Every so often, Israeli archaeologists make an announcement that others run with in attempts to prove the Bible a history book. Few serious scientists and non-believing scholars today view the Bible as an infallible history textbook, but that fact will not stop the faithful from trying to fit each piece of pottery, every building block found in Israel, into the biblical picture.
In this way, we have been subjected to a raucous parade of "artifacts" in recent years, such as the so-called James Ossuary with a forged inscription; the "Jesus Family Tomb," which was useless for biblical purposes; the fake ivory pomegranate supposedly from Solomon's temple, and the bogus "Yoash/ Jehoash inscription," which purportedly proved the temple's existence once and for all. Even more recently, a scrap of what is claimed to be the oldest Hebrew writing was used to "prove" the Bible correct, even though it does nothing of the sort. This sort of holy forgery and propaganda mill has been in existence almost since the beginning, with a long list of bogus relics and misinterpreted finds.
Another genuine find demonstrating early human occupation in Israel in reality disproves the Bible, at least in its interpreted timeline of depicting the world as having been created in 4004 BCE, per Bishop Ussher's calculations:
Two weeks ago, Israeli archaeologists uncovered the 8,000-year-old remains of a prehistoric structure nestled away in the upscale neighborhood of Ramat Aviv. The cornerstone of the ancient building, which lies on a construction site for exclusive apartments, long precedes the time of Abraham and the rest of the Bible's figures.
This 8,000-year-old discovery shows that there were humans in Israel two thousand years before the world was created, according to many Bible literalists! And this find is not alone in its antiquity: The city of Jericho's foundation is millennia older, and very ancient remains of human culture dating tens of thousands of years ago have also been found in Israel. By comparison, the Bible and its portrayals constitute much later human artifacts and innovations.
Sources & Further Reading
Prehistoric Building Found in Modern Israeli City
Biblical Artifacts Declared Fakes: Arrests in Israel for Forgery
Oldest Hebrew writing proves Bible?
Oldest piece of Bible ever found?
Comments (20)
-
|2010-01-15 00:58:35 David YThe earliest sites outside of Africa with early modern humans are at Skhul and Qafzeh caves in what is now Israel about 100,000 years ago. These are anatomically modern humans a bit more robust than us but modern nevertheless. Before them Neanderthals occupied Israel for several hundred thousand years. I don't think these people were reading or writing the Bible. LOL
-
How does man, in his arrogance confidently say that an object is 6,000 years old or 20,000 years old when he does not have a proven tool to work this calculation with. Carbon 14? If the conditions were right and objects lost electrons as they do in a lab environment, otherwise where is the yardstick that someone can point at and say this object is 1,479,382.75 years old? There is NO valid way to make this determination and the nay sayers can scoff at people of belief as much as they care to but for me and mine, we will dwell in the house of the Lord!
-
|2010-01-16 20:32:42 Rick - Arrogance?Timothy,
Better stop watching TV, flying in planes, going to the doctor or driving a car, too. All of these concepts are based on scientific principles that were first tested in labs. Why don't you just be honest, it's not proof you're after. You choose to believe without proof. Can't have it both ways, boy, you will have to reconcile your scriptural faith with science.
-
|2010-06-17 20:29:12 AnonHow man, confidently, says an object is 6,000 or 20,000 yrs old;
1) Carbon has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) on Earth. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay.
2) All living thing absorb and exchange carbon-14 during their life.
3) Once a living thing dies the carbon-14 begins to decay at a fixed calculable rate.
4) Calibrating* (this step is why the first attempts at c14 dating were wrong** because this step wasn't taken into account**) The amount of c14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, climate changes, and the industrial revolution are two factors of note. This change of c14 in Earth's atmosphere of the past must be accounted for in order to produce an accurate date. The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.
*side note* because the amount of c14 is different in the ocean, calibration is different for aquatic creatures like shellfish, so don't give me the 1 million year old sea snail argument.
6) checking our results* one method of c14 verification is called dendrochronology. Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree-rings. Every year of a tree's life it produces a new ring, right? Well, some regions actually have tree-ring dating sequences that span more than 10,000 years! These tree-ring dating sequences were used to confirm radio carbon dates taken from the samples themselves!
