• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Archeology has never disproved a Biblical point

Papermache said:
It was Joshua that "fit the battle of Jericho and the walls come tumbling down". Although, as I understand it, there's no evidence that Joshua existed either.
Click to expand...

David, Joshua, the cat in the hat, one fictional character is much the same as another
:D
 
Lots of negatives:

- no proof whatsoever of any migration from the Tigris-Euphrates valleys into Canaan (Abraham's travels).
- no proof of any slavery of Jewish or other semitic peoples in Egypt. Egypt, rather, conquered and held Canaan for a period in the 2nd millineum BCE.
- no knowledge of any death of a first born pharoah's sin, paricularly in the line of Ramses.
- no archaeological evidence that he world stood still upon a patriarch's command, as surely there would be if it had happened.
- essentially no archaeological support for anything specific in the Bible predating the name of David found on a stele at about 1000BCE.

Some positive proofs:

- The Dead Sea Scrolls display a literally differing script for various of the common books of the Bible, thereby challenging the concept of literal inerrancy.
- Various genealogical derivations of peoples (Ham's descendants, for example) found in error by both archaeology and genetics.
- any number of archaeological findings that date back farther than the Bible's genealogical dating can reach.
- archaeological proof of cities with continuous populations that reached back through any possible flood dates.
- archaeological field studies done in Cannaan that prove that the Israelites and Judeans were culturally identical, but poorer than the Canaanites that lived in Canaan before the revolution that occurred about 1200-1000BCE.
- Literary criticism of the Old Testament, which is itself a part of the archaeological record.

Probably more, but I'm neither a Bible scholar nor an archaologist except in spirit.
 
I'd encourage your friend to find a copy of John Romer's book "Testament" and read it. It's pretty sympathetic to Christian belief, while being quite clear that archaeology doesn't support the Bible.
 
TheAnachronism said:
Could you be a little bit more specific? Are you claiming it never really existed (it did), or that it was never destroyed (it was), or that it wasn't destroyed in the way the OT depicts? I have a feeling it is the last one, but what evidence, exactly, has been unearthed to discount that story entirely?

I realize that he should be providing evidence of these things, not I, but I'd like to show his statement to be outright false. I have a feeling he made that statement out of ignorance, not because he's so well-read that it would be impossible for him to have missed such evidence if it existed.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the current archeological consensus is that the cities of Canaan that the Israelites conquered as outside invaders were not conquered from outside. That is in stark contradiction to the Biblical accounts.
 
According to various ways of calculating, the Exodus, followed by Joshua's conquest of Canaan would have occorred ca. 1200 or 1450 BCE. Of the cities supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites, in either preiod, they either weren't inhabited, weren't major walled cities or were but weren't violently destroyed in either of those periods. Likewise, Egypt, supposedly wracked by devastating plagues and losing its army in the Red Sea, doesn't show any particular loss of power during either of those date settings. So archaeology pretty well disproves the historicity of the narratives of the Exodus and the Book of Joshua.
 
I believe one method of archeology tests theories by trying to recreate something (what technique would let you to make this flint tool? etc.). Experimental archeology.

I think you can just use a thought-experiment to refute the notion that 600,000 people on foot, including the very old, the very young, the infirm, all their possessions and lots of animals (Exodus 12: 37-38), crossed a temporarily water-less portion of the Red Sea within a day's time. I don't recall where I read it, but a trained military group of similar size crossing an established bridge takes much longer than a day.

This is leaving off the miraculous parting of the waters. This addresses the mundane Biblical claim that this large group of people were able to cross in such a time (presumably over one night--but certainly not long since the Egyptians were already in sight before the waters parted) that the Egyptians following on chariots were killed when Moses stretched out his hand "at daybreak" to cause the water to flow back. (Exodus: 14:26-28)
 
TheAnachronism said:
My friend made the claim that "archeology has never disproved a biblical point."

I have every reason to doubt that claim, but am unsure where to find specific examples and sources to back up my thoughts about that. I have a feeling that there are many examples, with varying degrees of evidence, that disprove specific Biblical happenings.

This mainly applies to events that are studied through history/archeology, rather than things like "biology disproves the Genesis account of creation."

I would greatly appreciate any input and look forward to what you have to say upon the subject.
Click to expand...
Actually Archeology has disproved what the bible says from time to time. When Jerico was destroyed its was never supposed to be inhabited again but it was inhabited several times after its fall.
 
shadron said:
Lots of negatives:

- no proof whatsoever of any migration from the Tigris-Euphrates valleys into Canaan (Abraham's travels).
- no proof of any slavery of Jewish or other semitic peoples in Egypt. Egypt, rather, conquered and held Canaan for a period in the 2nd millineum BCE.
- no knowledge of any death of a first born pharoah's sin, paricularly in the line of Ramses.
- no archaeological evidence that he world stood still upon a patriarch's command, as surely there would be if it had happened.
- essentially no archaeological support for anything specific in the Bible predating the name of David found on a stele at about 1000BCE.
Click to expand...

