On a documentry recently it discussed Moses and the events of his life and that it held some truth.
Here are a few things that were mentioned:

The events in the Bible took place about the same time as the eruption of Santorini which helped to destroy the Minoan civilization. This would explain the pillar of smoke and fire mentioned (Santorini was one of the most powerful eruptions in human history).

Moses never parted the Red sea, this is in fact an error in translation. In the Latin Bible it says the Reed sea, and in the Hebrew Bible it says the Sea of reeds. As tributaries of the Nile are filled with reeds it would seem likely one of these are thew Sea of reeds.

The actual parting was caused by a Tsunami that also hit Crete due to Santorini's eruption.
As both in Crete and Eygpt pummis stones from the volcano have been found which could only have got there from a Tsunami.( When a Tsunami occurs water is drawn far out to sea hence a parted river provided it is conected to the sea). The stones have been proved to originate from Santorini

Moses was meant to have been chased by the pharoh and I think about 200 chariots. Recently a stable dating from the same time has been excavated containing around 150 posts for tying horses to.

The real mountain on which Moses produced the commandments has possibly been found. At its base is a small ancient stone settlement (No-one lives there) and near by there is a stone altar supported by 12 small pillar-like rocks. These are simillar to what is described in the Bible when an altar is built and the 12 pillars to represent the 12 tribes.
Also in the same area there are a few rocks with carvings of what look like two pages with writing on them.

So it seems like some events in the Bible might more historical correct than orignally thought.

Unfortunately, the eruption took place in the period of 1650 – 1450 BCE and the period of the Exodus wasn’t until around 1235 BCE, several centuries later.

This is old news, this theory has been around for several decades at least. Unfortunately for the theory, the chronology doesn’t not jibe at all. The destruction of Thera by the eruption of Santorini occurred several centuries prior to the supposed Exodus. The pumice you refer to would have been laying in place for at least 2 centuries when the unwashed mass passed by.

There would have been no reason for the Pharaoh to have chased Moses and the herd. From the late 17th Dynasty to the early 20th Dynasty (1650 – 1187 BCE), Palestine (and the Sinai desert) was in the Imperial possession of Egypt, with forts and armed patrols all along the way. Pharaoh needed only send a courier to the nearest fort to have the “slaves” stopped. The stable you refer to is probably the so-called “Stables of Solomon”, which really are Egyptian (the original archaeologist – a bible literalist, misidentified the pottery used to date the structure). That is exactly the point I am making, these stables were in the border lands between Egypt and Palestine.

You are referring to the “Joshua” altar, there is no way to prove or disprove that this has anything to do with the 10 commandments. In fact it can’t even be shown to have been a Hebrew alter, since there is no real difference between those erected for Ba’al and Jehovah. The 12 pillars are believed to be “asherah’s”, that is, pillars erected to the Goddess Asherah, the wife of Jehovah in the Canaanite/Hebrew pantheon.

Actually, it shows that “true-believers” will attempt to skew data to support their beliefs, even when the data really doesn’t, and that TV production companies will exploit this tendency for the sake of ratings, not the truth.

Thanks for the reply, to be honest I was a little skeptical of what was said on the documentary anyway. I just wanted to see what others thought of it.

I think I have read a book regarding the mountain you speak of here. It seems that not only is there alters but other historical evidence which correlates to the biblical narrative, such as a scorched peak, the twelve pillars, and possibly the rock which moses struck to bring forth water. But its all a matter of faith isnt it? If you just dont believe the bible you will never believe the corrobarating evidence. I am unsure about the mountains authenticity, but believe the bible is true.

Yes, there is some true history in the bible, but you would be surprized how little can be supported by historical data. You can pretty well rule out the first 14 books of the OT completly

Yes because they have no references of Kings and stuff correct. How could you pinpoint a real date?

What then has been 'proven' as historically innacurrate? Not just theory, but proof!

yes I agree with you. There is much to be learned from the BIble.

"Thiele's chronology of the Israelite kings [The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1983)...places Solomon's coronation in circa 931 BC. Thus the temple was founded in 928 and Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt four hundred and eighty years earlier in circa 1447 BC. This date for Exodus is supported by Judges 11:26 where it states that around three hundred years had elapsed from the Conquest of the Promised Land to the judgeship of Jephthah (c. 1110 BC."
- David M. Rohl, A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History (1995), p. 249


We are pretty sure that the eruption of Santorini (thera) took place circa 1622-30 bce but we are still not sure of the exact date of the hebrew exodus from Egypt which is believed to have taken place in the 15th century bce. The fact also remains that the eruption of Santorini was not the only eruption or seismic event that took place during the period 1300- 1700bce. There were numerous and some of them were huge.

The red/reed sea was a genuine mistranslation so again your correct and there would have been a series of tidal waves during that period.

try and get hold of a copy of this book: 'battles of the bible' 1978 by Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon. Published by Weidenfield and Nicholson. Its a record of the jewish fight for the land of Israel and is written as historical fact.

Ah, but those making the fantastic claims have the burden of proof. Otherwise I could claim that a 12 foot tall invisible pink unicorn lived in my back garden and you would have to prove otherwise. How can one have proof of anything? We can only operate on evidence and there is no evidence of 1 million plus people crossing and wandering the Sinai desert for a period of 4 decades, even though there is evidence of the camping sites of Egyptian miners of the 6th dynasty (2323-2152 BCE) that had been detailed by Pharoah Pepy I to mine gold in the Arabian area. We have found existing tools, materials and campsites ranging in age from Mesolithic to modern Bedouin, but we have not one piece of evidence – no campsites, no pottery of the right age, no tools of bronze, iron or stone that can be tied to a large migration of Hebrew peoples. In this case absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence. There is no verifiable evidence of a United Kingdom, nor or David or Solomon. Christians and hard-line Jews grasp at every straw, hoping for a single proof of these peoples and places, yet so far that has eluded them. Strange, an empire that rivaled Assyria, Egypt and Babylonia would surely leave strong evidence, just as those cultures did! The stories from Genesis are copies of stories from older Semitic and Sumerian cultures, as are most of the proverbs and psalms. These literary works were found in the city archives of the city of Ugarit, a city that was destroyed a century or two prior to the Exodus. I can provide you strong contemporary multiple national source evidence for the existence of Egypt, for the existence of Pepy I, Rameses I and Tutanhkamen, can you give me equally strong contemporary multiple national source evidence of Solomon, Saul, David, Moses, or Joshua, of the Conquest, the United Kingdom or the Exodus?

