Jump to content
Science Forums

Is Bible history fact or fiction?


eMTee

Recommended Posts

Going further back, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Yet, the Bible mentions Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The Historical record we have and can indirectly varify thus is in dispute with the Bible's own recorded history. Yet, we also have Sargon mentioned in Isaiah 20 as having captured Ashdod, which did exist. Sargon's palace was eventually discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. His capture of Ashdod was recorded on the palace walls. Fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were also found at Ashdod itself. Also, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. So the question about how much is history does have an answer that can be discovered via scientific based means. Its part history and part myth and retelling of tribal story.

 

To be fair, the Bible has been shown to be very reliable historically in many cases where it has been doubted. The Hittites, for example, were long held up as an example of the innacurate Biblical record, yet eventually it was discovered they do exist. One can say "there is no evidence supporting the Bible in that such and such existed," but that is very different then saying "we see no evidence such and such existed, so the Bible is wrong."

 

Which I think is what you were saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible's story of the crossing point of the hebrews crossing of the Dead sea...the possibility is extremely suported by the archeoligy and artifacts found at the site. A merical had to happen for this to be able to take place, because there is no scientific answer for it's capabuility. Or if you prefer not a mirical...then good luck trying to find a way.

 

About the Bolder on the hill that Moses struck (acording to the Bible), there is evidence of water once coming out from it....and I dont think that that will change with any non-religous scientist going there to look at it....And I would only guess that even the Muslems will go for the water theory. now you might be able to develope a scientific claim of how it was possable...but this bolder is also in the middle of a dry and decilate nowhere.

 

What about the top of the real Mt. Sinai where it is burned to glass...how would that have happened?

 

I know that the scientists are mostly made up of Bible scalers and religous explorers...but surly you would be fair as in saying that they are not too engolfed in their religouse beliefs, that they don't realy study all the scientific research, because I don't they slide around that.

 

As one person sayed "we all have the same evidence, creationists and evolutionists alike." creationists are wanting to put proof into thier claims. And I think you want the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that -- they are both the God of Abraham.
Not only history and historians say it, the Qur'an says it too. It gives the profets previous to Mohammed as having been from Abraham to Jesus (Ishua ibn al Myriam, or however you choose to spell it).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the historians.

And how is it that you know more than the historians? Have you analyzed the same material they have and come to a different conclusion? Or, are you really just basing all of this on your intuition? I personally think the bible is just a story book with some history behind it but I'll entertain any scientific evidence you have to the contrary. Have you some scholarly analysis to present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only history and historians say it, the Qur'an says it too. It gives the profets previous to Mohammed as having been from Abraham to Jesus (Ishua ibn al Myriam, or however you choose to spell it).

 

Yes and no, depending on your perspective. Muslims consider them the same God based on the Koran, most Christians think of them as different because of the biggest difference between the religions- Christ as the son of God (Christians) or Christ as a human prophet (Muslims). If Christ was God (literally or figurativally), then they are different God's.

 

Mostly semantics, but with a very large theological difference as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no, depending on your perspective. Muslims consider them the same God based on the Koran, most Christians think of them as different because of the biggest difference between the religions- Christ as the son of God (Christians) or Christ as a human prophet (Muslims). If Christ was God (literally or figurativally), then they are different God's.

 

Mostly semantics, but with a very large theological difference as well.

So for Christians, the God of the Muslims is a competing god? I thought there was supposed to be only one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no, depending on your perspective. Muslims consider them the same God based on the Koran, most Christians think of them as different because of the biggest difference between the religions- Christ as the son of God (Christians) or Christ as a human prophet (Muslims). If Christ was God (literally or figurativally), then they are different God's.

 

Mostly semantics, but with a very large theological difference as well.

Surely that is beside the point. There was only one God of Abraham and Isaac, and both faiths sprang from that one faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...