Archaeology 'Demonstrates the Reliability of the Bible,' Leading Archaeologist Says

…Another document "tells us that the firstborn son and heir of Nabonidus, his name was Belshazzar.

"And so suddenly, we had this archeological evidence that demonstrated the book of Daniel was exactly right on all that," Kennedy said…

…"But then in 1993, they found this broken, stele [slab]," Kennedy said. "... This particular one was to commemorate an event, a victory, of the Arameans over Israel. And in one section, it talks about some kings of Israel that these Arameans defeated. And then it says that they are from the house of David. So that was a way of saying the dynasty of David. … That was acknowledging David was the founder of their dynasty of Israelite kings. And so right away, then, people had to change their ideas on the historicity of David."…







https://www.christianheadlines.com/...-of-the-bible-leading-archaeologist-says.html





There is more proof that what the Bible says is true being dug up all the time. This active field of study and digging up of evidence has proven the skeptics wrong time and again.

 

God is being revealed more and more in this manner.

 

Archaeology 'Demonstrates the Reliability of the Bible,' Leading Archaeologist Says

I'm guessing the above was the headline .. as no serious credible archaeologist would say such a thing .. at least not like that.

We have Archaeological finds all the time that confirm the Biblical Narrative - that the Israelites were very fond of child sacrifice for example.

What we also find however .. is archaeology that shows that often the Bible is not reliable .. simply false .. such as the case of the walls of Jericho .. which did not exist when Joshua came round.

So there are many examples of things both falsified and confirmed. This does not show the Bible is Reliable at all .. What it shows is that sometimes the Bible gets it right .. and there is some real history behind and interwined with the story .. as is often the case with myth.

This by no means .. means the Bible is Reliable .. it is quite unreliable .. probably wrong more than it is right .. but either way .. you would need at least 90% to be considered remotely reliable.. and the Bible is not even close. .

If you get in your car and have a 90% chance of making it to our destination .. do you call that a reliable car ?

come on .. this is ridiculous . There is alot in the Bible that is history .. which is very cool .. but it is not "Reliable"

 

There is no alternative way to salvation for any who know it as it is Gods letter of love to mankind. No one who has been shown it’s light and rejects it will find their way to Heaven. Those who never knew it but were living by whatever light God did show them will be there.

 

What on earth is this nonsensical unrelated incoherent gibberish ? "No alternative to salvation" ?? what does that have to do with the Bible not being very Reliable from a Historical Standpoint ?

"No reject find way to heaven" .. so those who have never been shown the light are all good ? how do they find their way with no light ?

and last .. Who elected you to the position of Logos ?

 

That's pretty cool. But the real treasure in the Bible is God, who can't be proven.

 

It would be pretty bad if the Bible were grossly in error on history of humans who wrote those records.

But, that doesn't have anything to do with whether the religion is right.

 

You pushed aside the divine aspect of the Bible, calling much of it myth, and equated it to a faulty, unreliable vehicle. Jefferson stated correctly that there is no alternative than the Bible(vehicle) to salvation. And even though as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we have the Book of Mormon which also testifies of Jesus Christ. It is even more unprovable than the Bible.

 

I did not call much of the Bible Myth .. although some of it is .. but Jefferson has nothing to do with it.

Nor did I relate it to a faulty unreliable vehicle... need to check your reading comprehension mate.

I simply stated that the Bible is not reliable from a historical perspective. While the Bible gets it right quite often .. quite often the Bible is wrong .. and thus .. is "myth" .. So you can not reliably stated ' The Bible Said so so it must have happened in History.

Much of what is said in the Bible is accurate .. its just that a whole lot is not. It is what it is.

 

God is the ultimate answer for sure. The salvation and return to our pre sin condition and eternal life He offers a fallen world is most loving and generous of Him. The doubters have used the absence of certain historical evidence for certain claims made by the inerrant Word of God and archeology has given them an ever shrinking branch to stand upon and question God.

 

So since God inspired men and women to write what’s in it, which parts do we call God a liar over?

 

You have no idea what God did and what he did not .. first off. Second - some of the Bible is not even claimed to be "Inspired" such as Psalms, Proverbs

but last .. and most importantly. It is a fact that the entire Bible can not be inspired - unless you want to label God an idiot - due to the many many many contradictions ..

Did Joshua take Israel -- or did David ? Did Joshua rid the land of Canaanites as per the Bible .. or .. as per the Bible were Canaanites in the land long after Joshua ..

and you can go on and on a hundred times over. No serious scholar can believe the entire Bible is inspired mate .. its just not how it is - lest one wishes to label God an Idiot .. which I don't. Do you ?

 

Your fundamental assumption is that there is a god and that that god is the one that YOU like, interpreted in the way YOU insist upon.

That's where the problem starts, as it is the REQUIREMENT of everything you say in every one of your posts.

 

Seeing that all the testimonies of God are from his followers. What'd be cool would be some sort of written acknowledgement from an ancient King who is an enemy of the Jews, giving honor to the miraculous nature of the God of the Jews. It would be both historical and supportive of the reality of God.

 

Would one who captured Gods people and took them into exile after destroying their capital city and Temple count? It’s there in the Bible and that King actually saw and felt Gods power and he converted to worship God and wrote a portion of the Bible.

 

Myth is a mixture of history with fiction... a sort of historical fiction

 

Of the associates for biblical research is a good source of biblical archaeology. The shroud of Turin, has been scientifically examined to the point of it being exactly what it is reported to be, burial shell of Jesus. Bible is 100% accurate, infallible word of God. It is a supernatural book, it tells the future, prophecies have been confirmed 100% accurate and all details, there is no other source that even comes close.

 

interesting discovery, oldest bible ever found, seems to show the bible as is known today is not as it originally was

"1500 Year-Old Bible Found In Turkey Is Stirring Up Controversy About Christianity"

https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news...Is-Stirring-Up-Controversy-About-Christianity

""Much to the dismay of the Vatican, an approx. 1500-2000 year old bible was found in Turkey, in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara. Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul "The Impostor". The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place."

 

~ Was human beings created in God's image ..? If so that answers the question ...

 

Kind of down on your own creation mate .. but note as well that this is not necessarily the case.

 

I didn't know that. Yes, that would count and be a major acknowledgement, lending credence to the actuality of God. Thanks for that info.

 

Of course, some alignment of the Bible with archaeology in no way provides evidence of supernatural claims any more than the fact that Kansas exists means the Wizzard of OZ was real.

 

That is a claim. Where is the evidence of this claim? "Shown it's light" means what eactly? What light?

 

James Michener was a very popular author for writing fictional stories - all based in absolute facts of history.
Does that make his stories true? You could literally use his books as timelines in history - save for the FACT that characters in those
novels were mostly fictional.

The historical facts behind the stories outlined in the walls of ancient Egypt showed many historically accurate events - timelines
of actual military and state leaders ... does that mean that the Gods depicted along side them are also true?

Going to rate this thread an absolute fail.

 

Sorry dude. Circular logic. "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true" is not an actually real thing.

It's like people a thousand years from now discovering an edition of Harry Potter and claiming it's a true history because it can be proven that London existed.