[Natural Law]

The Bible's primary purpose is not that of a history book. Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God's history with his people. It arose out of the struggles and the vagaries of this history, and all through it we can catch a glimpse of the rises and falls, the sufferings and hopes, and the greatness and failures of this history. The Bible is thus the story of God's struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to them over the course of time; but it is also the story of their struggle to seize hold of God over the course of time.

Regardless of how closely archaeological finding match the Scriptural narrative nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.

[lefty-lie-spy]

Does the bible support reality?
Its a book of parables and fables and allegories based on fact that are supposed to give inspiration to make one a better person.
Anyone that takes the bible literally is nuts.

[Blackhawk]

Tomorrow we will go to the Milwaukee Public Museum to see the exhibit “The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Bible, Ancient Artifacts, Timeless Treasures. We are taking my Parents. They had a life long dream trip planned to go to the Holy Land about 10 years ago which was canceled due to my Father having a heart attack. They never got to go. Now my Father is in poor health and showing the signs of Alzheimer's. So this will prob. be the closest he gets. It is supposed to be an awesome exhibit.

As far as the Bible goes...My tag line pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned.

[married21]

I’ve read that there is archeological evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate, because his name was on the dedication stone of a theater. Also, I read that King David had been disparaged by archeologists as probably only a minor local chieftain, until a reference to “King” David was found in the writings of some other nearby culture.

I agree, though, with Natural Law, that the Bible isn’t a history book. It’s a love story about God and his people.

Archeologists can’t prove or disprove the Bible, but they can use the Bible as a reference tool, since it does refer to various historical events.

[JustCallMeFrank]

If, time after time, archaeology substantiates statements the Bible makes about the past, it would be logical to conclude that because the Bible is reliable historically, it must be reliable when it speaks of salvation, the coming of Christ, the Judgment, and everlasting life.

Wow. That's a HUGH leap!
Historical accuracy does not automatically validate magical claims.

[Just mythoughts]

IF Rahab was a hooker, why did she have enough flax drying on her roof to hide two men?

[rwoodward]

I find there are usually 3 kinds of opinions. 1) People who beleive without question. 2) People who reject without any research. 3) People who don’t care.
I used to be in the number two category until I did my homework. Now I can make an honest opinion and say without any doubt that the Bible is truly a facsinating and historical document that dates thousands of years of middle east history. It is also a very short version of hundreds of thousands of scrolls, books, prophetic writings, generational stories and eye witness testimonies. It also merges all this information from many different civilizations..Accadian, Chaldean, Egyption, Sumerian, Hebrew, just to name a few. Do your research on Bible History instead of trying to just read the Bible itself. As far as proof there is a God or Gods? That is for you to decide!

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN!

[circlecity]

"If the Bible is accurate, archaeologists should be able to dig into the tel, the dirt mound, at the site of Old Testament Jericho and find a large collapsed wall associated with a burn layer. Sure enough, archaeologists do find a large wall at Jericho, which is partially collapsed and associated with a deep burn layer indicating great destruction, not just a small fire. However, because of the way most modern archaeologists misdate the various layers, they claim when Joshua arrived, Jericho was either a deserted city or a small settlement. They say the wall was destroyed and the city burned before Joshua arrived, and Joshua simply took credit for what others had done by writing the story that now appears in the Bible."

To me the arrogance of worldly man in this statement is breathtaking. The scientists find Jericho. As they dig, all the objective details of the Bible story are verified, right where they should be. The Bible works like a literal map. The human archaeologist adds one thing into the mix, his speculation on the date and since this conflicts with the Bible he concludes it must mean the Bible is wrong. Incredible.

The Bible is most certainly a book of history. The first 17 books of the Old Testament are classically referred to as the "historical books". They are written, in the most part, as historical narratives with innumerable geographic and chronological markers for us to verify the events. In the New Testament, the Gospels are all written as historical narrative and should be treated as such. In fact, in the introduction to the book of Luke, the author Luke tells us directly that he is writing as a historian to give a written and orderly account of real things as they really happened by interviewing real, first hand witnesses, and researching everything else that's been written already. Thus the Bible certainly contains a whole lot of history. For the time period covered it is the most extensive source of eyewitness history we have. As history it should be read literally.

The question of whether to read the Bible literally or figuratively is dictated by genre and context. Different genres are interpreted differently. The genre of historical narrative is to be interpreted literally unless dictated otherwise by the context. These books purport to report what happened and are written to taken at their word. The genres of poetry (psalms, song of Solomon, etc) and prophecy (Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation) are to be taken more figuratively or symbolically. Every time a passage is a parable Jesus or the narrator tells us ("And then he told them a parable...",) - we don't have to guess what is being used as a parable, the text tells us every time. Most people telling you that you can't trust or understand the Bible have never read the Bible cover to cover. Do not listen to these people. It was written for all man to hear, understand and use as an infallible guide. It is God's greatest gift to us. No one is too dumb or ignorant to understand, use and be blessed by the wisdom of scripture but, alas, many are too smart to do so.

[onedoug]

In Genesis 1:21 the creation narrative names Taninim Gedolim”: Big reptile or lizard. Later in Exodus 4:3 Moses casts his staff on the ground and it becomes a “nahash” which is Hebrew for serpent or snake. Then, before Pharaoh it becomes a ”tannin” which is the singular case for ”taninim” above.

This sense of naming becomes surprising in God’s discussing kashrus in Leviticus 11:19 where He mentions the Hebrew word “Tinshemet” in referring to a bird, and a little later in v30 He uses to same word in referring to a reptile. It takes on special significance in the modern paleontological sense of referencing the relationship of the hip structure of birds to similar structures in the hips of Ornisthician dinosaurs such as the Stegosuars and Hadrosauridae of the Mesozoic era.

Why would God and The Bible have used these terms overall no less than for the latter two? These juxtapositions would form yet another of my ongoing arguments (Israel=struggle) with Him had He something else entirely in mind.

[SunkenCiv]

One of *those* topics. :')

One who understands what has occurred in archaeology, and has information to help correct it is David Rohl... Rohl concludes that the reason that archaeologists do not have evidence for the biblical events is they are looking in the wrong layers of the dirt. They have misdated the layers and assigned the wrong dates to the evidence in the ground... Another scholar who recognized the need to completely reconstruct the chronology of the Exodus and the early years of the Israelite occupation of the land of Israel is the late Donovan Courville. His rare two-volume work, The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, is a masterpiece offering a very plausible explanation of the chronology of the Exodus, including the name of the Pharaoh who opposed Moses. The late Joseph P. Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History, is another scholar who recognized the need to adjust the "accepted dating" of many of the archaeological sites in Israel.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from March 19, 2010. Thanks restornu. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[ChocChipCookie]

A couple of years ago I read a blurb about portions of giant grain silos being discovered in Egypt, and the article asked if they might not be from the same era as Joseph. A photo was included. Does anyone know of additional information about these?

[Señor Zorro]

Disclosure: I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

If, time after time, archaeology substantiates statements the Bible makes about the past, it would be logical to conclude that because the Bible is reliable historically, it must be reliable when it speaks of salvation, the coming of Christ, the Judgment, and everlasting life.

This is the problem with a great many apologists--they base their arguments on false dichotomies. One could say that the Bible is correct in the particulars of history because the people who wrote it lived through those times, but that their views on God and Salvation were misguided. I do not believe this to be the case, but it is a third option.