Does Archaeology prove the Histories found in the Bible?

[createdtoworship]

It isn't a red herring and it does follow along with the point that I believe you are trying to get across. Proving the validity of some events and people in The Bible does not in any way prove the validity of all the events and people in The Bible. What it proves is that The Bible was written over a long period of time by people who (generally) were first hand witnesses of many of these events and people. I'll give you that. The trouble comes with the part of your quote that I bolded.

The Bible as a whole is not validated because it has a lot of history that is proven, only that a lot of the history behind it is proven. Perhaps it is just your phrasing in that sentence, but that seems to be the point you are making. If all you intend to prove is that The Bible was written in large part by first hand witnesses over the course of history, you win. If you intend to prove that adds validity to everything in The Bible, or The Bible as a whole, that is what doesn't follow. They are two totally different arguments, and I agree that the argument for the validity of the divine aspects of The Bible does not follow from an argument for the historical aspects.



I haven't read anything he's written, and I only just now put the tiniest bit of cursory investigation into finding out what he has. I will only say that the NT is not as impressive as the OT in terms of history only because it was written over such a short amount of time (in comparison). So there isn't a lot of history to prove for the newer as opposed to the older. And he seems to be mostly fixated on how accurate the stories are about what Jesus did and said since he is a NT scholar. I wouldn't consider that to be the same kind of history we are talking about when we speak of things like Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel.

So if you are just saying that a lot of The Bible was recorded over the course of history by first hand witnesses (generally) then I am asking where is the argument? You asked me to show one person who disagrees with that, but I'm not finding a problem with that statement so I don't know why I would. I asked at the beginning where all the fighting about this topic is because I haven't seen it.

To be more on point with your argument, in case I am just misunderstanding the point you are trying to make and assuming that you are jumping the gun to connect accurately recorded history with accurately recording divine events, I'll ask this about the finds that you have shown. In what way does finding artifacts that show people knew the basic story of, say for instance the Garden of Eden, proves the Garden of Eden existed? The one item you showed dated to ~3500 BC or so, which is ~2500 years after those events were said to have taken place, so why is this proof of a real event and not just proof that the story has been around a long time?

I will adress your post more fully later....

but your original post was off topic for this thread.

I was trying to avoid stating that, by saying red herring and ad hominem.

but for this thread, citation of spiritual or divine.....while acceptable in belief and in brief is technically not in the OP.


and I see you changed your tune as well in the second comment, I will adress this later too....as time permits.

I will allow others here to speak as they wish too on these finds in the mean while.

 

[createdtoworship]

The specialists now believe that the temptation seal depicts a banquet (see Wikipedia )

Here are some random ideas:

As a non-specialist, the only distinction I can see between the left and right figure is the bull's horns. Neither figure appears to have a beard, and that seems strange. No beard implies to me that these are either women, teenage boys, or eunuchs. I vote for teenage boys, because that goes with the tree of life and the immortal snake.

The snake was a universal symbol of immortality, because people believed that the shedding of skin gave eternal life to snakes. The tree of life was another universal symbol. In some myths the tree of life was guarded by an immortal snake.

is your question, how do I know they are man and female?

excellent question.

it is my understanding that the male wore the headress.

but again this is all up for debate here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here is another find:

The entire Aramaic inscription reads, "Jacob (James), son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" (Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua).

here is a quote:

"
Analysis of the Inscription
The Inscription: In Aramaic, the inscription reads "Yaakov bar Yoseph akhui d'Yeshua." Aramaic was the language of first century Jerusalem. "Yaakov" means "James" and "bar" means "son." "Yoseph" is obviously "Joseph" and "akhui" is a rather unusual but legitimate spelling for "brother." Of course "Yeshua" is "Jesus." And the "d" in front of Yeshua is an Aramaic prepositional form indicating "belonging to.""

above quote from:
http://ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary

you read from right to left

there is patina in the grooves, (microscopic bacteria like micro organisms) where the name of Christ is, proving it not an after thought and proving the entire inscription as ancient.

in google scholar there is numerous citations if you select 2007- 2016 and the latest is a book that shows the breakdown of percentages of bacteria in the grooves.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xzg0AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA334&dq=james+ossuary&ots=94UrBdk-1t&sig=R2lqWa8epxqCZUZn6ZH2eFn_gnk#v=onepage&q=james ossuary&f=false

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=james+ossuary&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2007&as_yhi=2016

above google scholar citation from a section with a contributor named : amnon rosenfeld who is a micro paleontologist working in Jerusalem as well as two other authors.

