MovieChat Forums > Religulous (2008) Discussion > Archaeologists reveal there is ZERO proo...

Archaeologists reveal there is ZERO proof to support the bible!


Prominent archaeologists find NO evidence for ALL 4 main stories in the bible thereby destroying the foundation of this VERY false middle eastern religion!


How Archaeology disproves the Bible: The Bible Unearthed

If all this blather by religious fanatics like Bill O'Reilly regarding the supposed war Atheists are waging on Christmas got me thinking: Would these fundamentalist folks be so right-wing if they were aware of the relatively recent conclusions regarding the book they take so literally?

A book offering a comprehensive overview of this subject and a mother lode of peer-reviewed research is still*The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts*by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

New findings point to completely different histories of Israel and Egypt than those in the Bible and thought to be true, including by Finkelstein himself:

• Archaeological evidence contradicts all four stories that make up the foundations of the Bible; and

• the Bible was written, re-written, edited and redacted for the purposes of propaganda.


Early archaeologists in that part of the world were typically trained as clerics or theologians, the authors note, and so forced artifacts they found to match with Bible stories. That all changed once new excavations, chemical analysis of soil samples and refinements in the carbon-dating technique to determine age, revolutionized the study of these two of the most heavily excavated areas of the planet.

Because many references to places and events in this period show contemporary details were integrated into stories biblical authors maintained happened hundreds or thousands of years before, the modern assessment that the foundations were laid during the late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE appears to be an open-and-shut-case.

Why Was the Bible Created?

To provide motivation and moral justification for the territorial aspirations of a little kingdom called Judah.

Contrary to biblical history, Judah was a backward little region while its envied and despised neighbor to the north, Israel, was far more advantaged economically. Both, however, were usually under domination by one foreign power or another. *

Finally, in the 8th century BCE, came Israel’s destruction and later the Assyrian retreat. That’s when King Josiah went to work.

An ambitious plan to take advantage of the political vacuum required powerful propaganda, the authors note, and so one of the religions practiced in the area was chosen. That of the Israeli cult fit the bill.

Archaeologists say at the same time the literacy rate rose, prompting “an unlikely coalition of Judahite court officials, scribes, priests, peasants and prophets” to create a new movement. By weaving in ancient heroic tales, legends and folklore, along with further reworking, elaboration and censoring, stories of the Old Testament were to “become a coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people of Israel.”

*

The Patriarchs

The first story molded with these goals in minds is that of the patriarchs in Genesis – starting with God’s favored family, that of Abraham, whose descendants would include Israel and Judah.

Besides the fact the genealogies of the patriarchs, some of whom were said to have lived hundreds of years, are contradicted in various passages, the “combination of camels, Arabian goods and Philistines and place names, which were prevalent at the time of writing but nonexistent during the time period depicted in the Bible,” showed the story to be written centuries later.

This story was crafted to provide Josiah’s subjects with a common ethnic and religious history, and ultimately fulfill the promises given to the patriarchs by God of a unified people living securely in their land.

The belief that God had their backs would bring on Judah’s success.

The Exodus

The second foundational tale is that of the Exodus, where God chose Moses to liberate 600,000 men from enslavement in Egypt, and they proceeded to wander around the desert for 40 years.

However, there was no record of any Israelites being in Egypt at that time, and hundreds of thousands of people trekking the desert would likely not have been allowed by Egypt, which tightly controlled the area. There are records of small bands passing through, yet none indicating a mass movement of people. There is also no evidence such a group camped for extended periods – including in the places mentioned in the Bible.




http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265119/-How-Archaeology-Disproves-Biblical-History

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

reply

Seems to me you have done an awful lot of research on something you don't believe is so.

reply

Seems to me you have done an awful lot of research on something you don't believe is so.


