Biblical texts "hundreds of years older"

Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing — an inion dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign. The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. http://www.livescien...ext-100115.html

The Geiser Stone dates to the late 10th century BC, approximately contemporaneous with this find. This doesn't really push back the Hebrew language beyond what is already known. The only surprise is that Israel may have been better-organized than previously thought. Doug I'm not so sure about this find indicating a Kingdom of Israel was either prominent, or even properly existed as a true 'Kingdom' in the region. Shoshenq I, an Egyptian King, compaigned in Canaan during the 10th century BCE and, while it is not conclusive evidence, mentions names of towns he sacked/attacked but made no mention... [More]

Thanks Stll. I ahd understood that virtually all ures had been written in captivity but it makes much more sense that a body of work was already in circulation and accepted. It was probably the early success of these ures that led to the hebrews flourishing and becoming a threat to the Assyrians. Any idea as to which books were written first? I understand the oldest book to be Job. I guess the Pentateuch would follow.

Not really. People like me believe that the biblical accounts of ancient Israel was exaggerated for propaganda purpose, not 'just made up'. Or maybe, just a garbled version of history. Adam is datable (sort of) to about 3200 to 3100 BC. Noah to about 2800 BC. And we wouldn't even know about them if the Sumerians hadn't written it down. Abraham fits into the 11th Dynasty. The Sojourn matches the Amarna Period pretty well. Horemheb fits the desciption of The Pharaoh of the Oppression. And Moses (who could have been several people) apparently confronted Seti I (Who was not yet Pharaoh and didn't ... [More]

I am a bit hesitant to this. This writing is not from the bible, so why the assumption that parts of the bible must be written at the same time as this shard? In the english translation some parts is put in between brackets. For instance [Lord]. I've always assumed that this means that the word is missing, or believed to be missing. So why put in [Lord], it could be just anything/anyone that should be worshiped here.

I don't know but when you consider how ancient this material is it seems likely that all the books were descended from a common source material rather than one being the oldest. Like, with the Flood story, if it's based on an actual historical event every culture in the area would have made a record of it in their oral tradition. Maybe they drew illustrations of it. Then the illustrations became symbols (like hieroglyphics) and the cultures were writing about it. Parts of the Bible are probably older than writing itself. Pretty amazing. the isrealites were using letters when they were living i... [More]

the isrealites were using letters when they were living in egypt. they have found some of these writings which are prayers to god for help. The Hyksos (Hebrew ancestors) first moved into the Nile delta about 2000 BC. They had their own language, but it wasn't Hebrew. The Hebrew language developed in Canaan (we think) from Northwest Semitic during the reign of Ramses II (13th century BC). Sometime between then and the latter part of the tenth century BC, Hebrews learned to write in their own language. As Northwest Semitic evolved into Hebrew it lost five consonants. Do any of these new discover... [More]

'A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew ures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inion dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inion.The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical ures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israe... [More]

The most problematic part of the OT (to me) is the killing of more than 100,000 invading soldiers (don't know from where, though.) We absolutely have no historical and archeological evidence of such miraculous act. No mass grave or anything. And I will be damned if you say the survivors carried the corpses and went back to their home country. The likely scenario is that Isrealite lost big time, and hundreds years later the Biblical writers made up that divine victory as a....******Y.

The most problematic part of the OT (to me) is the killing of more than 100,000 invading soldiers (don't know from where, though.) We absolutely have no historical and archeological evidence of such miraculous act. No mass grave or anything. And I will be damned if you say the survivors carried the corpses and went back to their home country. The likely scenario is that Isrealite lost big time, and hundreds years later the Biblical writers made up that divine victory as a....******Y. Egypt, the Hittites and others waged major wars in what is now Israel and Gaza. About these wars the Bible says... [More]