"The patina of the James Ossuary inscription was tested independently by IAA scientific committee members Yuval Goren (micromorphology) and Ayalon (mass spectrometry). Both tests independently support the IAA's conclusion that the Jehoash Inscription and the inscription on the James Ossuary are forgeries."
Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/news/patina.html
​

Sorry, but scientists long ago showed the James Ossuary to be a forgery. You may want to remove this claim from your list.

 

[peepnklown]

Please share.

It depends on what you mean by, ‘another proof in support of the Bible.’
Before I dive into this thread; are you claiming that if the Bible can be proven historically that your religion is correct?

 

[Goonie]

great, thanks for the reply....
this book....what facts did you learn from it, any expeditions?, that helped you understand about exodus?

I have some more digs on the exodus, but they are not nearly as solid of sources as the ones I provided.

but I have not heard of your book, no.

sounds interesting.

Here's a Wikipedia link to his new chronology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

His revised chronology been disputed by egyptologists, and since 2010 carbon dating has put big holes in it, but as an archaeology student at university I found it an interesting read since his theory was testable, and falsifiable.

 

[createdtoworship]

"The patina of the James Ossuary inscription was tested independently by IAA scientific committee members Yuval Goren (micromorphology) and Ayalon (mass spectrometry). Both tests independently support the IAA's conclusion that the Jehoash Inscription and the inscription on the James Ossuary are forgeries."
Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/news/patina.html
​

Sorry, but scientists long ago showed the James Ossuary to be a forgery. You may want to remove this claim from your list.

I believe your sources are out of date.

I know of even non christians that have accepted that while they were trying to prove it was a forgery, all cases were dismissed.

and be it as it may, even if police did a poor investigation (which we don't know either way),

they are not archaeologists anyhow, and would not be able to detect a forgery if it bit them in a nose.

that is another appeal to authority (that someone else posted),

but your post is a few notches less than that, it's not even an argument. It actually begs the question.

and as well is considered an argument from silence.

because as it relates to sourcing your allegations, you have been silent.

thank you for participating in our discussion!

 

[createdtoworship]

Here's a Wikipedia link to his new chronology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

His revised chronology been disputed by egyptologists, and since 2010 carbon dating has put big holes in it, but as an archaeology student at university I found it an interesting read since his theory was testable, and falsifiable.

ah yes the falsifiability idea.

I never much cared for that description of science.

I tend to invoke the scientific method, as that is what is science anyway.

falsifiability is really not a thing, they should in fact replace falsifiability with verifiability, as no fact can be falsified, as it is in fact true.

A common logical error made by 100% of falsifiability adherents. Again, I recommend, using verifiability instead. Facts can be verified, but obviously not falsified, as they are inherently true by nature of the fact they are facts.

(and remember, please don't use wikipedia, it's a four letter word to science lovers- I sufficiently posted an argument on many many errors found in wikipedia, I use it to get basic ideas, and definitions sometimes, but not for a source.

which I dont' think you were doing anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

It depends on what you mean by, ‘another proof in support of the Bible.’
Before I dive into this thread; are you claiming that if the Bible can be proven historically that your religion is correct?

no religion can be proven correct.

I have opinions, but they are mine, and they may not be yours.

religion is base on evidential faith.

a faith that is based on some tangeable act, or fact.

but not facts alone, and not faith without fact, as that is a blind faith.

blind faith is basically a religion of mythology and no facts involved with it.

I cannot prove God exists, and nor can I prove the Bible is true.

I believe numerous circumstantial evidences that they are true.

but not direct evidence, or objective evidence. It is circumstantial.

but that is why I know that a huge part of my belief is faith, and I like that.

I like the faith part, as much as I like the facts.

God is much bigger than anything we can see or hear.

after all He is the intelligent designer behind all quantum science.

and often leaves a more mysterious presence just when we think we have Him figured out.

but to answer your question, this is not to prove the Bible true. As God never wanted Christianity to be forced through evidentialism.

He wanted peoples faith to explode not their brains.

and that, it did.

But I do believe the circumstantial evidences of the Bible do invoke quite a challenge to anyone wishing to outright dismiss the Bible as a fraud.

Does that answer your question.

I hope so, because I am out of wind.