It totally depends the source you pick, but the later date (13th century BCE) is just as valid as the 15th century BCE. Neither work because of the destruction and anarchy wrought by the “Mycenaean Drought”, that saw entire cultures dissolve in flame and blood and reform as new peoples - and by the Egyptian control of the area during the periods previous to and following the drought.

Try and get hold of a copy of this book: ‘The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts’ 2002 by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, a straight forward approach, by a prominent Israeli Archaeologist and his partner to demystifying the origins of the Hebrews and be ready of their new book, ‘David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition’ due out in late Jan 2006. Your reference is considered very dated.

Nazareth didn't exist during the time of Jesus. It's not mentioned in the Old Testament, nothing indicates it was around in 1st century AD. It's noted at the beginning of the 4th century only.

Mako, I would agree that it is ridiculous to take everything said in the bible as the literal truth, BUT the "minimalists" are often as bad as the "fundies" as grasping for straws, and the biggest "straw" is the notion that there never was a "great" kingdom of Israel.

Explain then Mako, how it was possible for a bunch of Hebrew herdsmen led by King Hezzekiah, um Chief shepherd Hezzekiah, managed to pay a huge bribe in treasure to keep the Assyrians from attacking them. This is a matter of record in the surviving Assyrian archives, with references to Israel being a real kingdom and not just a bunch of impovershed shepherds as the minimalists claim. And did Hezzikiahs moderate kingdom just spring up overnight? No, it probably existed for a long time before that, and it may have even had kings with names like Saul David and Solomon. And it must have been a fairly powerful kingdom to have all that wealth they paid the Assyrians.
Of course in the biblical story, the Assyrians were slain by an angel, and no bribe was paid, but everything suggests the Bbilical kingdom of Israel was a real kindom, and not just a bunch of itenerate shepherds as the minimalists claim.

your promoting books you have neither read and have not yet been published?

Anyway, to answer 'mako's ' post:

snagged from - http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Merneptah Stele
Merneptah pylon at University of Penn Museum
One of the most important discoveries that relate to the time of the Exodus is the Merneptah stele which dates to about 1210 BC. Merneptah, the king of Egypt, boasts that he has destroyed his enemies in Canaan. He states: Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; (ANET 1969, 378).The word "Israel" here is written in Egyptian with the determinative for people rather than land (ANET 1969, 378 note 18). This implies that Israel did not have a king or kingdom at this time. This would be the time of the judges. The text also implies that Israel was as strong as the other cities mentioned, and not just a small tribe. The south to north order of the three city-states may provide a general location for Israel. There is an interesting place named in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15, "well of waters of Nephtoah," that may be the Hebrew name of Merneptah. The well which is probably anachronistically named after Merneptah would be near Jerusalem. The Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi III contains "The Journal of a Frontier Official" which mentions this well. It says:Year 3, 1st Month of the 3rd Season, Day 17. The Chief of Bowmen of the Wells of Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat--life, prosperity, health!--which is (on) the mountain range, arrived for a (judicial) investigation in the fortress which is in Sile (ANET 1969, 258).Yurco has recently re-analyzed the Karnak battle reliefs, and has concluded that they should be ascribed to Merneptah and not Ramses II (1990, 21-38). There are four scenes which Yurco correlates with the Merneptah stele. One scene is the battle against the city of Ashkelon which is specifically named. Yurco argues that the other two city scenes are Gezer and Yanoam. He concludes that the open country scene must be Israel. Rainey rejects this view because it shows them with chariots and infantry (1990, 56-60). Lawrence Stager suggests that the small horses pulling the chariot belong to pharaoh's army as in the Ashkelon scene (1985, 58). Rainey thinks the Shasu are Israelites, but others identify the Shasu as Edomites (Stager 1985, 60). Both scholars Yurco and Rainey agree that these battle scenes are from Merneptah's reign (Yurco 1991, 61; Rainey 1992, 73-4; Hess 1993, 134). Before the discovery of the Merneptah stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They are now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. Israel was big and strong enough to challenge Egypt in battle. This stele puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus (McCarter 1992, 132).

to read the rest go to: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

In a nutshell this text that many claim to be full of historical innaccuracies cannot be proven wrong. Also the burden may very well lie with those who question the bible, innocent untill proven guilty and all that!!!

Nazareth did exist in the time off jesus. What makes you believe atherwise? In the old testament in a prophesy it was mentioned as another name,-towns change their names but it is referred to.

It's well known that it was documented in the 4th century only. Consider the time that Jesus was living in. The Roman Empire, where it would have likely been documented. Also, why is it absent in the OT?
Scripture where it says "Nazareth" in the OT, please.

No-one dispute that Israel was indeed a recognised Kingdom. It was Judah that, at that time, was still comprised of a few small, hill top, shepherd's villages

And in that last bit lies the problem. While the name Israel is definitely mentioned, it does not refer to a country, since the determinative for “country” is missing, whereas the others mentioned have that determinative. With the lack of the determinative, it would appear that a people is being referred to. Dr. Redford of Pennsylvania State University postulates a theory that “Isreal” can be correlated with the “Shasu”, a Bedouin-like group of nomads known by the Egyptians. In a 15th century Egyptian list a group among the Shasu is labeled “Yhw in the land of the Shasu”, providing a possible explanation of the origin of Israel. The next mention of Israel does not occur until 300 years later on the Mesha Stele, detailing Omri’s Moabite campaign. This shows the shakiness of any attempt to correlate the “Israel” of the Merneptah Stele with the later historical short lived nation of Israel.

When we can’t even “prove” who actually shot JFK a mere 40+ years ago, how can we “prove” or “disprove” a heavily edited Bronze Age book of mythology? We, as with all historians, can only go with all available sources of contemporary information, forming our conclusions based on the best information available. History can be (and often is) mutable, with new evidence coming to light. The problem with the bible is that prior to Omri, there is almost no evidence supporting it’s stories, whereas there is much evidence against it’s proclamations.

Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the available lists from the 3rd century BCE through the 4th century CE, even though much smaller villages in the same area are! It wasn’t until the 4th century when the Roman Emperor’s mother decided to “find” Nazareth that the current location was “discovered”. The location of Nazareth is at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest. Located at the access, just one mile from Nazareth, there existed the village of Japha, a sizable place with an ancient history. When it was destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish wars in 67 CE, Josephus reported that 15,000 citizens of Japha were massacred and 2,130 women and children were carried away into slavery. The town was never rebuilt. Where were the tombs of the citizens of Japha located (remember the strong laws about tombs, bodies and death that the Jews practiced)? Why, the present Nazareth sits on top of them! It is highly unlikely that the town would have existed in that location at that period. Recent archaeological investigation shows that contrary to what has been reported by rather biased previous digs, the only evidence of inhabitation prior to the 4th century were some rather common farm outbuildings dating from the 2nd – 1st centuries BCE. Prior to that, the only indications are burials and a ceremonial circle from about 8000 BCE.

[quote name='mako' date='Dec 7 2005, 02:47 PM' post='965674']
Unfortunately, the eruption took place in the period of 1650 – 1450 BCE and the period of the Exodus wasn’t until around 1235 BCE, several centuries later.



.






I think most scholars agree on a 1313-1315 date for the exodus. Other than that I agree completely with your response. Another factor would be that the "pillar of smoke" could not have been seen at such great distances. The smoke would have dissapated and spread outward, not remaining in an upward spiral.

I just did my English Theme on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here's a quick overveiw:

There are about 855 scrolls in all, some have been damaged into a thousand pieces.

They were discovered in a period beginning 1947 and 1956.

They were all located around Qumran.

They range in context from community laws to the original biblical manuscripts to manuscripts that relate to the Bible but were not put in there (such as more about the exile of Lucifer and the other angels).


To be a little more specific, there has been found a manuscript that contains the EXACT same context as the Book of Isaiah, except the spelling of names is a little different. The same goes for several other Books: entirely accounted for. In fact, every Book of the Bible is accounted for (except Esther), though not all in entirety.


Here's some of the more interesting translations I remember reading:

Noah was called "the Elected" and his birth is thoroughly retold. I quote "skin was whiter than snow and hair like white wool...eyes illuminated the entire house..."

Also, when the evil angels were cast out of Heaven, they slept with the daughters of men who then conceived what were called "giants." God sent the flood to kill these giants and the evil people.

the following was snagged from: http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histcont.htm

Many skeptics doubted that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. The doubts are based on the fact that Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the following sources:

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament (see, for example, Joshua 19:10-15)

Josephus (see next section) gives the names of 45 towns and villages in Galilee. Nazareth is not among them!

The Jewish Talmud mentions 63 towns and villages in the area. Nazareth is not among them.

Excavations by Bellarmino Bagatti in 1955 have shown that there was an agricultural settlement on the site identified in the New Testament as Nazareth. The site dates back as far as 900 years before Christ. Evidence of use during the Roman occupation has been found.

Also, excavations by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea in 1962 unearthed a tablet with the name "Nazareth" contained on it. The tablet demonstrates that Nazareth existed at least as early as first century A.D.

The great census debate

Luke (2:1-3) identifies the following as an historical event occurring at the time of the birth of Jesus:

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register." (NIV)

Many skeptics have doubted the veracity of this statement, given that the only census known by a Quirinius until recently was one dated by Josephus as A.D. 6. (Jesus couldn't have been born later than 4 B.C., because that was the year that Herod the Great died). So, Luke must have been wrong, either about the census, or about Jesus being born when Herod the Great was still alive, right? Wrong!

"Jerry Vardaman has discovered the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until the death of Herod." (McRay, p. 154)

Further evidence indicates that it is very possible that a census could have been ongoing in Israel at the time of Jesus' birth - it was just a different census (and probably a different Quirinius) than mentioned by the Josephus.

Note also that Luke was aware of the later (6 A.D.) census, which he refers to in Acts 5:37 as "the" census, as opposed to "a" census in Luke 2:1-3).

Historical Evidence - Contemporary Secular Sources

It is interesting to hear how secular contemporaries of Jesus described Him. In Acts 25:13-20, we get some clues from the New Testament itself. But is Jesus mentioned by contemporary secular sources outside the New Testament? While the number of references are probably fewer than you might imagine, they do exist! The primary source material is from Jewish turncoat-Roman historian Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus

37 A.D. (?) - 100 A.D.

Josephus was a Jewish aristocrat that led rebel troops against the Romans in Galilee during the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 A.D.)

He later betrayed the Jews, and served the Romans

He wrote two massive historical works

"The Jewish War"

"Jewish Antiquities"

John the Baptist, James the Just (brother of Jesus), and Christ are all mentioned in "Jewish Antiquities"



Photo from "The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus", translated by William Whiston, 1736

There is a lengthy passage describing John the Baptist in "Jewish Antiquities". Many similarities with the Gospel accounts can be discerned:

"...that was called the Baptist..."

"...commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism..."

Baptized with water for remission of sins

Put to death by Herod (Antipas) who feared John would incite the people to rebellion

"2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him." ("Jewish Antiquities", 18.5.2)



John the Baptist at Mission Santa Clara, CA, photo by Robert Jones

Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus. One time is in reference to his brother James the Just (head of the Christian church in Jerusalem). Some interesting points regarding this passage:

Ananus, a Sadducee, was high priest of the Sanhedrin. He was "...very rigid in judging offenders..."

