“The Bible is not backed up by archeology; it’s disproven in many cases by archeology.”
The exact opposite is true. You need only do an Internet search using the words “archeology and the Bible.”
25 comments
"You need only do an Internet search using the words “archeology and the Bible.”
I did, all I got were christian sites lying about the actual archaeology (that's how you really spell it, dunce.) that was discovered.
and you will find no bloody evidence of say..2 million jews living enslaved in egypt who escaped, which was followed shortly by the loss of egypt's army.
Somehow I think replacing 2 million labourers and an entire army would of been something they'd of written about somewhere.
Apparently New York exists and there are several people named Peter Parker living in and around the New York area.
Therefore, Spiderman is real.
@ Darkevilyou; That's one of my favorite arguments re. Exodus, but I think Pharaoh was with the army, so the national leadership disappeared in a twink also. And excepting actual commentary on Exodus itself, no other sources mention this at all, in any way.
Alternatively, google ´"Vedas and archaeology", "Iliad and archaeology", "Sagas and archaeology"...
And even if archaeology actually proved the Old Testament right (I assume that you are talking about the Old Testament, since nothing happens in the New Testament that one would expect to find in the archaeological account), this would mean that Judaism is right, not Christianity.
The detail of the actual stories is obviously made up of course and for the most part can't be verified, but annoyingly, as regards the general history of the middle east, the Bible is unfortunately a useful historical source document.
There's enough general truth in it that dickheads like Ray can do the old switchero and honestly say it has archaeological support while hiding the fact that this support is not for the bits they would like it to be.
@Phil O'Macedon:
I couldn't remember whether the pharoah survived. That just makes it even more insane.
Though considering their need to bury their dead pharoah's i am now visualizing some outlandish ways they might of tried to recover the body afterwards.
@Citizen Justin
"archeology and the Bible"
About 47,300 results
"Jesus was gay"
About 53,800 results
Well, that settles it.
174,000 people would like a word with you.
It's been conclusively proved that Jericho never had any walls in the first place.
Which pharaoh did Moses deal with? Archaeology - coupled with History - is rather insistent about precise details, you know. Ramses II was worshipped as a god. Temples, stelae, papyri; also, an actual DNA-analysable body does his existence case no harm, neither. Can you prove he wasn't a deity...?
Meanwhile - like your J-boy - there isn't a single shred of evidence to prove that Moses actually existed, Ray Cumfart.
...oh, and Christian websites - just like your BuyBull - aren't peer reviewed, therefore they have no citations. NEXT!
@Anon-e-moose :
Well he's not named in the bible. But if Comfort is right it should be easy to spot, just look for the one who was never buried, died of drowning and presided over a massive economic setback to the kingdom of the nile and...oh wait.
Archaeology tells us about the places that were known in the first century, none of which were designed with pi = 3. It doesn't tell us anything miraculous at all, nor whether Jesus existed at all, nor whether he liked his bagels with poppy seeds or plain. It certainly doesn't tell us the recipe for turning water into wine.
The exact opposite is true.
This is true, but only to a very limited and minor degree.
The only thing archaeology proves about that bible is the existence of certain locations. I.e., every once in a while an archaeological dig will turn out to be some obscure tiny village mentioned somewhere in the Old Testament.
Often enough, however, the attribution of the digs to places names from the Old Testament turn out to be unfounded and politically motivated by Israel's desperate need to stake claim to the occupied territories. They want to be able to look at the Palistinians and say "we were here first, 2700 years ago".
The funny part is that the historical portions of the Bible are accepted by historians and well are supported period documents from Egypt, the Levant, etc. and are just as truthful or self-serving bullshit as the rest. Nobody doubts that the villages existed, but the connections of digs to names are often pure wishful thinking.
Likewise the existence of the kings and prophets, the wars, etc. are undoubted historical facts. It's the divine elements that are all fantasy and those parts have absolutely no archaeological evidence.
The "exact opposite" is also true for Nostradamus or astrology. If you cherry-pick carefully and come up with enough bizarre interpretations, you can "prove" almost anything.
People don't question the Bible's geography or some of its history. But just because we find an actual city of Jericho doesn't mean its walls were felled with the sound of ram's horns.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.