 

[createdtoworship]

"The patina of the James Ossuary inscription was tested independently by IAA scientific committee members Yuval Goren (micromorphology) and Ayalon (mass spectrometry). Both tests independently support the IAA's conclusion that the Jehoash Inscription and the inscription on the James Ossuary are forgeries."
Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/news/patina.html
​

Sorry, but scientists long ago showed the James Ossuary to be a forgery. You may want to remove this claim from your list.

oh i didn't see your quote there.

well yes in 2003 and 2004 some tests were done, but more recent tests revealed that micro organisms are very hard to fake.

and logically I would agree.

can you honestly expect some collector, to forge micro organisms on to a piece of pottery to sell it for more.

I think you have more faith than I do regarding this matter.

besides you may want to source a group other than israelites, as they have as much reason as an athiest for denying historicity of the new testament.

unfortunately, but true.

I cited numerous studies, and even percentages of microorganisms.

you only cited a biased source. With no technical data.

so this stale mate is in my favor mainly due to the fact I have quoted scientists in israel that are agreeing with the authenticity, while you are showing early studies (over ten years old), from those who don't really want Jesus around.

my sources at this point should hold, but if not, I will dig some more and get more detail.

but for now, there is not enough modern evidence to dictate this as a forgery.

(but I am in the process of rounding up a more fuller citation list, and will post it later)

 

[createdtoworship]

update:

I felt it necessary, since you questioned my source and provided your own, to provide yet a more fuller, and later report.

both on jehoash, and james archaeological finds in support of the Historicity of the Bible.

it seems here both are authenticated, and observations of their studies are more recent, and provide details:

http://www.talpiottomb.com/Rosenfeld_Feldman_Forgery.pdf

I also wanted to show some other independent sources as well:

but before I do that remember, most of your studies were done in 2003-2004, and not updated, when later tests were done, secondly, they were Jews doing the study, and from your perspective, they could very well have tainted the study, based on religious anti christian motivation. So I would recommend providing a non partisan study. My study above, is partially done by Museum of Natural History paleontology dept. which could care less either way.

but I wish to present a partial bibliography of this section in a book on archaology and the Bible, for you to search out as well:

10.Based on court transcripts and expert testimony summarized by Oden Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions-Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses" (March 2011)

11.Hershel Shanks, "Brother of Jesus' Proved Ancient and Authentic" in A BiblicalArchaeology Press Release (Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, June 13, 2012); Hershel Shanks, "Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!" in BiblicalArchaeology Review 38:04 (July/August 2012).

12.Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary," 13-15.

13.Shanks, "'Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!"

14.Paul L.Maier, "The James Ossuary," Issues, Etc., at www.mtio.com/articles/bissar95.htm, accessed November 13, 2011.

15.Shanks, "' Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!"; also see the record of the defense's cross-examination of Joe Zias in the Hebrew court transcript at http://bib-arch.org/pdf/trial-hebrew-transcript.pdf.

16."Joe Zias: `Hershel Has No Sense of Humor,"' BiblicalArchaeology Review 38:03 (May/June 2012).

17.Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary," 13, referring to p. 11,462 of the Hebrew language court transcript.

above sources from:

HANDBOOK OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of the Scriptures- Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, Harvest House Pub Eugene Or, 2013

 

[cloudyday2]

is your question, how do I know they are man and female?

excellent question.

it is my understanding that the male wore the headress.

but again this is all up for debate here.

Try to google a better image of the Temptation Seal so you can see several. I cannot see any difference between the figure on the right and the left except for the bull horns on the right. Both figures seem to be wearing robes with head dresses - much like modern Arab clothing. Both figures are the same size. Neither figure has a noticeable beard. I believe shaving was practiced at times in those cultures, so maybe that explains the missing beards. Most cultures have distinctive clothing for males and females, but the clothing on the left and right figures looks very similar to me (except for the horns that symbolized divinity).

 

[peepnklown]

But I do believe the circumstantial evidences of the Bible do invoke quite a challenge to anyone wishing to outright dismiss the Bible as a fraud.

This answered my question, thanks. I can respect that point.
I’ll add my 2 cents but, I will keep it casual.