"...Jesus, who was called Christ..."

"brother of Jesus...whose name was James" - Josephus identifies James by his more well-known brother

James accused before the Sanhedrin, and "delivered to be stoned"

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" (Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1)

"The Testimonium" - The primary secular reference to Jesus Christ is in what is now known as the Testimonium, in the 18th book of "Jewish Antiquities". Note that many Bible scholars consider the bracketed passages to be later Christian interpolations. However, even without the italicized parts, we learn a great deal about the life of Jesus:

Jesus lived

He was a teacher and miracle worker

He had followers both among the Jews and the Gentiles

He was condemned to the cross by Pontius Pilate

His followers didn't stop following him even after the crucifixion

The "tribe" of Christians, founded in Jesus' name, still existed at the time of the writing of "Jewish Antiquities" (93-94 A.D.)

"3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man]; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was [the] Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." ("Jewish Antiquities", 18.3.3)

Jesus is possibly mentioned in "The Jewish Wars", also by Josephus. However, the earliest manuscripts that contain the references to Jesus date to the 10th or 11th century, so most scholars consider it a late Christian interpolation. The passage is entitled "The Ministry, Trial and Crucifixion of 'The Wonder-worker' (Jesus)"

"...his works were divine..."

He worked miracles

Some people considered him the reincarnation of Moses, others thought he was sent from God

He did not keep the Sabbath, but did nothing shameful

Many people followed him, thinking that he might lead a revolt against the Romans

He healed people on the Mount of Olives

His followers wanted him to enter Jerusalem and "cut down the Roman troops and Pilate"

The Jewish leaders, led by the high priest, betrayed him to Pilate

Jesus appears before Pilate, and is freed because Jesus had healed the dying wife of Pilate (!)

The Jewish leaders crucify Jesus, after bribing Pilate with 30 talents for the right

Thallus

A 1st century historian (perhaps as early as 52 A.D.) - his works are lost!

Quoted by several of the Early Church Fathers

Clearly accepted the historical existence of Jesus, although he tries to find a natural explanation for events described in the scriptures as divinely inspired.

"1. As to His works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun". (Julius Africanus, c. 221 A.D., "The Chronology of Julius Africanus", 18.1)

Phlegon

Wrote "Chronicles" c. 140, now lost

Quoted by Julius Africanus, Origen

Like Thallus, he clearly accepted the historical existence of Jesus, although, like Thallus, he tries to find a natural explanation for events described in the scriptures as divinely inspired

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth — manifestly that one of which we speak." (Africanus, 18.1)

"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power." (Origen, "Against Celsus", Book 2.14)

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles." (Origen, 2.33)

Pliny the Younger

Was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor

Wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan in 112 A.D. regarding the Christians in his province

Verifies that Christians in 112 A.D. both worshipped Christ "as to a god", and were willing to die for their belief in Christ

Cornelius Tacitus

Born c. 52-55 A.D.

Served as senator, under Vespasian, and later (112-113 A.D.) governor of Asia

In "Annals" (c. 116 A.D.), he verifies the details of Christ's death at the hands of Pontius Pilate

"Christus, the founder of the name [Christians], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue." (quoted from McDowell, p. 49)

Suetonius

× A Roman historian, wrote in c. A.D. 120:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." (quoted from McDowell, p. 52)

Mara Bar-Serapion

× Sometime after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), Mara Bar-Serapion (a Syrian) wrote a letter from prison to his son

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." (quoted from McDowell, p. 52)

Discussion Question:

Are you surprised that there aren't more contemporary secular historical references to Jesus? Why or why not?


What the secular historical references tell us

Historical Fact
Verified By
N.T. equivalent

John the Baptist lived
Josephus Matt 3:1
John baptized with water for remission of sins
Josephus Matt 3:6
John was put to death by Herod (Antipas)
Josephus Luke 9:9
Jesus was called Christ
Josephus Acts 2:36
Jesus had a brother named James Josephus Mark 6:3
Jesus lived Josephus, Thallus, Phlegon The New Testament
Jesus was a teacher Josephus Matt 17:24
Jesus was a miracle worker Josephus John 7:21
Jesus had Gentile followers (as well as Jewish) Josephus Matt 8:5/13
Jesus was condemned to die by Pontius Pilate Josephus, Tacitus Mark 15:15
After the death of Jesus, his followers continued to teach in his name Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion Acts
The followers of Jesus were named Christians (named after Jesus Christ) Josephus, Tacitus Acts 11:26
There was a darkness of the sun at the death of Jesus Thallus, Phlegon Luke 23:44/45
Jesus had knowledge of the future Phlegon Matt 24:1/2
There were earthquakes at the death of Jesus Phlegon Matt 27:51/54
Christians worshipped Christ as God Pliny the Younger Matt 14:33
Christians were willing to die for their belief in Jesus Pliny the Younger Acts 7:55 - 8:2
Christianity spread to Rome Tacitus Acts 23:11
Jewish followers of Christ were expelled from Rome by Claudius Suetonius Acts 18:2
Jesus as King of the Jews Mara Bar-Serapion
Matt 12:2, John 19:19/22

Historical Evidence - Contemporary Rabbinical References

Jesus was also mentioned in the writings of the early rabbis. Most Rabbinical references to Jesus were hostile, but they prove that Jesus was viewed as an historical personage in the place and time period that the Gospels indicate.

Sample references:

"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged [crucified, see Gal 3:13] him on the eve of Passover." (from Sanhedrin 43a)

"Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: 'You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him'. It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship." (from a third-century commentary on the proceeding passage)

"Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah." (from Sanhedrin 43a)

(Quoted from McDowell, p. 64/65)

What the Rabbinical references tell us

Reference
N.T. equivalent

Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover John 19:14
Jesus performed miracles, that were viewed as sorcery by the Jewish leaders Mark 3:22, Matt 9:34, John 11:47
Jesus was not stoned, as per normal Jewish law, but crucified (which could only be administered by the Romans) John 18:31
Christ was "near the kingship" John 19:19/22, Matt 1:6
Jesus had disciples, one was named Matthew Matt 10:2/3



Historical Evidence - References by the Early Church Fathers

There are, of course, many references by the Early Church Fathers that validate the Gospels. Several are included here as examples. Keep in mind that there was no canon, no New Testament at the time of these writings, so it is interesting to see how the Early Church Fathers viewed the historical Christ.