Just don't forget that an absence of evidence is not evidence to say it never happened.

What religionistas mean is that nothing can be disproven by archaeology. Jericho is the only example of direct contradiction, I'm pretty sure, and that can all be exaplained away by mistaken dates or some other apologetic crap.
 
Actually, when it comes to the whole Exodus / Conquest question, the evidence of archaeiology has been so utterly damning that believers have often been forced to resort to radical redating, which requires tht the entire chronology of history be revised to make the Exodus / Conquet work. This usually also demands invalidating the carbon 14 dates of the beeswax coating the bust of Nefertiti and the wrappings of the mummy of Rameses II. The latest of the radical redaters I know of is David Rohl, who tried to identify Rameses II with the biblical Shishak (generally seen as Shoshenk I).
 
TimCallahan said:
Actually, when it comes to the whole Exodus / Conquest question, the evidence of archaeiology has been so utterly damning that believers have often been forced to resort to radical redating, which requires tht the entire chronology of history be revised to make the Exodus / Conquet work. This usually also demands invalidating the carbon 14 dates of the beeswax coating the bust of Nefertiti and the wrappings of the mummy of Rameses II. The latest of the radical redaters I know of is David Rohl, who tried to identify Rameses II with the biblical Shishak (generally seen as Shoshenk I).
Click to expand...

Tim, are you saying David rohl is trying to support the bible because everything I have seen led me to believe he was debunking it. Especially the gospel according to egypt site which he seems to support. I could very well be wrong as it has been awhile since I studied this. Also do you think Rohl has anything?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think you can just use a thought-experiment to refute the notion that 600,000 people on foot, including the very old, the very young, the infirm, all their possessions and lots of animals (Exodus 12: 37-38), crossed a temporarily water-less portion of the Red Sea within a day's time. I don't recall where I read it, but a trained military group of similar size crossing an established bridge takes much longer than a day.
Click to expand...

I think the bridge comparison may be invalid. Obviously, one could not build a bridge a mile wide, but one could easily1 part the waters to any width desired.


1) assuming an omnipotent God holding back the waters.
 
Ladewig said:
I think the bridge comparison may be invalid. Obviously, one could not build a bridge a mile wide, but one could easily1 part the waters to any width desired.


1) assuming an omnipotent God holding back the waters.
Click to expand...
Even assuming the opening was a mile wide, there's no way possible that 600,000 people of all ages, carrying all their possessions and herds and flocks of animals could outrun people on chariots that were in their sight. That is, even if the pathway is a mile wide, it's absolutely not credible that they could make a passage like this in a matter of hours.

It should in fact take months.

I wouldn't quibble over it if it were a near thing. I mentioned the stuff about trained able-bodied military personnel making a crossing as something for comparison. In fact, I think that's a legitimate comparison. You're trading off a heckuva lot in exchange for this extra width.

I think we can safely say this story is disproven by comparative experimental archeology--even allowing for the miracle of the parting of the waters.
 
TheAnachronism said:
My friend made the claim that "archeology has never disproved a biblical point."

I have every reason to doubt that claim, but am unsure where to find specific examples and sources to back up my thoughts about that. I have a feeling that there are many examples, with varying degrees of evidence, that disprove specific Biblical happenings.

This mainly applies to events that are studied through history/archeology, rather than things like "biology disproves the Genesis account of creation."

I would greatly appreciate any input and look forward to what you have to say upon the subject.
Click to expand...
You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0
 
I don't think jimtron was off topic at all. Archaeology has most definitely disproven the Bible's version of the earth's age. Noah's Ark, too.

The lack of archaeology proves things as well, IMO. The events in the Exodus should have left some trail. Pottery, graves, etc. And what about the lack of physical evidence for the kingdoms of David and Solomon? If their kingdom was as grand as the Bible says, archaeologists would have found more than Aramaic graffiti.
 
The Atheist said:
Just don't forget that an absence of evidence is not evidence to say it never happened.

What religionistas mean is that nothing can be disproven by archaeology. Jericho is the only example of direct contradiction, I'm pretty sure, and that can all be exaplained away by mistaken dates or some other apologetic crap.
Click to expand...

Yes - you may have noticed that I separated the negative (which you quoted) and positive (which you didn't) evidences that quickly came off the top, with this objection in mind. I was well aware of the way the question was worded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom