I was referring to the figures between adam and abraham, as per your words. According to legend, or from religious viewpoints, history, abraham lived around 2000 BC which places him in the times between the Ur III period and the dynasties of Isin and Larsa in the region of mesopotamia and surrounding areas. In the grand scheme of things, thats not very far back. And who knows if someday some archaeological discovery will be made confirming his existence or that of his legendary father Terah. Likely? No. But its not impossible. Genesis 10:10 mentions the cities of accad, calneh, and erech (uruk). Is that fantasy? Certainly not. Belshazzar was said to have been a fictionalized character prior to his discovery. So much for that idea.
Thank you for the response. I do not see the Bible as that historically accurate. It depicts people's that were perhaps real and many that are very debatable as well as some events transpire correctly but since it is written as a first hand account hundreds of years after the fact a lot of it is hearsay. Using actual quotes from people is also fairly ridiculous. It does connect some of the dots regarding some history of that time period and for that I am thankful.
What kind of evidence do you want? Pictures? There were none. Writing? Very little writing exists from 4,000-5,000 years ago. There were so many Empire exchanges throughout that time that who knows what has been lost or destroyed. The Persians, Romans, Greeks, Turks, Mongols... the list is almost endless. So, you will just laugh off what could be very real things simply because evidence is hard to come by?
Saying that something or someone didn't exist in the bible simply because of a lack of corroborating evidence is an extraordinary claim in itself. The best approach is to just take the middle ground and say we simply don't know. That it is inconclusive as of yet. That's the historically and scientifically honest thing to do.
Start with something simple and do your research.. There were no camels at the time of Rebecca.. and there was no glorious kingdom of David or Solomon.. Its a late invention. Canaanites who worship Asherah lived in Jerusalem.
I've done a lot of research on the bible, and much of the evidence points to the bible being historically accurate about a great many things, particularly dates, place names, and king lists. The biblical account of the siege of samaria and judah by the neo-assyrian empire is simply stellar for instance. These events were recorded thousands of years prior to modern archaeology. The proposed late date for the book of daniel put forth by those involved in higher criticism doesn't hold up either. The aramaic of Daniel is far too old in sentence structure to be a maccabean invention as it is often claimed to be by liberal scholars. Not only is the aramaic older than the type used in the hellenistic period, but its sentence structure is heavily akkadian influenced, pointing to an archaic, eastern mesopotamian aramaic style rather than a judean one.
You mean Dan EL? Its yet another borrowed story. The archeological evidence shows that not only weren’t people riding camels in the Levant when the Bible says they were, David and Solomon didn’t have a huge palace in Jerusalem in the 1000s and 900s BC. The Assyrians, the gossips of the ancient world, wrote down everything on their clay tablets. They knew events in the whole Middle East. They did not know anything about a glorious kingdom of David and Solomon at Jerusalem. Indeed, in the 1000s when David is alleged to have lived, Jerusalem seems to have been largely uninhabited, according to the digs that have been done. Jerusalem was not in any case founded by Jews, but by Canaanites in honor of the god Shalem, thousands of years ago. There is no reason to think anyone but Canaanites lived in the area of Jerusalem in the 1000s or 900s BC. Likely some Canaanites became devoted to Y*H*W*H in a monotheistic way during the Babylonian exile when they began inventing Judaism and becoming “Jews” and projecting it back into the distant past. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item...rcheology_shows_bible_full_of_errors_20140208
Daniel is not borrowed from the legend of bel and the dragon. I have done extensive research on this subject of daniel. Again, the Bible is very historically accurate when it comes to king lists, place names, peoples, etc. Sargon II is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. First archaeologists said it was false because they couldn't find corroborating evidence (a logical fallacy), then they caved and admitted the Bible was correct once the palace at Khorsabad was discovered. The siege of samaria by Sargon did take place, and the Israelites are mentioned by name by the Assyrians. Judah (where the term jew comes from) is also mentioned by the neo-assyrian empire. The Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Ugaritic. Later they also spoke aramaic and greek.
Correction: I meant to say that Bel and the Dragon is not part of the original hebrew/aramaic text. And also that the Ugaritic character 'dnil' is not the origin of the hebrew Daniel mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Its a rather old theory and doesn't hold up under intensive scrutiny.
maybe because they believe it to be true? Christianinsanity was spread by force. If Charlegemagne didn't spread this religion by force whites would probably still be pagan.