Clement of Rome

A.D. 30-100

May be the Clement mentioned in Phil 4:3

Bishop of Rome 92 A.D. to 101 A.D.

"Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the scepter of the twelve tribes of Israel....From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh." (Chapter 32, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians)

"Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead." (Chapter 24, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians)

Ignatius

Was Martyred in A.D. 117 - thrown to the lions in the Coliseum in Rome

"For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church." (Ephesians 17)

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." (Ephesians 18)

"...but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate..." (Magnesians, 1)

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead..." (Trallians 9)

"...was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John...and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh." (Smyraeans 1)

Epistle of Barnabas

Written between A.D. 70 & 135

The author of this letter is unknown - some people believe that it was written by the Barnabas that traveled with Paul, but most scholars reject this.

"Moreover, when fixed to the cross, He had given Him to drink vinegar and gall." (Barnabas 1)

Aristides

Wrote a defense of Christianity to Emperor Hadrian (2nd Century)

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous." (Aristides 2)

Justyn Martyr

100 A.D.(?) - 165 A.D.(?)

Wrote early apologetics

Was beheaded by the Romans

"Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." (First Apology, Chapter 34)

"'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate [now lost]." (First Apology, Chapter 35)

Summary

Thanks to recent archaeological discoveries, and ancient secular, Jewish, and early church historical sources, there is strong validation of the historical background of the Gospels, and solid evidence for the historical Jesus.

Sources

Title
Author
Publisher
Year

Against Celsus Origen (translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.)
Sage Digital Library 1996

Against Heresies Ireneus Sage Digital Library 1996

Archaeology & the New Testament John McRay Baker Book House 1991

Battling Over the Jesus Seminar Robert J. Miller Bible Review April 1997

Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery Siegfried H. Horn Biblical Archaeology Society 1985

Faith and Archaeology: A Brief History to the Present Thomas W. Davis Bible Review March/April 1993

First Apology of Justyn Martyr Justyn Martyr Sage Digital Library 1996

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Clement (trans. by Drs. Roberts and Donaldson)
Sage Digital Library 1996

He Walked Among Us - Evidence for the Historical Jesus Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson Here's Life Publishers 1988

The Holy Bible - New International Version Zondervan 1984

The Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. 1989

Is the Bible Right After All? Hershel Shanks interviewing William Dever Bible Review Sept/

Oct 1996

PC Bible Atlas for Windows Parsons Technology, Inc. 1993

The Man from Nazareth Harry Emerson Fosdick Harper & Bros. 1949

The Testimonium - Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible John P. Meier Bible Review June 1991

The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus William Whiston, Translator Sage Digital Library 1996

The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher Trans. D. M. KAY, B.Sc., B.D.,
Sage Digital Library 1996

The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus Julius Africanus Sage Digital Library 1996

Why Search for the Historical Jesus? John P. Meier Bible Review June, 1993

I stress that the following is MY OPINION:

I think the bible is a buunch of bullsh*t anyway.

The same as mine but there are a few people here that will cry and complain when they see this (the way you worded it ).

I think it's a book wrote by men for men as the church seen fit..I have no doubt in my heart God is real....

Hezekiah's kingdom (Judah) did exist before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria. It 'sprang up overnight' because of a massive influx of refugees from the Northern Kingdom following its destruction. You can see this in the population of Jerusalem during the time period, which nearly jumped tenfold.

Also, excavations by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea in 1962 unearthed a tablet with the name "Nazareth" contained on it. The tablet demonstrates that Nazareth existed at least as early as first century A.D
The official dating of this table is late 3rd or early 4th century CE. It is a famous stone, in that it is the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text/inscription. It confirms the establishment of Nazareth by priestly families of Judea as a refuge from the “Hadrianic” war. Hardly proof of the existence of Nazareth prior to 135 CE, closer to proof that it didn’t exist prior to that time, since they had to establish it. By 135 CE, the tombs of Japha would have been out of use long enough that the sanitation prohibitions wouldn’t apply.

"Jerry Vardaman has discovered the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until the death of Herod." (McRay, p. 154)
Dr Vardaman is an archaeologist at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University and claims to have found “micro-letters” covering ancient coins and inscriptions. Micro-letters so small they cannot be seen or made without a magnifying glass and could have only been written with some sort of special diamond-tipped inscribers (his own words). He has “found enormous amounts of this writing on various coins supporting numerous theses of his. He claims to have, along with Niko Kokkinos of Oxford, discovered these letters on coins in 1984, that these micro-letters confirm that Jesus was born in 12 BCE, Pilate actually governed Judea between 15 and 26 CE, that Jesus was crucified in 21 CE and Paul was converted on the road to Damascus in 25 CE. Such fanatical assertions for an extremely radical and controversial theory that only he advocates, and that has not been proven to the satifaction of anyone else in the academic community, gives the impression of a serious lStrangely enough, neither Dr Vardaman or Mr. Kokkinos have presented this in any peer reviewed venue, nor have photographic evidence been presented for perusal by other scholars. Such radical and controversial assertions that only he advocates, without giving the academic community a chance to review gives an impression of serious loss of objectivity. Nevertheless, his “conclusions” are cited without a single sign of skepticism by John McRay, who states that Vardaman’s discovery of the name of Quirinius on a coin, places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BCE until after the death of Herod, a claim that has never been published in any form. Now for the punch line. There is no Quirinius coin! After over a decade, no paper has been published yet, instead he presented a lecture on the matter, which never mentions the coin. Instead the date is arrived at using “micro-letters” on an inscription. Needless to day, we can dismiss this claim without hesitation. Even if Quirinius had been governor a previous time, conveniently during the reign of Herod the Great, and conducted a census, that census could not have included Judaea, for Judaea was not under direct Roman control at that time, and not being directly taxed. There is no example of, or rationale for, a census of an independent kingdom ever being conducted in Roman history. Therefore, the census Luke describes could only have been taken after the death of Herod, when Judaea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, just as Josephus describes. All attempts to argue otherwise have no merit: Luke did not mean a census before Quirinius, could not have imagined Quirinius holding some other position besides governor, and could not have mistook him for someone else.