He's done no research. He just copies and pastes stuff he finds on atheist blogs. Stuff written by dimwitted adolescents like himself.

reply

WRONG moron! I'm simply citing the TOTAL lack of evidence for a historical Jesus! The bottom line is a story of a god is NOT evidence of god!There is no corroborating evidence outside the bible to prove Jesus existed! The case is so pathetic that the only people Christians can cite are people born after Jesus allegedly died who NEVER saw an earthly Jesus! They simply repeated stories Christians told them!

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

reply

So young. So stupid.

You copied and pasted a review of a book you never read.

reply

Actually, the existence of the historical Jesus is almost universally accepted as reality in the scientific world. All of the mumbo jumbo, on the other hand....



If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush

reply

Oh thank you for this information!

So Jesus never existed.......I guess there was no HOLOCAUST either?

reply

Yep, I'm not religious, but atheists who talk so much about how there's no god, are just as annoying as religious zealots.

reply

God bless.

reply

Well yeah I hope most of us know that by now.

reply

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically....two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

-Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

-Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6

-Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."


Jesus is not a myth. It is only his divinity and claims to be from God that may be subject to criticism.

reply

Not true Elemental mind! Jesus is simply a mythical construct copied from previous gods who were also resurrected, had virgin birth, did miracles, etc. like Hercules, Mithras, Horus, etc.

There is not a SINGLE eyewitness account or contemporary account to corroborate the existence of the Jesus of the bible! All you have is scripture and you know HUNDREDS of gods are in scriptures! Scripture isn't evidence of anything. Many people say the bible is simply a book of allegories and parables and was never meant to be taken literally!

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

reply

Religious scholars agreeing there is a jesus does not make him real, just as much as the bible making the claim doesn't make it fact.

There has never been a single shred of historical evidence of jesus that has held up to scrutiny ever. Most non-biblical scholars agree there is a very large chance jesus never even existed. Most stay out of this debate however because of religious sensitivity and don't wish to make professional suicide because of christian fervor.

Spread misinformation elsewhere.

reply

"Non-biblical" scholars is such a broad term. You're right, but you're also wrong in their "agreement," as many have no background in the history, linguistics or culture of the era in which Jesus lived.

A particle physicist, for example, is a scholar, though a "non-Biblical" one. It doesn't mean he has any clue about that subject.

Offer examples of historians, with degrees from accredited institutions, whose area of study focuses on that time period, and then your claim about "most non-biblical scholars" would have some weight.

As such, it's just word games and deliberate avoidance of experts' opinions based on what you'd like to feel and believe.

Good job spreading misinformation by the way.

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

reply

Eh...most historians generally agree that Jesus existed and Jesus mythicism is considered a fringe conspiracy theory.

reply

megafauna, I love your posts, but I think a lot of the opposition probably pans massive novel posts.

Otherwise, yeah, to me it's clear that the whole question of the voracity of "the bible" has never been touched on in popular culture until recently.

Jefferson tried to strip the "magical elements" and keep the positive forward thinking philosophies in his edition, but it's like no one hardly ever talks about that.

reply

There are any number of bona fide archeologists who believe the Bible. You're simply wrong - and seem too biased to be convinced otherwise.

reply

This Atheist has posted his rant to several boards. The F&S book is bogus, read the 1* reviews on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RPFSKIZKEF337/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000FBJG86

Archaeologist Dwayne Bryant from the University of Toronto gives the overview of the minimalists and Dever's position on Finkelstein and the minimalists:

"Finkelstein's work has drawn substantial criticism from other scholars-even those who doubt the Bible's veracity. Virtually no archaeologists have adopted his somewhat radical conclusions, which generally deny a great deal of historicity to the Old Testament narratives. It should be noted that Finkelstein, who once held a relatively positive position on the relationship between the Bible and ancient history, now holds a minority view that finds little acceptance among even mainstream archaeologists. His work has been heavily and publicly criticized by American archaeologist William Dever, who called the book "an archaeological manifesto, not judicious and well-balanced scholarship," adding, "it will do little to educate the public" (2001, 322:74). It is significant that Dever, one of the most widely respected archaeologists in America, states explicitly that he is "not a theist" (2005, p. xi)."

reply