something existed because someone left behind their stuff.  Just as the Indians in America were once killed off, their things still exist.  But not all of the Indians were killed off.  There were still some that lived to tell the tale of what happened to their ancestors.

What this says is that the Indians existed.  It does not say anything more regarding existence.
----

So what does this the evidence you provide say about what?  What I infer is that your evidence is to support the existence of:
1. the writings collected in the book, Bible, are true.
2. the writings write of ancient civilizations that have merit as these civilizations have left their belongings for us to find.

So how does this relate to music and being better musicians because of a divine deity?

[faulty_damper]

Responding to Fabulous:

The interpretation of the Bible are numerous.  After the time of the Three Rejections (Martin Luther et al) during the reign of Elizabeth, there were literally thousands of different religions based on a different perspective of that book.  A few of those different protestant religions have survived.

One of them is the Society of Friends where God is within us.  Because it is within us, we cannot cause harm to anyone else because that would be harming that entity.  

One interpretation of this to defend the Church and the moral crimes is that because, form the perspective of the SoF, they have not understood that God is within them.  Because they did not understand this, they willfully commited those moral crimes.

About the Church:  It is a very large institution and a very exclusive one.  Their practices are similar to the rich, eccentric and even fetish-like.  Molesting people is part of that eccentrism and fetish.  Eccentrism and fetishes are part of having a lot, both in financially and tangibly.  Power also plays a role in this "deviant" behaviour.  

But considering the book, people were not born from it. Church authorities included.  So they may choose some form of fetish.  Child moleting is a fetish.  Just as the rich and powerful choose to have humiliating sex acts done on high-priced prostitutes.  Like California's governor Arnold Shwarzeneggar, even though he is married to a corpse (have you seen a picture of his wife, Maria Shriver?) he is having sex with multiple women and though I've never seen a video of it, I'm sure it is the same kind of sex that doctors, lawyers, businessmen, politicians, etc. have with those prostitutes.  And of course, many of them are Christian/Church members.  The book does not dictate their actions.

[Derek]

Once again I would like to reiterate that citing examples of corruption and sin even amongst clergy (who OUGHT to be more Godly, yes,)  is no basis for rejecting Christianity as a religion which can potentially enrich one's life and spirituality.

I recognize that a lot of people feel they can have an equally fulfilling life without religion. Thats fine; how would I know how fulfilling other people's lives are?

[Locky]

Life is very complicated. Agreed?

[janice]

About the Church:  It is a very large institution and a very exclusive one.  Their practices are similar to the rich, eccentric and even fetish-like.  Molesting people is part of that eccentrism and fetish.  Eccentrism and fetishes are part of having a lot, both in financially and tangibly.  Power also plays a role in this "deviant" behaviour.  

There is a huge difference between "the Church" as we now know it today(based upon MAN'S definition), and "the Church" which is not based upon man's definition, but GOD'S definition.  Granted, that there are a handful of people who belong to both churches.

[janice]

Walking into a church makes me a Christian just as much as walking into a garage makes me a car.

[ayahav]

As a Jew, I focus mainly on the Old Testament, though I am familiar with much of the New testament as well. Having read the Old Testament in two languages (both in Hebrew - my mother tongue, and in English), I can conclude that a lot of the bible is very mistranslated. It is also important to note that many ambiguities still exist in Hebrew, because of the way the text was transferred. It is perhaps worthwhile noting, that what we refer to as the "Old Testament" today, is quite different from the original text.
We must realise that because of the Jewish tradition of bible copying which is very sanctimonious - many of the mistakes made were kept because they were supposedly 'holy'.

Regardless of whether there exists solid archaeological proof for the Old Testament (which mostly doesn't), there is always the theory of argument... If you look far and wide enough you will be able to find a justification to anything. What counts, is your own ability to accept your justification - something which is very subjective... Though some of the things in the bible are definitely true, some of them definitely aren't.  For example, I'm sure that killing all the Egyptian cattle wasn't done by God, nor was the slaughter of every Egyptian firstborn.

The bible is the moral history of the western world and of the Middle East. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, the bible serves more as a code of conduct than anything else. For example, the stry oof Cain and Abel, has a very specific purpose. There is also a reason, though most people choose to ignore this fact, that Cain's punishment was very light in comparison with other murderers in thhe bible. Cain's punishment was to roam the world never settling down anywhere (while under God's protection - the brand of Cain), though even that punishment was not carried out. This is not understood by people who don't speak English, but Abel's name means, literally: "an insignificant detail, a lie". Abel was only introduced into the story to show how Cain acted to him - how Cain could not mmaster the evil within him. (if you want a further explanation contact me - this is a very strong theory).