Further evidence indicates that it is very possible that a census could have been ongoing in Israel at the time of Jesus' birth - it was just a different census (and probably a different Quirinius) than mentioned by the JosephusNote also that Luke was aware of the later (6 A.D.) census, which he refers to in Acts 5:37 as "the" census, as opposed to "a" census in Luke 2:1-3).
You are evidentially trying to address Quintus Aemilius Secundus as some have in the past as the Cyrenius. Now say Quintus, followed by Cyrenius…not too similar are they? Now try Quirinius followed by Cyrenius…sound quite a bit alike don’t they. I think this is sufficient to dismiss that particular argument!

Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus. One time is in reference to his brother James the Just (head of the Christian church in Jerusalem).
"...Jesus, who was called Christ..."
This is from the so called Testimonium Flavianum, a 4th century Christian insertion that is recognized by the majority of scholars as being a forgery originated by Bishop Esuebius (Constantine’s personal clergyman). In the nearly 300 years from Josephus to Esuebius, this particular statement was never mentioned, even though it would have been the “clincher” in many arguments between Christians and Pagan scholars. Esuebius was a very educated man and strangely enough, the Greek of the Testimonium not only resembles his, but is much more polished that that of Josephus (whose Greek was mediocre at best). Esuebius was also known for his ability to “write in the antique hand”, a euphemism of the time for forgery. The Testimonium can’t really be accepted as even remotely evidence and definitely not as contemporary, with a 50 year space between the happening and the writing.

"brother of Jesus...whose name was James"
Here is something that most Christians don’t know. At the time of Ananus, the priesthood was actually under the control of the Romans, who switched High Priests on a whim. Ananus’ major competitor (and replacement) was an individual named Jesus and Jesus had a brother named James! Now what is the best way to send a message of threat to your adversary? Why to kill his brother, naturally. Most scholars agree that the “Who is called the Christ” is a late Christian insertion. So much for Josephus’ witnessing.

Thallus…Clearly accepted the historical existence of Jesus, although he tries to find a natural explanation for events described in the scriptures as divinely inspired.
Actually, we have no idea of when he lived and wrote nor what he accepted or reported, as you pointed out, his works are lost and were not mentioned until 180 CE and then quoted by Iulius Africanus in the late 2nd – early 3rd century CE.. There is not enough information on his to let us identify who he was or when he lived. He is not the Thallus reported by Josephus, that was a transliteration mistake, the real name reported in Josephus was Allos.

Phlegon -Wrote "Chronicles" c. 140, now lost
Again, we have the problem of when the man lived and what he actually reported. It might be pointed out in both cases here, Africanus did not give actual quotes of passages and used works that are now lost, so verification can not be made. Origen, quite unlike his normal writing also did not actually quote Phlegon. Eusebius seems to have quoted Phlegon, but nowhere in the quote is Jesus mentioned and the reported happenings did not actually take place in Palestine, but further east and north. In either case, the reporting would not be contemporary and only reflect the beliefs of those folk living at that time.

Pliny the Younger… Verifies that Christians in 112 A.D. both worshipped Christ "as to a god", and were willing to die for their belief in Christ.
We all know that there were Christians at that time, this no more proves the existence of Jesus than does the existence at that time of Mithrans proves the existence of Mithra. Willingness to die for a god is not proof of that god, else Allah is much more real than Jesus!

Cornelius Tacitus… In "Annals" (c. 116 A.D.), he verifies the details of Christ's death at the hands of Pontius Pilate
Strangely, this passage was not quoted until it showed up almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early 5th century, where it is mixed with other myths. Sulpicius was another of those apologists know for their skill in the “antique hand”. He is the person that started the story that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, although it is known that Nero was in Antium at the time of the blaze. In short, the passage in Tacitus has all the earmarks of a forgery and adds no evidence for a historical Jesus. Even if valid it would only be what Tacitus was told by those he interviewed, since he was hardly a contemporary with Jesus.

Suetonius… A Roman historian, wrote in c. A.D. 120: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."
Chrestus is not Christus, but instead is a common Greek name of that period, usually used by lower class freemen and slaves. This can’t be taken as a reference of anything more than an individual named Chrestus agitating a Jewish crowd. I somehow doubt that Jesus was still alive in 120 CE.

Sometime after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), Mara Bar-Serapion (a Syrian) wrote a letter from prison to his son:… "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
There is no internal evidence of the date of the document and only later tradition to date it. This letter could have been written any time from 70 BCE to 250 CE. Also, Please show where Jesus is mentioned. Since the other two men mentioned were from antiquity, that reference could be for a Maccabean king or even earlier. Not really proof of anything.

What the secular historical references tell us
These “historical” references are hardly contemporary…The Testimonium is accepted as later insertions for Christians, The proof of the existence of John the Baptist does nothing to prove the existence of Jesus, Thallus and Phlegon are questionable, in that we have no information of when they wrote and what they actually said. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius only prove that there existed a group of believers in Jesus at the time of the reporting. Tacitus has been shown to have a later Christian insertion, and the Mara Bar Serapion letter can not be dated with any accuracy, does not mention Jesus and could refer to any Jewish authority from the Maccabeans to the Essene “Great Teacher”.

Historical Evidence - Contemporary Rabbinical References…"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged [crucified, see Gal 3:13] him on the eve of Passover." Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah." (from Sanhedrin 43a)
This only tells of a “Yeshu” (very common Jewish name) being hanged on the eve of Passover. This story does not jibe with the accepted Christian beliefs, since there was a 40 day period from the conviction to the execution. The disciples names aren’t even close, nor is the number of disciples close. Just curious, why did you leave the one out that identifies Jesus as the illegitimate son of Mary, a Jewish hairdresser married to a carpenter named Joseph, and Pandira the Roman Legionary, who was also found guilty of magic and executed.

