Are all scriptures "God breathed"Are scripture or

[polonius]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by Tcg]

Fair enough, I retract the reference to "pottery" and present the above as acheological evidence.



Thanks for pointing that out.

JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes. It is archaeological evidence of "geographical or ethnic name very similar, if not identical, with the name of the God of Israel" being used. It is not evidence of a large population of Hebrews in Egypt.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 22 by Tcg]

Granted, but it is evidence that suggests a Hebrew (Cananite) presence. My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that there is absolutely nothing in the archeological records that support the bible narrative much less there have been discoveries that prove that they were not there (ie proving a negative). There may be an inscription found one days that reads "The Hebrews were not here" but I somehow doubt it


JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 22 by Tcg]

Granted, but it is evidence that suggests a Hebrew (Cananite) presence.

Given that it may only be a name similar to that of the God of Israel, that is quite a stretch. It may or may not even suggest some knowledge of the Hebrews.

My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that there is absolutely nothing in the archeological records that support the bible narrative.

Given that this may or may not represent the name of the God of Israel, it absolutely cannot be used to claim it supports the bible narrative. If it is the name of the God of Israel, it suggests only that the name of the God of Israel was used. It suggests nothing about how it came to be used.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

Well there are experts that suggest it does and others that suggest it may not, so at the very least such evidence has its place in the discussion (which is why I posted it).

Even without the above, the fact is that there exists evidence that supports many of the details given in the biblical account such as that there were indeed Semites (such as were the ancient Hebrews) present in ancient Egypt, the brick making industry by laborers and the existence of the possible routes out of the territories where the biblical account places the Israelites ... in the face of this and since we wouldn't expect the Egyptians to record a military defeat as depicted in Exodus, it would be reasonable to not read too much into the silence in Egyptian records.

JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

Well there are experts that suggest it does and others that suggest it may not, so at the very least such evidence has its place in the discussion (which is why I posted it).

Until it is shown to actually be the name of the God of Israel, it shouldn't even be considered "evidence".

Even without the above, the fact is that there exists evidence that supports many of the details given in the biblical account such as that there were indeed Semites (such as were the ancient Hebrews) present in ancient Egypt...

[/quote]

Please present that evidence.

Since we wouldn't expect the Egyptians to record a military defeat as depicted in Exodus, it would be reasonable to not read too much into the silence in Egyptian records.

The discussion was the lack of archaeological evidence. Beyond that, what "military defeat" are you referring to?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius.advice]

There are some minor copyist errors in the bible, mostly resolvable. I have yet to see an apparent "contradiction" in the bible that cannot be resolved.


RESPONSE: How about the archaeological conclusion that the Hebrews were never in Egypt, the Exodus story is fictional, and the first seven books of the Bible were written between 800 and 700 BC, as a founding legend?

Archeology is not in a position to make such a absolute "conclusion" especially in the negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, even if the bible was written yesterday.


JW

The absence of evidence certainly is evidence itself.

For example, we have no evidence that the American army fighting the American revolution had jet fighters. Are you then going to claim that isn't evidence that they didn't, so they may have?