The Bible must always be taken with a grain of salt. We must also take with us a moral from the stories, yet we must never take them for literal happenings or events.

[janice]

 For example, I'm sure that killing all the Egyptian cattle wasn't done by God, nor was the slaughter of every Egyptian firstborn.

You said "I'm sure that...(these things didn't happen)."  WHY WOULDN'T they have happened?

[ayahav]

I will acknowledge that I am agnostic.

Rest given to that, I find it hard to believe, for example, that Noah was able to construct an ark big enough to fit a male and a female of each species. Even if we exclude marine life, which would have been fine during the floods, there is no way that Noah would even have had access to all species. The bible uses many allegories to depict situations in our life. Noah following God's orders and being the only righteous man alive, and then receiving this 'award' from God teaches us that even in the midst of a world full of evil, we must still be good, and to that end it also provides us with an incentive.

Many ideas that are depicted in the bible, many events and occurences are also physically impossible. For example, it is chemically and physically possible that the prophet Elijah was able to turn the liquid inside three sealed barrels from water into oil. I would also find it hard to believe that Jonah was able to survive in the belly of the 'big fish' for three days and three nights. (Jonah 2:1-2), how was Jonah even able to get into the belly of the fish? The building of the tower of Babel is a nice anecdote to describe the formation of languages, but who had proper stone mason techniques at the time, enough to build a skyscraper? Or are you suggesting that it was particularly foggy that day, so they thought they had reached the clouds?

That's the kind of things that I am talking about.

[monk]

Organized religion is one of the biggest threats to mankind.

Every christian, muslim, hindu, jew thinks that HIS religion, HIS book is right and that the others are wrong.

Next time a muslim posts here that the Koran is amazingly consistent, changed his life and so on.

There are interesting things in ALL religious scriptures; but to think that one has found the TRUTH in one of them is just superstitious.

The truth can't be formulated in words - the truth JUST IS.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[Derek]

I believe any large group of people with zealous beliefs are a threat to mankind, and that includes religious people, communists, liberals, etc.  Some of these deny they are practicing a religion, but it is often ominously like a religion.  Take Al Gore for example, saying: "I was glad I was searched."   Why the hell was he glad he was searched? This is nothing other than a liberal religious ritual.

Mankind is a threat to mankind. We are deeply flawed, fearful, and act before we think far too much.

I think the only philosophy that can save us from our  fate is to encourage our fellow man to embrace individualism.   Religion, in the context of a rational life, can only enrich our spirituality and contact with other people.

[Saturn]

I'm familiar with most of the logical and rational arguments which seem to support the Bible.  There are lots of Christians who incorporate "empirical scientific evidence" into their evangelism.

But all this largely misses the point.

Why, you ask?

Because let's say a Christian talks to an atheist about the Bible.  The man argues that the Bible was written by men, there's no evidence that God exists, etc.  Then the Christian proceeds to show him the archeological and scientific evidence supporting the Bible and the existence of God.  The atheist, seeing this evidence, changes his mind.

Even in this unlikely scenario, the Christian has accomplished nothing.  Though he/she has managed to convince the atheist of the Bible's accuracy, the atheist only believes it because of the evidence, not because of faith.

That's not to say that the evidence serves no purpose.  But archeological finds will never make anyone a Christian who would not believe without first seeing the "proof".

[MzrtMusic]

I did not start this thread to convert people. I did not start this thread to show that I was superior. I did not start this thread so I could say "See, I told you so!" I started this thread because someone asked to see the logic behind my statements. So, I provided it. This isn't about the Catholic church. This isn't about priests molesting children. This isn't about who is right, or who is wrong. It was just providing facts when I was asked for them.

On the other hand, I have found it most interesting to sit back and read everything that has been posted here. Why is it that this topic brings up such great passion? Why do some simple facts drive so many people to belittle something so important to others? What is so special about Christianity, and Jesus Christ and the Bible that for thousands of years, it has excited massive debate? Just a thought...

Love,

Sarah

[faulty_damper]

I thought the evidence you were to provide was to show that believing in god makes a person a better musician.  I don't think any doubts that the book, Bible, does not exist.  I have one in my home.  It's a book and it exists as I have one.  But what was the point of providing evidence that the book was written by some people?