The Bible HAS some truth in it, but it's accompanied by a lot of fantastical crap. Like the Flood and other stories, which seem to have been told by a drunk person.

hmmhh lets face it, people with a bit more knowledge than a normal humans, can throw anything and everything at us and we would accept it as if it was 100% true, how is bible or quran or any other religious book going to be true ??? if it was REWRITEN by others ???
i mean beliving in one of these is like beliving in Odyseus and his travels, i mean for god sakes its a story ok, why is it that good always wins in every religious book, hmhmhmhmhm BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL NOT FOLOW THE BOOK IN WHICH BAD THINGS HAPPEN, i mean gods messanger gets killed, to make things more interesting he is brought back to life o.O yeah like i am going to go along with that,




P.S. I am FREE SPIRIT i dont belive in many things, and if next life is half as bad as this one hmhmhmhm i hope i dont get to have a next life







EDIT

WHat do you guys mean by HYSTORICAL EVIDENCE, you man some of those crappy historians actually went to past checked what happened came back and told us about it, WITHOUT ADDING anything ofcourse RIGHTTTTTTTT ON

Would be interesting if there was a big flood, which destroyed or killed almost all the population and then thousands or more year later ‘Spider Man’ comics were found. I wonder how people would interpret it!

There are also historians and scholars and people with great knowledge about everything that claim the Holocaust during WWII never happened too. I'll listen to them because they're scholars! :::sarcasm:::

hehe yeah, that does seem stupid however, you would rather believe a book, that might contain several mistakes, and such, rather to what history have tought us? I'm not mocking you or any belief, but plz explain the logic in that

Hah! Thats hilarious! There's much evidence that some of the Bible is true and accurate- so that forces you to imply that some of it is true. Hence your opinion works against you there. No one in their own right can say the Bible is a complete lie/fabrication/myth or tale. Open your eyes and ears, theres much evidence that indicates the people and events in the Bible that many have doubted. These big shot scholars that thought they were right, were eventually forced to eat up their own words after archaeological evidence pointed out places and events that only the Bible talked about. So yeah- you can say i have "Blind Faith" all you want, but you buddy...are just Blind!

Something for you to read.


The greatest myth ever told

Zandore ive been to that link before. I've done my homework. My point being, no one can say the Bible is a complete lie/fraud/myth or fabrication. For some of it is true. Hence even an athiest must confess to it being part true (or then hes just stupid). I myself thanks to evidence believe in Evolution because its theory is shown to be accurate for the most part. Hence Bible bashers have to believe that not the entire Bible is a lie because that theory shouldnt be a theory anymore thanks to archelogical evidence. My post wasnt just about Jesus being real, its about the Bible being accurate (as the post originally states) and the Bible is part accurate and no one can deny that, so no one can truely "disbelieve" the entire Bible or that clearly makes them a hypocrite.

Yes, you are right. Just as any novel, story or play set in a historical context contains some historically accurate information, the bible (set in a historical context) contains some historical accuracies, but just as the accurate information in "Grapes of Wrath" does not mean that those particular characters or circumstances existed, the few accurate parts of the bible does not mean that the bible is anything more than a work of fiction set against a historical background.

It took three pages to say "yes"? Some of the places are historically fixed and evidence has been found for such places, however the stories about them are more fantasy than fact. The Bible is full of inaccuracy and falsehoods than actual truth. The messages and values are solid, but that's all the Bible is good for. My bible is propping up my couch as we speak. It makes a great paper weight too. That's how I feel about its contents.

I wish people would stop saying that "you have to believe in this or you have to believe in that"
If you believe that Charles Darwin set out to undermine the idea of God then I suggest you read the last five sentences of his book.
You are not asked to 'believe' in the christian bible by God. If God does exist then all he asks is that you live your life in peace and harmony with your neighbors and your environment. God doesnt ask you to build temples to him or worship him daily. he asks only that you keep his faith and live by his word.
God didnt write the bible, we did.
Do you believe that the universe is eternal? most people do even though there is no proof of it. Show me the end of the universe and I will show you the face of God.

Well the Christians "adopted" Pagan festivals and made them their own to "help" Pagans along the route to Christianity (Christmas being just one example); so why not use Pagan stories in the Bible in this way?

I think that there are several historical accuracies in the bible, but the same thing could be said about "The Davinci Code"; it doesn't mean that I would like to believe just for the sake of historical accuracy.

Someone asked for innacruacies in the bible, here are a few:

1. Abraham and his sons: Somebooks say he had only one; some more than one. One of them has to be incorrect.


2. When did Ahaziah begin to reign?



3. How long was the Egyptian Captivity?



There are many many more, but that gives you an idea that the bible does have mistakes and contradictions in it.

I don't think you're mocking... I like a good discussion : )

I would much rather believe in what a book has to say than take what I find on the internet as fact. For example, I've been reading a LOT of sites about aliens (that's how I found this site). I've read up on MJ-12, and all the other conspiracy theories. There's the MJ-12 documents, that include authenticity scales for each of them. Many of them seem to be authentic. However, it is real? Who knows? I could fabricate my own stories and conspiracy theories and people would take it as fact. There would be a few believers, and a bunch of others out there that see the farce that it is and move on.

As for the Bible, yes, it was written by men. No doubt about that. However, I believe in God. I believe the Bible was written by men through the will of God. God is perfect, but humans are not.

The kicker is this: The message of the Bible isn't to sit there and dissect every little intricacy (hope I didn't murder that word). Whether or not historic facts in the Bible are 100% accurate, what does that matter? Whether certain things really happened or not, there is a message behind all of it. Take Noah for example... I personally don't believe the entire globe was flooded. But I do believe in the message that he needed to act on blind faith in God in order to survive the flood of that particular region. The same thing with the book of Job... have faith in God even though everything is crumbling around you.... so on and so forth.

