Biblical Archaeology

[Bard A Madsen]

I've read about 12 books on the subject, mostly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The church tried to infiltrate the cuneiform translators to swing the tide in their favor, but the evidence is overwhelming. It is a slam dunk that a lot of the OT was 'borrowed' from the Sumerians, and also 'borrowed' from the Egyptians. There are many psalms that are almost verbatim and clear evidence that 'borrowed' lists and stories were put in reverse order or mirrored. Also clear parallels of stories like Sargon being floated down the river just like the Moses story and there are Egyptian stories also, can't recall the names. The flood story is so close that there is no way it could be coincidence. Somehow, I have yet to figure it out, the church did win and it wasn't scientific proof it was probably more like denial and the truth of it all faded away. I even have a blue eyed Jesus Bible with pictures of cuneiform text in it as to show legitimacy and proof of the stories antiquity, but the cuneiform text clearly prove that their from a different culture and at least 1,000 years older. The stories in all probability go back to 4,000 BC and beyond with being memorized and verbally passed through generations. This goes to show that the flood didn't happen at 2,300 BC as many believe, because the story is older. The Deluge had to happen around 11,000 BC and if the Hebrews had there own tradition of the event the story would differ as do the 100 or so flood stories around the world. I bought the book below for $4 delivered and is like brand new, must have sat in a priest's safe for 100 years, it is pretty well rounded in scope. Read that one all the way through and you'll have a pretty good idea of the subject. They did a lot of research a 100 yeas ago, to get a book like that today would cost over $200. It is enlightening, of instance the Sabbath is 'borrowed' also, as you can see on page 15. https://archive.org/stream/lightonoldtes...8/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/texts?and[]=...rchaeology

[abaris]

Sometimes I see Christians saying that Archaeology proves the bible.I'm pretty clueless in the area of Archaeology(outside of Indiana Jones) so if anyone could help deal with this area that'd be great

They almost universally resort to their kind of archeologists. If you want to call them that. On closer inspection, they're hacks, with no education in the relevant fields. Apologists mainly, who certainly don't get any access to relevant archeological sites, since they would destroy them by what they are calling work.

[KevinM1]

As others have said, it's bollocks. The bible is incredibly loosely based, at times, on real events. But often the events didn't happen at all.

It's all irrelevant, because a few accurate details in a book do not validate the rest of the book as true. Just knowing what's going on around you while writing something isn't particular impressive. The rest of it needs its own evidence, especially talking geese or whatever and little magic pixies.

Yup.  It's like saying the events in The Avengers movie actually happened because New York is a real place.

And, really, of course religious stories will reference real places or events.  By grounding the fantastic in reality (especially in the reality of the intended audience (you know, locals)), you make it seem more plausible, which makes it more appealing to believe in.  "Oh, wow, miracle X happened two blocks from me!  Awesome!"

[brewer]

Wasn't there this one star focused around a kids birth? And the astronomy/cosmology guys figured out it was a super nova that shot gamma rays into the kid. And it turned him into a guy with wonderful and mysterious powers. And then he walked the earth performing great acts and created a following.