And that is how man, in confidence, can say something is 6,000 or 20,000
-
|2011-05-04 00:16:34 Ryanplease know what you are talking about before you post something. dont just cut a paste. please. thank you and God bless.
-
|2011-07-19 05:24:25 AnonymousI believe you missed the point of the post, regardless of the manner in which it was obtained. Typical. Will you be attacking someone's grammar next?
-
|2011-03-04 01:21:47 Jordan - Carbon 14
Timothy! Where in the article did they say the age was determined using carbon dating? Did you know that there are many ways to determine the age of objects? Carbon dating isn't even a preferred method. You should read up on radiometric dating and the other more accurate ways of dating material such as this.
Stop drinking the cool-aid friend, blind faith against scientific evidence is not a virtue, it's simply arrogance.
-
|2010-01-16 16:13:05 JH Chrestos - Science only seems arrogant to those that deny reaKnowing how old something is is not a matter of arrogance. It is a matter of science. There are a number of methods which may be used depending upon the type of material. Creationists make many errors in refuting these techniques. Carbon 14 dating is very accurate when used properly on items up to about 60,000 years old. Wikipedia has gotten very good at reporting accurate info in recent years. Here is what Wiki says: When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
For things that are older or not made of carbon there are other equally useful yardsticks that may be used. Others are Ar-Ar, I-Xe, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, U-Pb-He. Make no mistake, these yardsticks are quite accurate. Science does not guess nor does it pretend. It knows to within a statistically measurable error, which in this case is rather small.
Don't let ignorance of the natural world lead you to incorrect conclusions especially when simple answers are only a Wiki away. There is never a legitimate reason to invoke an argument from personal incredulity.
-
|2010-01-18 20:14:17 Muffistough - Why would it disprove the bible??Where in the bible does it say that the world was created 6,000 years ago? Have you read the Bible? NO where does it say that 6000 years ago GOD created the earth. Please read it before you start saying that this 8000 year old building disproves the Bible. IT was thought that the oldest bible was around 6,000 years old and that all of the generations of CHRIST was 6,000 years, but when Adam and Eve were put here on earth, life already existed. And when GOD brought light back to earth and put knew life here, he told all to REPLENISH the earth. Do we know how many times the earth has been destroyed and recreated?? YOU CAN't REPLINSH something that was never there before. I believe in SCIENCE. I believe that all knowledge is given to MAN by GOD, period and through our FREE WILL we do either good or BAD with that knowledge. The one thing that people are afraid to do is believe in SOMETHING they can't see. I would much rather believe that there is an ALL POWERFUL GOD watching over us, loving us and hearing our Prayers, than to be so into myself that I believe that I come from something that crawled out of slime, REALLY!! Yes, bad things happen that is what free will causes for every action there is a reaction and so on. JUST because there are Zelots on both side of the issue doesn't discount the BIBLE AT ALL. I am a free thinker and think that all should be allowed to do what they want, believe what they want as long as it does not hurt or destroy anyone or anything. Why can't you think the same way. YOU CALL YOUR SELF SCIENTIST?? YOU do know that one of the leaders in science of the Past, Sir Issac Newton was a deeply religious man and believed completely in the BIBLE.
-
|2010-01-18 21:34:44 Acharya SAll ranting aside, I have read the Bible many times, doing research in it in the original Hebrew and Greek as well. I have also cross-referenced it in the various English versions and the Latin.
Nowhere do I say that the Bible directly states the world was made in 4004 BCE. The Bible does not state years using our calendrical system but needs to be interpreted based on a known timeline. Indeed, I clearly state that it was Bishop Ussher who determined that figure, based on his reading of the Bible.
Since the time of Ussher, many millions of born-again, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have subscribed to this "young earth theory."
So popular, in fact, is this movement that it actually has a title, i.e., "Young Earth Creationism."
In that regard, this find would disprove this biblical based timeline and the Young Earth Creationist movement.
-
|2010-01-19 03:25:12 Richrad Marr - re: Whatever calculations used to determine the agAcharya S wrote:All ranting aside, I have read the Bible many times, doing research in it in the original Hebrew and Greek as well. I have also cross-referenced it in the various English versions and the Latin.
