Archeologly proves the Bible?

[pakeha]

Try following the link
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=es

I offered in my search for references to that now shattered quartz bowl.
And if we get well and truly started on religious 'artifacts', eccles, I'll post up the story of the vial of S Pantaleon's blood which liquifies on a given date in a church very near my workplace.

 

[boilerup]

First of all I'd like to point out that this thread is going nowhere fast. The title "Archeology proves the Bible?" needs to be clarified. If by prove you mean, prove that the bible is inspired and revealed by God, then no it cannot prove the bible. But if by prove you mean, shows an event or a passage in the bible to be historical then, yes archeology can prove the bible. I skimmed through responses in this thread and it seems that there is conflict in definitions of "prove" that have not been properly addressed.

Secondly, archeology is not conclusive in and of itself. Archeology cannot repeat its results thus it shouldn't be regarded as "scientific evidence". Archeology attempts to prove a thesis, but it cannot form conclusions concerning its finds unless there is another external confirmation. If an archeologist discovers evidence that seems to contradict an already archeologically proven thesis about an ancient event or society it doesn't automatically "disprove" that thesis unless it outweighs the original body of evidence.

Also, statements like "fossil records disprove the bible because they show humans existed earlier than 6,000 years", should be reworded. I would suggest something like "Carbon dating methods contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis."

To ignore the fact that archeology has supported the historicity of both the Old and New testaments is purely skepticism and very narrow-minded.

 

[GreNME]

Secondly, archeology is not conclusive in and of itself. Archeology cannot repeat its results thus it shouldn't be regarded as "scientific evidence". Archeology attempts to prove a thesis, but it cannot form conclusions concerning its finds unless there is another external confirmation. If an archeologist discovers evidence that seems to contradict an already archeologically proven thesis about an ancient event or society it doesn't automatically "disprove" that thesis unless it outweighs the original body of evidence.

You have a very poor understanding of what constitutes science. Of the historical studies, archaeology is the most "hard science" of the fields.

Also, statements like "fossil records disprove the bible because they show humans existed earlier than 6,000 years", should be reworded. I would suggest something like "Carbon dating methods contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis."

You're suggesting a strawman. Not all dating is done through carbon testing.

To ignore the fact that archeology has supported the historicity of both the Old and New testaments is purely skepticism and very narrow-minded.

You claim it as a fact, but you haven't provided any support for this claim. Please feel free to enlighten us with the actual facts supported by evidence in your next post.

 

[Phase Inverter]

I missed the quartz bowl. Lead me to it, please...

edited to add: ...I found this link which mentions the quartz bowl, etc.

Yes, that's it, the Shishaq bowl.

The quartz bowl is, alas, a fake...

That's the point. Akhenaten started a list of fake biblical artifacts (pomegranate and ossuary). I just continued it. They are all fakes.

Why would people just make this stuff up? Why are there gospels claiming to be eyewitness accounts hundreds of years after the fact? Why is it that there are so many accounts of the "false" pagan gods?

It just goes to show that humans are capable of inventing stories out of thin air and if they are popular enough they become long lived and people may actually believe them to be the truth. Even to the point of making up more stuff at a later date to support the original story.

 

[pakeha]

After digging, I got the point, phase inverter.
As to the why, that second link was pretty clear, I thought.
Lots of money.
What I find especially awful are the forgeries which use 'old' bits, thereby robbing the bit of its actual message, if any.

 

[Cainkane1]

I don't see how archaeology can prove someone walked on water or made a blind man see.

 

[Simon39759]

To ignore the fact that archeology has supported the historicity of both the Old and New testaments is purely skepticism and very narrow-minded.

Some part of it.
A lot was also falsified, a lot more was not definitively conclusive. For example, one can not prove a negative: one can not prove that the Israelies were never slave in Egypt.
But one can point out that there are quite a few lines of evidence that could have been proving the happenance of these events, none of which were ever found.

 

[Lucian]

I have a DVD "The Real Da Vinci Code". Tony Robinson set out to examine the locations in the Movie and also locations of "Holy" Objects" He went to Valencia and was shown that Chalice. One can only laugh at the claim that it is the "Cup of Jesus'. It is obviously a fake.

How many pieces of the "True Cross" are there? Enough to make about 100 Crosses. The Shroud of Turin was proved to be a forgery (Red faces in the Vatican). Somebody claims to have Jesus' baby teeth. Somebody has Jesus' FORESKIN.

No doubt somebody will find the skull of Jesus when he was a boy and then his skull when he was a man.

How much money is being made out of all these Religious objects!

I'm pretty sure there were at least two, possibly three, churches in the Middle Ages that claimed to have Jesus' foreskin. That was one hell of a briss.

