Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The character portrayed in biblical mythology didn't actually write any of it. There are several accounts by several anonymous authors of Jesus the alleged christ, but they vary in ways that are inconsistent and occasionally even contradict each other. Moreover, stating that Jesus is real because Jesus says he is is a circular argument and one that is dismissed from intellectual discourse. If you're willing to accept this argument, then you must, necessarily, accept that the crazy guy in Miami, FL who claims to be Jesus is, in fact, Jesus.
Not even close. Just off the top of my head, the Armarna Letters and the writings of Plato have been shown to be more accurate. Very little in biblical mythology has been born out as factual. Just out of curiosity, what is it, specifically, that leads you to believe that the bible is historically accurate?
Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are. Some even write about their own experiences.
You've never read the Bible, have you? I would suggest reading it, then coming back to this thread and tell me what you think. Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.
Here is one example of how historically accurate the Bible is: Shechem, Bethel, Haran, and Gerar have all been excavated and proven to be in existence at Abraham's time. Even his home town of Ur has been discovered and excavated. An abundance of evidence surfaced to disprove the notion that Abraham's era was one of ignorance. Found were receipts for business transactions; temple hymns; others were mathematical tables with formulae for calculating square and cube roots as well as simpler sums. All these were strangely contemporary. According to Millar Burrows "...his name appears in Babylonia as a personal name in the very period to which be belongs." (What Mean These Stones?, p.259).
Another: Forty-six times the Hittites are mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 3:10). No mention is made of them in secular history. Before the 20th century, many said this was a fictitious empire. A.A. Sayce suggested that he found Hittite writings in Syria. Hugo Winckler excavated Boghazkoy, the Hittite capital, in 1906. Over 10,000 tests were found. Now you can graduate with a doctorate degree in Hittitolgy at the University of Pennsylvania.
And another: Jericho was excavated by Dr. John Garstang between 1930 and 1936. He found that the great wall was 12' think and the outer wall 12' thick both being thirty feet high, fell "down flat". "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up land over their ruins into the city." (The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges, p. 146). Walls normally fall inward. "So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city (6:20). Joshua chapter six and verse twenty-four says, "They burnt the city with fire". Garstang found charcoal and ash and pockets of white ash. God commanded them to "keep yourselves form the devoted thing" (6:18). Again, Garstang found storerooms full of food turned to charcoal by fire.
If you want some more, I can give you more. Just ask.
Here, read this: Throughout the years critics have attacked the Bible because it was filled with historical blunders. They viewed it as fictional and highly imaginative. At one time the records of secular history didn't mention some 47 kings found in the Bible.
If the book is inspired of God we can expect it to be historically correct. If the Bible is not accurate historically then is accurate concerning spiritual matters? This lesson will forcible demonstrate that the historical record of history and the Bible record are very compatible.
The Bible is not a history book. Nonetheless, whenever God's Word incidentally touches on any aspect of history it is always accurate. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." (William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, pp. 127,128). Merrill Unger wrote, "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds." (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 15). "Archeology is a real help in understanding the Bible. It yields fascinating information which illustrates what might otherwise be obscured, and in some instances confirms what some might otherwise regard as doubtful." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe, p. 88).
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
Please, make sure to read everything I posted.