New Evidence Confirms The Burning Of Jerusalem By Babylonians Described In The Bible

[JohnElias3773]

I often follow stories on Biblical archaeology. Here's a excerpt from the article:
Archaeologists excavating the City of David in Jerusalem have discovered evidence that a passage of the Bible is historically accurate.


Researchers at the site in the Jerusalem Walls National Park found many burnt artifacts dating from 2,600 years ago, confirming a reference in the Bible that describes the burning of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Jerusalem is thought to have fallen around 587 BCE.


Researchers Find Evidence That Key Part Of The Bible Really Did Happen

 

[Tanj]

Could you elaborate further on how this is a key part of the bible? I thought the key part was about salvation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I often follow stories on Biblical archaeology. Here's a excerpt from the article:
Archaeologists excavating the City of David in Jerusalem have discovered evidence that a passage of the Bible is historically accurate.


Researchers at the site in the Jerusalem Walls National Park found many burnt artifacts dating from 2,600 years ago, confirming a reference in the Bible that describes the burning of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Jerusalem is thought to have fallen around 587 BCE.


Researchers Find Evidence That Key Part Of The Bible Really Did Happen

I don't think that anyone has tried to claim that all of the Bible is wrong. Yes, some of it is clearly correct. But the fact that some of it is correct is not evidence at all that all of it is correct.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Could you elaborate further on how this is a key part of the bible? I thought the key part was about salvation.

Biblical archaeology is always fascinating. Many times in the older parts of the bible, the archeological data doesn't square with what the Bible talks about (ie no real evidence for an "Exodus", etc.)

So it's interesting to see when the Bible actually reports something factually. This isn't surprising, it's a huge bunch of writings from a large swath of the history of early Israel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical archaeology is always fascinating. Many times in the older parts of the bible, the archeological data doesn't square with what the Bible talks about (ie no real evidence for an "Exodus", etc.)

So it's interesting to see when the Bible actually reports something factually. This isn't surprising, it's a huge bunch of writings from a large swath of the history of early Israel.

What is a bit ironic is that I am sure that the dating method was that of C14. I find it rather humorous that radiometric dating works when it confirms the Bible, but is unreliable when it does not.

 

[Hank77]

Enjoyed the read. Thanks

 

[Tanj]

Biblical archaeology is always fascinating. Many times in the older parts of the bible, the archeological data doesn't square with what the Bible talks about (ie no real evidence for an "Exodus", etc.)

So it's interesting to see when the Bible actually reports something factually. This isn't surprising, it's a huge bunch of writings from a large swath of the history of early Israel.

Fair enough...not sure it rates being "key" though, does it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Fair enough...not sure it rates being "key" though, does it?

Yeah, probably not, but certainly on CF when debate devolve down to "it's in the bible ergo it must be TRUE!" It's always nice when the religious score a point on the board

 

[Tanj]

Yeah, probably not, but certainly on CF when debate devolve down to "it's in the bible ergo it must be TRUE!" It's always nice when the religious score a point on the board

 

[JohnElias3773]

What is a bit ironic is that I am sure that the dating method was that of C14. I find it rather humorous that radiometric dating works when it confirms the Bible, but is unreliable when it does not.

IMO C14 should never been used exclusively for dating and it rarely is, in the field. C14 is unreliable enough that you should have at least 7 or more attempts to average out the contamination failures. There are many different scientific methods for dating, C14 is just the most famous.

 

[JohnElias3773]

Could you elaborate further on how this is a key part of the bible? I thought the key part was about salvation.

Establishing the historicity of the Scriptures is important for those that may doubt the claim of Salvation.

 

[Tanj]

Establishing the historicity of the Scriptures is important for those that may doubt the claim of Salvation.

Really? Could you explain this further? I mean, taking me as an example, you could prove every single historical aspect of the Bible to be 100% true and it would have no effect at all on my doubt about the claim of salvation.

 

[Speedwell]

Establishing the historicity of the Scriptures is important for those that may doubt the claim of Salvation.

And I don't believe scripture to be 100% historically accurate, but have no doubt about the claim of Salvation.

 

[Waggles]

Archaeologists excavating the City of David in Jerusalem have discovered evidence that a passage of the Bible is historically accurate.

I have always believed the Bible and history to be truth. The notion that historical events in the Bible
narrative are not true never troubles me.
For I know that God is not a liar, and that all Bible prophecy is vindicated.

Unbelief is not a matter of evidence, archaeological or other, but of the heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have always believed the Bible and history to be truth. The notion that historical events in the Bible
narrative are not true never troubles me.
For I know that God is not a liar, and that all Bible prophecy is vindicated.

Unbelief is not a matter of evidence, archaeological or other, but of the heart.

Some of the Bible is accurate, some is obviously wrong. That there is evidence for a temple when we already knew of the Babylonian occupation is a rather small "victory".

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMO C14 should never been used exclusively for dating and it rarely is, in the field. C14 is unreliable enough that you should have at least 7 or more attempts to average out the contamination failures. There are many different scientific methods for dating, C14 is just the most famous.

For recent events C14 is about it when it comes to radiometric dating. Unless you know of some other. Yes, C14 can be contaminated. That is why one must take precautions. But I have never heard this "7 or more attempts" rule.

 

[JohnElias3773]

Really? Could you explain this further? I mean, taking me as an example, you could prove every single historical aspect of the Bible to be 100% true and it would have no effect at all on my doubt about the claim of salvation.

Well I think you said it all. If no amount of evidence can convince you, then the problem really isn't with the evidence.... I believe that these sorts of questions can be very complex for the skeptic. We should respect that complexity and base our judgements on the entirety of the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I think you said it all. If no amount of evidence can convince you, then the problem really isn't with the evidence.... I believe that these sorts of questions can be very complex for the skeptic. We should respect that complexity and base our judgements on the entirety of the evidence.

That is not necessarily true. The historic claims of the Bible may be true. What you need to find evidence are the more mythical claims.

 

[JohnElias3773]

For recent events C14 is about it when it comes to radiometric dating. Unless you know of some other. Yes, C14 can be contaminated. That is why one must take precautions. But I have never heard this "7 or more attempts" rule.

C14 dating typically uses multiple tests because of the contamination problem. Generally they estimate a date, then try to confirm it. I used 7 because in the most famous C14 controversy (The 1988 Shroud of Turin test) originally the plan was to use 7 different respected laboratories from the around the world (as experts advised), but at the last moment Cardinal Ballestrero of Turin decided to only use three. This is a major complaint from the Sindologist community.

 

[Tanj]

Well I think you said it all. If no amount of evidence can convince you, then the problem really isn't with the evidence.... I believe that these sorts of questions can be very complex for the skeptic. We should respect that complexity and base our judgements on the entirety of the evidence.

That is not necessarily true. The historic claims of the Bible may be true. What you need to find evidence are the more mythical claims.

What he said. However, Whilst I don't agree with your argument, I can certainly see why believing that would make this evidence "key".