Evidence of the Historicity of the Bible

Archeological discoveries that have revealed that many of the people in the Bible are in fact, real and historical figures, proving that the Bible is, at least in part, an historical document.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• skeptics
• of
• the
• Bible
• Biblical
• people
• places
• fabrications
• evidence
• Hebrew
• archeology
• historical
• document
• Gedaliah
• Seal
• Jucal
• Jerusalem
• Barukh
• Baruch
• seal
• fingerprint
• house
• David
• king
• Israel
• Tell
• Dan
• inscription
• Nebo
• Sarsechim
• chief
• eunuchs
• clay
• bulla
• Nebuchadnezzar
• Sarsekim
• Jeremiah
• isaiah
• tablet
• cuneiform
• script
• Joshua
• 6:24
• The
• Lord
• Temple
• Yahweh
• beyt
• yhwh
• yhvh
• Hittites
• Assyrian
• Sargon
• Ashdod
• Canaan

[moopism]

that the Bible is, at least in part, an historical document.

See, it's that "in part" bit y'all seem to ignore and race to the conclusion that means all, including YOUR particular interpretation thereof.

[ancienthebreworg]

@moopism Are you assuming that I believe the Bible as a whole is completely accurate? You know what they say when you "assume" something.

[shadywolf91]

I have a question, why don't the stone tablets contain the same letters that you claim they do? In both of them you see a "g" which looks like one of our letter or perhaps like the Arabic letter "wow" and yet these artifacts don't have the same letters. Care to explain? Is it some ancient form? And if it is can you show everyone?

[ancienthebreworg]

@shadywolf91 Which tablet are speaking about?

[shadywolf91]

@ancienthebreworg The first two.

[ancienthebreworg]

@shadywolf91 The first two are written in Paleo-Hebrew, which was in use from about 1,000 BCE to about 400 BCE. In the first one, the "g" is in the top ine, second letter from the right, and it kind of looks like an English R. There is no "g" in the second seal, but the letter that looks like a "g" in both of these seals is the Hebrew letter beyt - "b" as in "ben" meaning "son."

[Cathmoytura]

1:00, “But if I or anyone did a much more serious and through investigation, many more examples could be found.” … This is called confirmation bias. There are some people and places named in the Bible that we have extra-biblical evidence for—I don’t believe anyone has ever said otherwise. 8:00, “We can make the next step and say the Bible is, at least in part, a historical document.” No viable scholar has ever said otherwise. But, that’s a long way off from proving its central attestations.

[UrukEngineer]

You start with a strawman of those who doubt the bible's validity when it comes to assessing whether key facts are correct. No one cares whether "Gelaliah ben Pashhur" existed. What is more important is that there is no evidence for King David, Jesus (his existence and resurrection), Nazareth etc - nothing central to the religious stories. Instead the evidence for a polytheistic foundation of the Abrahamic faiths is conveniently ignored.

[jraposo]

For those who deny the spiderman legitimacy, how do you explain the existance of reporters? or spiders?, Their history originates before the time of Thor and Zeus. They are a living prophecy

[lzpf07]

For those who deny the bibles legitimacy... how do you explain the existence of the jewish people? Their history originates before the time of Moses. They are a living prophecy

[lzpf07]

@jraposo technically, if you write about many gods and there out of this world powers... 3000 years from now people will believe that these gods were real. No that is just greek mythology. There is a big difference when someone claims a story to be true as oppose to a myth or a fictional story. The bible legitimizes its self through prophecy, archeology and hope for humanity. If you actually follow it's wisdom you will become a loving person to yourself and the world.

[squint1991]

@TheWildMagic hes defending it because hes got EVIDENCE. wow. that was hillarious. that really does just go to show how one track minded people are. by u asking that, ur basically implying that u thought the only reason why he was "defending" the Bible was because he was Christian and not because of the historical data hes presented. Thats so stereotypical. But even more than that its ammusing