Jump to content
IGNORED

10 Historical Records That Tell Another Side Of Bible Stories


nebula

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.98
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

What I thought was most interesting about this article was that if there are accepted historical records that speak of Biblical people and events from a different perspective, shouldn't that be considered confirmation or at least accepted as evidence that the people existed and the events happened?

http://listverse.com/2016/10/23/10-historical-records-that-tell-another-side-of-bible-stories/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  342
  • Topics Per Day:  0.13
  • Content Count:  7,382
  • Content Per Day:  2.71
  • Reputation:   5,311
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/27/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Another thing that boils my blood at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is...

I watch secular atheist programs on the History, Discovery and National Geographic channels, for entertainment purposes and to get their unbelieving views. I've seen several programs where it was stated that King David never existed, and he was a myth. No conclusive evidence of his existence has ever been excavated or found. When they eventually do find the evidence, they will move on to something else I suppose. 

They continue to try and disprove the Bible's authenticity and its inerrancy as the true Word of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.38
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, nebula said:

...shouldn't that be considered confirmation or at least accepted as evidence that the people existed and the events happened?

Why should extra-biblical "evidence" be important for confirmation? The fact that something is recorded in the Bible is sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,676
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,235
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

15 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Why should extra-biblical "evidence" be important for confirmation? The fact that something is recorded in the Bible is sufficient.

According to God's Word at the final time of accounting all that was of the created heaven and earth will have fled away... Leaving only God... His Word and those standing before Him to give account according to what He has written in His Word... so I would say no extra Biblical material will be available. Leaving clearly the necessity and sufficiency of Said Word!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.98
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

On 10/25/2016 at 7:59 PM, Yowm said:

Gosh, I'd say no history is better than bad lying history lol. 

There were other things mentioned that were't quite so far fetched though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.98
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

23 hours ago, Ezra said:

Why should extra-biblical "evidence" be important for confirmation? The fact that something is recorded in the Bible is sufficient.

Because the Bible isn't sufficient to non-believers who keep claiming the stories/accounts are myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.98
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

23 hours ago, enoob57 said:

According to God's Word at the final time of accounting all that was of the created heaven and earth will have fled away... Leaving only God... His Word and those standing before Him to give account according to what He has written in His Word... so I would say no extra Biblical material will be available. Leaving clearly the necessity and sufficiency of Said Word!

But when being challenged by atheists...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.38
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, nebula said:

Because the Bible isn't sufficient to non-believers who keep claiming the stories/accounts are myths.

Then nothing would satisfy them.  As Scripture says, preach the Gospel, in season, out of season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.38
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, nebula said:

But when being challenged by atheists...?

Challenge them back.  As them if they know of anything at all that has created itself. Houses, furniture, cities, inventions, what have you. If every article and item which surrounds us needs a creator, then it follows that the universe needs a Creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2016 at 5:52 PM, nebula said:

What I thought was most interesting about this article was that if there are accepted historical records that speak of Biblical people and events from a different perspective, shouldn't that be considered confirmation or at least accepted as evidence that the people existed and the events happened?

http://listverse.com/2016/10/23/10-historical-records-that-tell-another-side-of-bible-stories/

Let's take these (from the article) one at a time (in the order the article stated them:

10) Strabo wrote his "account" of Moses in 24 AD. Yes, Strabo took many trips to Egypt in his time, but any info on Moses down there is not going to be particularly kind to an individual who they consider responsible for wrecking Egypt (even though it was God almighty).

9) According to Josephus, the Xerxes that Ester was married to was the son of the king who invaded Greece, not Xerxes 1.

8) Of course Moab is going to have a different account: what King writes in the national annals that they got their hindquarters handed to them?

7) Much of the tablet is missing, and what is left is open to debate and interpetation. You really can't make an official "call" based on just a few words on a busted chunk of rock missing most of the text (for all we know, it may have also had the queen's shopping list for the week!).

6) Manetho lived in the 3rd century BC; the thing is, there is serious question about his work as well. The earliest mention we have Manetho's "Aegyptiaca of Manetho" is by Josephus, in his book "Contra Apionem" .If the atheists are going to cry about the span of time between the original manuscripts of the Gospel and the earliest copies we have (30-60 years at most), then a gap of OVER 300 YEARS should at the very least put this "piece" in question as to both authorship as well as legitimacy. It reeks of another smear job towards Moses.

5) "Israel is laid waste, and his seed is not", the stone says. Well, that pretty much supports the Bible's account of the murder of the children of Israel per Pharaoh's order in Exodus chapter 1. Next?

4) This one is a bit of a dirty trick: in Rome, the Christians were actually charged with "atheism"! Since they would not acknowledge Caesar as "god" or any of the other "deities" that the Roman citizens would "swap" and trade like collectible cards, this infuriated the Romans. So naturally, Tacitus is going to charge Moses with "atheism"; Moses' God was the God of Israel and not a God they recognized nor would ever worship. And since Moses was a Hebrew, Tacitus was not exactly going to be nice about his account of him either (not to mention Tacitus also bought a lot of the nonsense thrown around since Moses' time, seeing Tacitus wrote this "account" between 100-110 AD). He "pieced together" his account from several versions.

(Note: one account has him as a priest, while another has him as an atheist afflicted with leprosy? Er...can we see a scorecard here on who is trying to make up the better "smear campaign" to hit poor Moses with?)

3) Yes, the Talmud calls Jesus a "sorcerer"; the Talmud also says Adam had a wife named Lilith before God made Eve. Not to mention there's the Jerusalem Talmud (older) and the Babylonian Talmud (newer), with the former compiled around 500 AD (the " Mishnah " portion of it was written in 200 AD). So, we have two versions that were compiled well after the Lord's death and resurrection, and they contradict Scripture. Getting back to the issue about Jesus in the Talmud, the account says that during Jesus' trial, the Sanhedrin "sent heralds out to ask people in Jerusalem who would defend Jesus to come forward". Seeing as this was the time of the Passover, who out of the people was going to risk become ceremonially unclean and thus not be able to participate in the Passover, let alone the Sabbath just around the corner? This is one reason I doubt that account.

2) All this does is prove Pliny was intent on stamping out Christianity. Yes, he called it a "depraved, excessive superstition" (if you mean by "depraved" that chastity, respect, monogamous marriage and honesty were instructed, and by "excessive" that forgiveness, kindness and mercy were shown!); then again, it's not like Rome was practicing any of that, right?

1) That's what happens when people operate on rumor and assumptions; it never occurred to them to ask the Christians if "the body and blood of Christ"  of the "Lord's Supper" was literal or symbolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...