Nowhere do I say that the Bible directly states the world was made in 4004 BCE. The Bible does not state years using our calendrical system but needs to be interpreted based on a known timeline. Indeed, I clearly state that it was Bishop Ussher who determined that figure, based on his reading of the Bible.
Since the time of Ussher, many millions of born-again, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have subscribed to this "young earth theory."
So popular, in fact, is this movement that it actually has a title, i.e., "Young Earth Creationism."
In that regard, this find would disprove this biblical based timeline and the Young Earth Creationist movement.
-
|2010-01-20 01:57:28 Toto - Do the MathWell, the point is, there is STILL no definitive, tangible archeological "proof" that the bible should be taken seriously as literal history. Christians have been digging up the holy land for a hundred and fifty years in search of such proof, to no avail. If the events as described in the bible acutally took place, there would be ABUNDANT archeological evidence to support the claim. Israeli scholars have totally discredited and debunked the Jewish Exodus story as non-historical myth-making. No "Exodus," no wandering the Sinai, no Ten Commandments. No Ten Commandments, well, you do the math.
-
|2011-08-27 21:28:29 Charlie - seriouslyWell thr point is there is STILL no evidence to disporove the bible.
There HAS been evidence in the red sea of Chariot wheels and perafanilia found underwater coverd in coral. In the tombs of ancient Pharoshs there lie hierloghlypichs of the plauges happening like famine and boils.
Well... you do the math.
-
|2010-01-23 14:10:46 bob - Honesty is the keyAll the above posts have some form of validity, but a reader cannot help but detect the bias from the different camps.
1. Humanists/Atheists
2. Scientists
3. Theists/Christians
I agree with science here that the young earth is un-Biblical and I also feel that it is a bit embarrasing to twist the facts so the Bible fits - There are many cases where acrheology has confirmed the historical events mentioned in the Bible.
For many years the worlds "top" scientists believed the Bible was historically wrong since they had not discobered any evidence regarding the Hittites, which was mentioned nowhere except the Bible - where they proved wrong ? YES.
Many scientists believed that the city of Jericho was a myth. A certain archeologist confirmed this after years of excavation. Shortly after a Christian archeologist made the discovery and founf the proof of the walls that fell outwards, just as the Bible stated.
Science claims that King David is a myth - what about the seals and cycilders that was discovered that specifically mentions the "House of David" as mentioned in the Bible.
Many scholars that studied the Roman Empire takes for granted the exact data supplied by Luke in his gospel and in Acts - there were many disputes about his terms which were confirmed by later discoveries.
Another fact that scienctists/humanists/atheists do not consider is the fact the Christianity as defined in the Bible is based on faith and that in the Old Testament that faith was conformed by prophecy. If one looks at the prophecies concerning Egypt, Israel, Petra, Tyre and others, it is 100% confirmed by history and archeology.
The last point, and I feel this is the most important, is that most Christians today do not have a clear understanding of the corruptions that was deliberately put in the Bibles from centuries ago and that most church organisations are a far cry from the faith based churches that the Apostles set up.
In conclusion the Christian should not have his/her faith chalenged by science and sciencist should not let their personal bias influence the Biblical record.
Would an atheist archeologist really be happy to hand over a 100% proof that Jesus exsisted?
Would an Israeli archeologist really be happy to confirm the Christain Bible teaching - Dont forget there is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity - The "Jews" believe the Talmud is the truth and this book is not the same as the traditional "Moses and the Prophets" if the Hebrews(Not all Jews are Talmudic Jews)
In conclusion, I think any Bible believing Christian who studies from the uncorrupted King James version Bible, will find that science cannot disprove God and that God reveals Himself to us through all these discoveries - It is a matter of read the Bible as a story book and miss all the scientific blessings and truth or repent, accept Christ and read the Bible through a renewed mind - and be not fooled by traditions of men and flalse religions
-
|2010-06-25 20:01:25 AnonArchaeology has uncovered many findings that prove there are historical accuracies in the bible. This does not prove, or disprove the bible as a whole. And surely, the discovery of a few cities does not promote the bible as being a historical reference.