 

[boloboffin]

I'm pretty sure there were at least two, possibly three, churches in the Middle Ages that claimed to have Jesus' foreskin. That was one hell of a briss.

It kept ressurecting.

 

[Marduk]

To ignore the fact that archeology has supported the historicity of both the Old and New testaments is purely skepticism and very narrow-minded.

as would be ignoring the fact that archeology has proven the historicity of large parts of both the Old and New testaments fallacious and fictional

 

[Elizabeth I]

Muslims today celebrate the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) into Heaven, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. However, according to your criteria the fact that people celebrate the event implies that there is somehow historical or archaeological evidence to support claiming it did. I have a funny feeling that you're not inclined to believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) actually ascended physically into Heaven, or that he spoke with the angel Gabriel.

What happens if you mention the Prophet but don't pbuh him?

 

[GreNME]

What happens if you mention the Prophet but don't pbuh him?

When you go to heaven, you're greeted by 72 fat, bearded men (who are definitely not virgins).

 

[boloboffin]

But there is archaeological evidence that Muhammed ascended into heaven. His footprint on the Rock under the Dome of the Rock, that's there right now.

 

[DOC]

Also the Roman/Jewish historian Josephus who was married in Alexandria Egypt had enough evidence to state the Hebrews and Moses were in Egypt.

You have got to be kidding.

From the article: OAHSPE STUDY:The Exodus of the Hebrews, Moses and the Pharaohs

"In The Antiquity of the Jews (1830, 166; Book 8.3.1) Josephus says the exodus occurred 592 years before the Temple of Solomon was built which is about 960 BC. So the exodus, according to Josephus, was about 1552 BC.....Josephus says the exodus was 612 years before the temple."

http://oahspestandardedition.com/OSAC/Exodus1.html

And Josephus definitely talked about Moses being in Egypt. In fact he stated Moses was a general in the Egyptian military at one time.

 

[DOC]

Considering that the earliest written Hebrew is an abcdery written on a rock dated to 900-1000 BCE, I sort of doubt that dating.

Do you have a source for this.

 

[DOC]

...The title "Archeology proves the Bible?" needs to be clarified. If by prove you mean, prove that the bible is inspired and revealed by God, then no it cannot prove the bible.

Maybe not prove but the empty tomb of the famous Jesus who the bible says preached to thousands at one time is definitely evidence. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine's mother on the traditional site of Christ's death and burial.

From the article: Church of the Holy Sepulcher

The best piece of evidence that the tomb of Jesus was in this area is the fact that other first-century tombs are still preserved inside the church. Called the "Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea," these burial shafts (kokhim) are clearly from the time of Christ's death and thus attest to some kind of burial ground in the area. Combined with the evidence from tradition, this church is most likely the true location of the Christ's death and burial.

(Also notice the picture of some 1st Century preserved tombs that are located in the Church)

http://www.bibleplaces.com/holysepulcher.htm

 

[paximperium]

From the article: OAHSPE STUDY:The Exodus of the Hebrews, Moses and the Pharaohs

"In The Antiquity of the Jews (1830, 166; Book 8.3.1) Josephus says the exodus occurred 592 years before the Temple of Solomon was built which is about 960 BC. So the exodus, according to Josephus, was about 1552 BC.....Josephus says the exodus was 612 years before the temple."

http://oahspestandardedition.com/OSAC/Exodus1.html

And Josephus definitely talked about Moses being in Egypt. In fact he stated Moses was a general in the Egyptian military at one time.

I'm sorry when someone talks about a well accepted tradition and myth, it does not magically make it true.

 

[paximperium]

Maybe not prove but the empty tomb of the famous mythic Jesus who the bible says preached to thousands at one time is definitely evidence. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine's mother on the traditional site of Christ's death and burial.

Bold mine. I'll those let those bolded words speak for themselves.
So...where is your archeology again?

From the article: Church of the Holy Sepulcher

The best piece of evidence that the tomb of Jesus was in this area is the fact that other first-century tombs are still preserved inside the church. Called the "Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea," these burial shafts (kokhim) are clearly from the time of Christ's death and thus attest to some kind of burial ground in the area. Combined with the evidence from tradition, this church is most likely the true location of the Christ's death and burial.

(Also notice the picture of some 1st Century preserved tombs that are located in the Church)

http://www.bibleplaces.com/holysepulcher.htm

So the presence of a burial site proves what exactly?

 

[Hokulele]

From the article: OAHSPE STUDY:The Exodus of the Hebrews, Moses and the Pharaohs.

Seriously DOC, do you do any background checking of your sources? At all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oahspe:_A_New_Bible




And by the way, my original comment was for your use of "who was married in Alexandria Egypt", as if that had any relevance at all.

 

[paximperium]

Do you have a source for this.

Let me help you out:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=earliest+written+Hebrew