Tower of Babel
A place where the ruins of Babil lay (this site is within the limits of ancient Babylon and concurs with the Biblical location of the tower).
A place where the ruins of Tell-Amram lay (this site is within the limits of ancient Babylon and concurs with the Biblical location of the tower).
We also have evidence that the top of the building was made to reach Heaven.
A place where the ruins of Birs-Nimrud lay (this site is not within the limits of ancient Babylon).
We also have to take in account the Sumerian tale with similar elements, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

Adam and Eve
I don’t think based on the evidence that we can assume these two pieces are ‘Adam and Eve.’
The serpent (snake) has played important roles in several religions: ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria), etc.
The Epic of Gilgamesh should be discussed. Thus, we cannot assume it’s ‘Adam and Eve.’
We also cannot assume the male and female are ‘Adam and Eve.’
Now compare the ‘Temptation Seal’ to ‘Cain’s Royal Eagle-Serpent God’s Ruling Family Seal’ of Ur-Mesopotamia-Chaldea,’ the ‘Ur-Chaldean Egyptian Covenant Seals,’ and the ‘Aryan Hittite Covenant Seals.’
You’ll see similar seated couples in similar situations.
It’s not ‘Adam and Eve.’

The Ossuary of James
I haven’t done enough research on the subject so maybe I’ll revisit this later.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does Archaeology prove the Histories found in the Bible?

Who cares?

What if someday -- hypothetically -- we relocated to another planet?

No more fossil record to deny the Bible.

No more grave robbing to deny the Bible.

No more radiometric dating of the earth.

No more Grand Canyon to argue over whether or not the Jews lived in Egypt.

(Okay, I was being facetious with that one.)

All scientists have in the way of lies about the Bible is their SN1987A arguments.

What then?

Archaeology can take a hike.

 

[cloudyday2]

The Ossuary of James
I haven’t done enough research on the subject so maybe I’ll revisit this later.

Here is an LA times report from 2012. I know that @gradyll believes the ossuary is genuine due to micro fossils, but there is a lot of evidence that Golan was forging artifacts. The bags of soil samples from various archaeological sites is pretty incriminating. The Egyptian who claims to have helped Golan fake artifacts is even more incriminating. There is no conclusive smoking gun, but there is a lot of smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325

 

[Moral Orel]

update:

I felt it necessary, since you questioned my source and provided your own, to provide yet a more fuller, and later report.

both on jehoash, and james archaeological finds in support of the Historicity of the Bible.

it seems here both are authenticated, and observations of their studies are more recent, and provide details:

http://www.talpiottomb.com/Rosenfeld_Feldman_Forgery.pdf

I also wanted to show some other independent sources as well:

but before I do that remember, most of your studies were done in 2003-2004, and not updated, when later tests were done, secondly, they were Jews doing the study, and from your perspective, they could very well have tainted the study, based on religious anti christian motivation. So I would recommend providing a non partisan study. My study above, is partially done by Museum of Natural History paleontology dept. which could care less either way.

but I wish to present a partial bibliography of this section in a book on archaology and the Bible, for you to search out as well:

10.Based on court transcripts and expert testimony summarized by Oden Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions-Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses" (March 2011)

11.Hershel Shanks, "Brother of Jesus' Proved Ancient and Authentic" in A BiblicalArchaeology Press Release (Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, June 13, 2012); Hershel Shanks, "Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!" in BiblicalArchaeology Review 38:04 (July/August 2012).

12.Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary," 13-15.

13.Shanks, "'Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!"

14.Paul L.Maier, "The James Ossuary," Issues, Etc., at www.mtio.com/articles/bissar95.htm, accessed November 13, 2011.

15.Shanks, "' Brother of Jesus' Inscription Is Authentic!"; also see the record of the defense's cross-examination of Joe Zias in the Hebrew court transcript at http://bib-arch.org/pdf/trial-hebrew-transcript.pdf.

16."Joe Zias: `Hershel Has No Sense of Humor,"' BiblicalArchaeology Review 38:03 (May/June 2012).

17.Golan, "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary," 13, referring to p. 11,462 of the Hebrew language court transcript.

above sources from:

HANDBOOK OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of the Scriptures- Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler, Harvest House Pub Eugene Or, 2013

Here is an LA times report from 2012. I know that @gradyll believes the ossuary is genuine due to micro fossils, but there is a lot of evidence that Golan was forging artifacts. The bags of soil samples from various archaeological sites is pretty incriminating. The Egyptian who claims to have helped Golan fake artifacts is even more incriminating. There is no conclusive smoking gun, but there is a lot of smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325

I think it is interesting that there is a debate going as to whether that ossuary is actually old or not when that doesn't really matter. You're not going to find evidence that it is the same James as the brother of Jesus.

