Evidence for events in the Old Testament

[Super Dan1]

I have a strong faith in God, but having read quite a bit recently about the historicity of the Old Testament, I've become very troubled.

I have long held the belief that the Bible is all a divinely inspired parable up to the end of the Tower of Babel story in the Book of Genesis, then from Abraham onwards it is all true.

But I've recently read that the vast majority of Bible scholars hold the view that most of the Old Testament was written during the Babylonian exile period and that there is absolutely no evidence that Moses existed or the Exodus ever happened. There is no trace of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea or any trace of the Israelites in the Sinai desert even though they spent 40 years there. Also archealogical evidence all suggests that the Israelites were native Canaanites and that the conquest described in Joshua never happened.

So does that mean that the latter half of Genesis, and all of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua are myth? If so, at what point does the Bible start to become literally true?

Jesus believed in the literal truth of all of the Hebrew Bible. But if He is God then He is omniscient (all knowing), so how can Christianity be true if basically the first half of the Old Testament never historically took place?

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm having a bit of a crisis in my faith here and would appreciate hearing what fellow believing Christians have to say about this.

 

[Blev]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

Believe what GOD says, not man

 

[reba]

Those who write history slant it to fit their views.

Read history written by a person who favors the South, Read one written by one who favors the North ( thinking of the USA civil war)

God's word is true from this point...In the beginning...

 

[Aardverk]

I share the OP's concern. Writing did not exist for most of the period of the Old Testament so, at best, it was written down from verbal stories passed down for many, many centuries. Add to that the known errors and it amazes me that anyone considers it to be literal.

I think it safest to assume that the majority is Rabbinical Midrash put together as the best explanation they could come up with, at the time, for the many unanswerable questions that we all ask as we develop.

Those who write history slant it to fit their views.

Indeed they do and the Bible is unquestionably a history book. The editors were a committee of Biscops with the express aim of denying any contrary beliefs and contradictory documents.

God's word is true from this point...In the beginning...

What are the reasons for believing that The Bible is the inspired word of God? No one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation for that assumption. The best I have heard is that 'the Biscops at Nicea decided it was'. Hmmmm

I see nothing wrong with accepting The Bible as a book, rather than 'The Book'. I haven't taken it literally for many decades but that doesn't stop me accepting elements of it, in particular that Jesus walked the earth, preached love and tolerance and was an example for us all.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I share the OP's concern. Writing did not exist for most of the period of the Old Testament so, at best, it was written down from verbal stories passed down for many, many centuries. Add to that the known errors and it amazes me that anyone considers it to be literal.

I think it safest to assume that the majority is Rabbinical Midrash put together as the best explanation they could come up with, at the time, for the many unanswerable questions that we all ask as we develop.


Indeed they do and the Bible is unquestionably a history book. The editors were a committee of Biscops with the express aim of denying any contrary beliefs and contradictory documents.


What are the reasons for believing that The Bible is the inspired word of God? No one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation for that assumption. The best I have heard is that 'the Biscops at Nicea decided it was'. Hmmmm

I see nothing wrong with accepting The Bible as a book, rather than 'The Book'. I haven't taken it literally for many decades but that doesn't stop me accepting elements of it, in particular that Jesus walked the earth, preached love and tolerance and was an example for us all.

The example that Jesus gave us was that he was God and the Bible points his lineage back to Adam.
Nobody could ever prove that King David existed until they found the "rock of David".
If Jesus was a good example as you say, then why don't you believe when he says, "no one comes to the Father except by me."?
Your argument for not believing has holes in it.

 

[felix]

Indeed they do and the Bible is unquestionably a history book.

Wrong answer. It is only 20% history. The rest of the 70% are prophecies and 10% psalms.

What are the reasons for believing that The Bible is the inspired word of God? No one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation for that assumption.

God told us to use the logical reasoning to understand Him. He NEVER asks us to believe blindly.

• Isa 1:18a " Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD
• Mark 12:28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together ...
• 1Pet 3:15 ...always [be] ready to [give] a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

This is how you will understand if the words are spoken by God through a prophet:
Deut 18:21-22 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

What Jesus spoke about Jerusalem happened in 70 AD. Most of what the prophets spoke happened. These are the reasons they are from God.

God Himself said, don't believe in it if it doesn't happen.

The best I have heard is that 'the Biscops at Nicea decided it was'. Hmmmm

I don't accept this either. The authority comes from Christ. Below is the order of authority.