Also, if we are going to discuss the study of ancient cultures (archaeology) why hasn't anyone brought up the many parallels between Horus (an Egyptian god) and Jesus.
Based on some of the above post's logic; Egypt is heavily mentioned in the bible and archaeology has proven it exists, so that must mean their religion should be taken in a literal sense. Since the Egyptian culture predates the new testament, that means Horus was born from a virgin (before Jesus), he rose from the dead three days after he was sacrificed (before Jesus), and he also conducted many of the same miracles Jesus did, only before Jesus.
I smell a little religious plagiarism...one cannot simply dismiss these shared traits as merely chance.
-
|2010-11-19 22:21:28 Jordan - Atheist ArcheologistsI'm pretty sure that most atheist archeologists would submit indisputable evidence of the historically accurate record of the bible on a silver plate.
This would perhaps be followed by a visit to their church and conversion to Christianity.
Let's be bloody-well realistic:
In a perfect world, we would all be agnostics.
Faith is a horrible thing. It's the way by which politicians and demagogues take advantage of poor uneducated folk.
A positive attitude and hope for the future should not be confused with the belief in something which may or may not exist.
Sadly, we rational minded folk need to find a way to negotiate the mindless masses. My concern is that we're being outnumbered politically and socially and aren't speaking up about our own interests.
I for one have had enough conflict and war at the behest of religious minions.
I think agnostics and atheists need to unite against this war against reason and rationality. A war against evidence and social progress. I think we should advocate for the future and not the past.
-
|2011-11-26 21:10:40 Cathy - athiests unitingI agree with you 100% IF it means we do not degrade people who do believe. People of faith are not the "undereducated". They chose to believe in a God and that is their perogative as my lack of belief is mine.
As for the politicians...Belief in God should not be an issue. I don't care if the politicians believe in pro choice or not. It's got nothing to do with the economy so take the topic off the political table and anything else religion based. BUT do not take God off the money or out of the schools as the media distracts us with by reporting. I don't care if there's a statue of Jesus on the lawn of any building, as it doesn't threaten my lack of belief.
-
|2012-01-29 17:06:07 GodIsLonely - REPLY 'Honesty is the key'"I think any Bible believing Christian who studies from the uncorrupted King James version Bible, will find that science cannot disprove God and that God reveals Himself to us through all these discoveries" - bob
- Please find for me evidence of the a world wide flood. It covered the world to the tops of most mountains right? Must be evidence for it.
- Please find for me evidence of the Tower of Babel. That tower must have been huge to tick off god, it ought to be around somewhere.
- Please find the evidence that supports a mass exodus of Jewish slaves from Egypt. Jewish slaves who then walked around in the a desert for 40 years because god so mad at them he had them walk in circles. He was so mad he waited until everyone who was around at the time of the 'incident' died, but not their children. If you expect me to take this seriously, their ought to be evidence for it. Maybe other desert cultures would have seen them walking and told stories about it?
- The 'history' of the bible is supported by the fact that the bible labeled a few cities and civilizations correctly, because the people from that time had direct interactions from the people of those places. Who cares. Where the bible is NOT supported, by any clear thinking scientist, is in all the miracle claims that defy physics, logic, and morality. You said it, the truth of the new testament is based in old testament prophecy and philosophy. If that is the case, then the old testament has to 100% correct in everything it says for the new testament to be true, and it is not. ALso, as soon as this god directs bears to attack and kill children because the children mocked his prophets bald hea, and his religious beliefs; that insists to me that your god is cruel and certainly doesn't fight fair. There is no morality in concern of your god. There is god's way or there is sin, thank you supreme dictator deity. I'm glad I don't wish to live in such subjugation but I respect your right to believes what you will Bob. Just don't try to educate my kids with that garbage until they're old enough to make their own decisions on what is real. Also, where do you think 'men with traditions' get their 'false religions?' They get them from the same holy books that you believe in, but their interpretation is obviously wrong right? Funny how everyone is wrong but you, and the people who agree with you when it comes to theology.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