We as humans are always looking for the bigger and better things. We don't even understand everything about our own planet, yet since the dawn of civilization we've been looking to the stars. You can take the story of Adam and Eve and apply it to humanity today. Simply stated, the fall of Adam and Eve was due to the very nature of humans to have more knowledge. To know what was on the other side of the fence, so to speak. When you hop over the fence, it can be your end. The same goes today for our quest as the human race to explore every known aspect of existence. We've got enough nukes to destroy the entire planet. We've hopped the fence of technology, and eventually, it's going to be our downfall. Here's an outlandish example: How do you think the world would react if a distaster of such great proportion took place which knocked out our ability to communicate, or God forbid the ENTIRE internet was destroyed? All I'm saying with this example is that whether or not the Bible can be proven historically with it's events, all it is meant to do is teach us, and tell us what's coming.

I find nothing wrong with having faith in it's words and in God. It's words are only to guide me. The reason why Christianity is viewed as garbage is because people continue to screw everything up. Humans mistranslate, misinterperet, and bend the rules to their own gratification (hence the many denominations). The Bible doesn't tell me to go out and have a happy little jihad. It gives me some moral direction, and examples of how I should be as a human to other people. I don't force what I believe down the throats of others.

Another reason I find it easy to believe in the Bible is simply this: If I can believe in God, why is it so hard to believe in a creator that has the ability to inspire men to write a book with a few rules and guidelines, stories, some history, and some messages to help me out in life?

I believe God and science work hand in hand. Naturally I believe God created everything, so I'm willing to accept a lot of things. We as humans more than likely will never be able to accept or even comprehend everything that's out there. I've seen many diagrams of what the universe supposedly looks like. Shapes that my brain can't translate as possible. So I even need to know these things? Nope. It doesn't make any difference. All it does is interest me enough to read it and marvel at a lot of it.

Many religions and cultures have very similar beliefs to mine. Does it make them wrong? I don't know. Again, if God is able to inspire one religion, what's to say He couldn't have inspired others? If there was only ONE religion, do you think everyone would accept it? I highly doubt it. If I were God, I wouldn't give people just one way to divinity or just one way to be "saved" so to speak. Some people are only capable of accepting Christianity, some people are only willing to accept Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and the list goes on for miles. Each of these faiths have their own guidelines, which are all remakably similar, and humans treat them similarly, to include misinterperetation. They will twist them around, and kill each other for their beliefs. The Bible doesn't say to go out and kill, but they did it during the crusades.

I've seen the word "pagan" thrown around like candy on this forum multiple times when speaking about the Bible and Christianity. Pagan only means something that doesn't conform to Christian beliefs (as well as a couple of others, check the dictionary for reference). So, most of the arguments calling everything Christians see and do as pagan are out the window. Some believe angels have wings. So what. If you don't believe in it, it's not going to damn you to hell, because it DOESN'T MATTER. Just because people have Christmas trees, doesn't mean it's all "pagan" and wrong and evil. If you want to get right down to it, swearing, stealing, every sin known to man, going trick or treating, etc... is all "PAGAN." The word is thrown around to destroy credibility in the Christian faith, and quite frankly, it's overused, misued, redundant, and just plain pointless. Are you going to call me a pagan and accuse me of having pagan beliefs because I color some easter eggs and still believe in the Bible, then go right ahead. You can take away my birthday too. I'm sure that I'm a pagan because I was born under the sign of Virgo too, right? Sorry, but we are no longer in the witch burning era, so you may want to stick to some terminology you understand before you actually use it.

As for some of the stories in the Bible and their accuracy... I can easily see where a lot of things can be blown way out of proportion, like the flood, the parting of the red sea, etc... it's the same thing as your grandfather telling someone he caught a huge fish... must've been 14 inches... the next person he tells, that bloody thing was 18 inches. I believe things were exaggerated in quite a few areas. But it has a purpose. It's all about having faith in God over seemingly monumental trials in your life and overcoming them. Some believe in the Law of Attraction, some believe repetition in stating what you want is the ultimate truth. I believe in God and that He can and will guide me. But at the same time, I still have to do things for myself. I don't believe God is going to just go to work for me and pay my bills.

The Bible is tained by human action, rather than by it's writings. There's more misinformation on the internet than I can believe. So references to books, websites, etc... don't really mean much to me, other than to have something interesting to read. Hey, if someone can prove to me that the Bible is 100% accurate, so be it. But I'm not going to stop reading it because it has some good morals and values to live by.

Everyone believes in something. Even if you're an atheist, you still have your ideas about what's out there. You might not believe in God, but you may believe that aliens exist and created us (this goes for whoever). If so, so be it. But I'm not going to sit there and tell you you're wrong and call you a pagan for it. I'm not going to tell you your particular belief systems are wrong and fabricated garbage because it's not what I believe in. If seeing is believing, then that's you, and I'm not knocking any of you for what you believe.

For those of you that just call the Bible "bullsh*t," tell me where it's wronged you in such a way that it warrants you to say something like that. If it's because some Christian has tried cramming it down your throat, remember, it's not the Bible that did it. It was the HUMAN that chose to do so. It wasn't me, and I don't apreciate the childish, negative comments about something I believe in.

This site explains the "contradiction" about Isaac being Abraham's only son:

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/20020120.htm

Long story short, Isaac was the only son between Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael was born outside of the covenant Abraham had with God. God had promised Abraham and Sarah a son, Abraham got impatient and had Ishmael first with a different woman. He wasn't the son He had promised to Abraham and therefore did not recognize him because he wasn't the son who was promised to Abraham.

As for Abraham, personally I think "Hagar" is a horrible name for a woman and he had bad taste.

I have read the bible and alot of other science fiction. What may have started out as a history book has been rewritten by people that want to control the masses. “My god is better than your god” or “if you don’t do what I say my god will come down and get you”. That is how you controlled people in the past. Now we have the media.