[meisel]

There are said to be many contradictions in the bible, this site focuses on this problem: https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

And how do you explain the dinosaurs?

[thomas_williams]

Hi, Sarah, and thanks for starting this thread!  The study of science, archaeology, etc., and how they ALWAYS  are in agreement with the Word of God is a fascinating study for me.  

[Derek]

about that infidels site link, seeing the word "s/he" in the first paragraph or so is enough to make me ignore it and not read any further!  

[liszmaninopin]

I think the reason there is so much passion in debates for/against Christianity, the Bible, and creationism is because all sides feel tremendous conviction that they are correct.  That applies to me, as well.  I have a strong feeling that the Bible is not inerrant, and that Creationism isn't science.  I also feel strongly that Christianity is a positive thing for society, as long as it's not taken to fundamentalist extremes.

[Locky]

So Litzmaninopin,
                               do you think that believing in a 6 day creation is an extreme, fundamentalist belief?

What about this....

We listen to what scientists say, and we accept it. And it becomes our belief. That is, unless it goes against the mainstream view-point. Then we treat it sceptically.

If we believe something and then find inconsistencies, we don't abandon our beliefs. We just rationalise by telling ourselves that we can't expect to understand everything. It's the same for everyone. Except for the person who has excepted someone else's beliefs.

I think there might be a bit of fundamentalist extreme in all of us. Or, at least most of us   .

[liszmaninopin]

I suppose you have a point-all people hold to some beliefs strongly.  I for example, believe very firmly in environmental protection.

However, I do feel that the physical evidence around the world indicates an old earth.  Believing in a six day creation is not necessarily fundamentalist.  People can interpret those days to mean many things.  The only ones who I would classify as fundamentalist are those who not only hold their beliefs, but hold on to them regardless of something that would indicate that their beliefs are incorrect.  In other words, a sort of willful ignorance.  That doesn't mean they need to abandon their beliefs when challenged, of course not.  But they should give them a fair evaluation; if their beliefs stand up to the test, then they are stronger for it.  If the beliefs to not stand scrutiny, then they can be changed for the better.

Of course I listen to what scientists say.  I don't always agree with it, but since they have great experience and knowledge in their chosen fields, at least I respect their views.  Yes, if a view does go against the mainstream, I do treat it skeptically until it is showed to be more correct than the mainstream view.  That is the scientific process.

Keep in mind I don't apply this system of thought to everything, only to simple science.  It doesn't really apply to issues like morality, human relations, etc.

[Locky]

Liszmaninopin, you said that you don't believe creationism to be science.
Are you refering to the belief that the universe was created and didn't just... occur?

What do you mean by  "Creationism isn't science"?

For example: I could say that I believe that the big bang was created by God. Is that creationism? Why isn't it scientific?

[liszmaninopin]

I will clarify.  When I said creationism, I was referring to people trying to defend the following positions with science:

1.  Earth created in six literal, 24-hour days
2.  All species created at the same time
3.  Macro-evolution is impossible
4.  The earth was created 8 to 10 thousand years ago
5.  Noah's flood was a literal event as described in Genesis, mankind descended from Noah.
6.  Tower of Babel story explains modern cultures and languages

I know of many books out there that will defend the above positions, but from what I've read of them, I find that they rely upon faulty data, reasoning, or both.  That is why I assert that it is not science.  I'm sorry for overgeneralizing.

[willcowskitz]

People should stop thinking of God as something that has a consciousness in same sense as us humans.

"God created ...",  

As if someone decided to give birth to something.

There's no reason for any of this (the universe, existence), except all that blambalabah that people create in their heads. All those different "meanings" that people give things are just another form of life - its motion, distances in time dimension. There's no "God" who cares about your future, but there is a "God" that IS EVERYTHING, and as you're part of the everything, you can from the pitiful human perspective conclude that God does "care" like a person (that you can relate to) would, about you. In fact the whole question of "caring" or "reasons" doesn't even arise if you really see THE GOD, because he is Alfa and Omega, whereas we humans look at things from the middle of the scale that the motion we call life harvests.

People arguing over texts being divine should maybe turn their eyes into themselves and find the real location of "universe".

Please stop the neverending "We're right you're wrong" crap.

^Mainly aimed at the Christians who MORE AND MORE OFTEN SEEM TO CROWN THEMSELVES AS THE UNDISPUTED, ABSOLUTE AWARENESS.