I recently heard about a documentary about the tomb of Jesus that they think they found in 1980. James Cameron of Titanic was actually on board for it. They found ossuaries inside for "Jesus son of Joseph", two Marys, Joseph, and a Matthew. One ossuary went missing that they tried to connect to the James ossuary as well. Turns out Mary is the most common female name of the time, and Jesus is a super common name of the time as well. Another ossuary of "Jesus son of Joseph" was found in 1930 and that wasn't the Jesus either. So who care's if it's old? There are a lot of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, James, etc... back then so it isn't unlikely at all there were a lot of sets of brothers named Jesus and James.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is an LA times report from 2012. I know that @gradyll believes the ossuary is genuine due to micro fossils, but there is a lot of evidence that Golan was forging artifacts. The bags of soil samples from various archaeological sites is pretty incriminating. The Egyptian who claims to have helped Golan fake artifacts is even more incriminating. There is no conclusive smoking gun, but there is a lot of smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325

ah, the once a crook always a crook Idea.

don't go out for jury duty with that mindset, because guilty until proven innocent is tossed out.

yes, he was a crook. But this artifact was not proven a forgery, on numerous occasions and studies and citations.

your argument is sufficiently put to rest here.

to continue it is simply a fallacy called poisoning the well.

(LA times.....sigh)

first wikipedia,

then LA times.

you really need authoritative sources.

a discussion like this is not answered with google, maybe in the general forum.

but this is a debate thread.

please have respect for scientific methodology and sources.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think it is interesting that there is a debate going as to whether that ossuary is actually old or not when that doesn't really matter. You're not going to find evidence that it is the same James as the brother of Jesus.

I recently heard about a documentary about the tomb of Jesus that they think they found in 1980. James Cameron of Titanic was actually on board for it. They found ossuaries inside for "Jesus son of Joseph", two Marys, Joseph, and a Matthew. One ossuary went missing that they tried to connect to the James ossuary as well. Turns out Mary is the most common female name of the time, and Jesus is a super common name of the time as well. Another ossuary of "Jesus son of Joseph" was found in 1930 and that wasn't the Jesus either. So who care's if it's old? There are a lot of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, James, etc... back then so it isn't unlikely at all there were a lot of sets of brothers named Jesus and James.

I think the significance of this ossuary is the reference to the brother in addition to the father. This suggests a famous brother such as Jesus of the gospels. Josephus already mentioned "James the brother of Jesus" in Antiquities ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus ), but a few scholars have doubts about that mention. So if the James ossuary was genuine, then it would be additional evidence that James and his famous brother Jesus existed.

EDIT: Of course the authenticity of the James ossuary is controversial. Even though Galon was tried with the "innocent until proven guilty" methodology, we should treat artifacts with an unknown provenance as "guilty until proven innocent" IMO

 

[Goonie]

ah, the once a crook always a crook Idea.

don't go out for jury duty with that mindset, because guilty until proven innocent is tossed out.

yes, he was a crook. But this artifact was not proven a forgery, on numerous occasions and studies and citations.

your argument is sufficiently put to rest here.

to continue it is simply a fallacy called poisoning the well.

(LA times.....sigh)

first wikipedia,

then LA times.

you really need authoritative sources.

a discussion like this is not answered with google, maybe in the general forum.

but this is a debate thread.

please have respect for scientific methodology and sources.

The reason why there is a lot of doubt about the James Ossuary is that it lacks provenance, it was not found in situ. The owner had a forgery Workshop with bags of ancient dirt, half finished forgeries etc if the police are to be believed, and a confessed accomplice.

These facts taken into account would make the James ossuary of dubious value in saying anything as to the existence of Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Archaeology has sometimes substantiated historical material in the Bible, the most famous example being the existence of the Hittites. Archaeology has also sometimes called into question the historical material in the Bible. An example would be the seemingly complete absence of any evidence for the historical Exodus; such on its own doesn't mean there was no Exodus, but it does mean that as described in the Bible there's nothing really to substantiate it in the archaeological record.

So a broad appeal to archaeology isn't a particularly useful way of trying to substantiate the veracity of the biblical records. It can potentially come and bite one in the rear.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

Try to google a better image of the Temptation Seal so you can see several. I cannot see any difference between the figure on the right and the left except for the bull horns on the right. Both figures seem to be wearing robes with head dresses - much like modern Arab clothing. Both figures are the same size. Neither figure has a noticeable beard. I believe shaving was practiced at times in those cultures, so maybe that explains the missing beards. Most cultures have distinctive clothing for males and females, but the clothing on the left and right figures looks very similar to me (except for the horns that symbolized divinity).

I didn't see a headress on the woman. But I could be wrong.