Order of Authority

1. Words of Christ - all the red text in Gospels and Revelation - Father - Deut 18:18-19, Son - John 12:48 and Holy Spirit - John 14:26, all declare the authority of Christ’s words.
2. Scripture - Law, Prophets, Psalms - Scripture by itself does not have any authority. The authority of Scripture is only because it gives witness to Christ.
3. Teachings of Paul and apostles - Teachings of Paul through his letters and apostles are not scripture but good for us to understand Scripture and the Old Testament. We always need to independently verify those teachings using Scripture and must always build their teachings over Christ’s foundation NOT the other way round.
4. Rest of the Old Testament.
5. Deutrocannonical books - Personal, I haven’t read it but I was able to confirm it to be used widely including Paul quoting the woman and his sons from Maccabees. I consider this to be more of a historical reference since Christ never quoted anything from it when I personally reviewed all the claims.

I also don't blame Biscops at Nicea. In those days, they don't have sophisticated technology for a common man like myself, to search and understand scriptures in a single click. The lack of knowledge for a common man led the Bishops to decide what constitute Scripture. They did in good faith but is a combination of several factors including political. For example, Luther wants to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation but his followers didn't accept it - which you can understand why because, these books in the Bible are against "Faith Only" which is a big hurdle for Luther's doctrine. Hence, to not error, we must have the above authority in order having Christ's words and His teachings as foudnation.

 

[Aardverk]

The example that Jesus gave us was that he was God and the Bible points his lineage back to Adam.
Nobody could ever prove that King David existed until they found the "rock of David".
If Jesus was a good example as you say, then why don't you believe when he says, "no one comes to the Father except by me."?
Your argument for not believing has holes in it.

My arguments are generally OK, it is my belief that has holes in it.

Let me make my position and my question a little more clear. People seem to struggle to understand that I do accept much of The Bible. I do not accept the bits that are obvious fiction and/or metaphor and I believe that I share that position with the vast majority of Christians. Do you have a good reason for believing that all of The Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it just that someone once told you that or are you aware of a good reason?

Go on - rise to the bait and ask me what is obviously fiction

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'm not going to play word games with you.
I asked you a question and you did not answer it.
Mr. Aardverk, please answer my question.

 

[Aardverk]

An interesting view Felix. I think there will be a few here who disagree with you. I do hope they speak up.

I will comment on a couple of your points:

Wrong answer. It is only 20% history. The rest of the 70% are prophecies and 10% psalms.

I won't bother to challenge your percentages but the fact that The Bible contains some of the earliest supported history that exists is often given as support for the veracity of The Bible. I was simply agreeing with them - to a certain extent ;).

The authority comes from Christ. Below is the order of authority.

Order of Authority

1. Words of Christ - all the red text in Gospels and Revelation - Father - Deut 18:18-19, Son - John 12:48 and Holy Spirit - John 14:26, all declare the authority of Christ’s words.
2. Scripture - Law, Prophets, Psalms - Scripture by itself does not have any authority. The authority of Scripture is only because it gives witness to Christ.
3. Teachings of Paul and apostles - Teachings of Paul through his letters and apostles are not scripture but good for us to understand Scripture and the Old Testament. We always need to independently verify those teachings using Scripture and must always build their teachings over Christ’s foundation NOT the other way round.
4. Rest of the Old Testament.
5. Deutrocannonical books - Personal, I haven’t read it but I was able to confirm it to be used widely including Paul quoting the woman and his sons from Maccabees. I consider this to be more of a historical reference since Christ never quoted anything from it when I personally reviewed all the claims.

If we take your hierarchy literally, there is no 'authority' other than the words of Jesus. You appear to say that everything else is suspect especially if it conflicts with the teaching of Jesus. I agree, but some may see your view as even more heretical than mine.

...... Luther wants to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation........

This is rather what I had in mind earlier. During the compilation of and throughout the 1,700 year history of The Bible there have been theologians wanting to edit it for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason that we have so many different Christian denominations are those challenges by serious men of God. For any of us to glibly assume that we are absolutely right in our particular beliefs is gross conceit. We would be putting our judgement above everyone else. As I have often said, I know nothing, that is why I am here - to see if I can pick up any gems of wisdom.

I hope someone now offers us 'evidence for the events in the Old Testament' (OP).

 

[nmwings]

There is no trace of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea...

That’s because they’re in the Sea of Reeds. The English “Red†is mistranslated from the Hebrew “Reeds.†Today it’s known as the Sea (or Gulf) of Aqaba. Google “Pharaoh’s chariots in the Gulf of Aqaba.â€

…or any trace of the Israelites in the Sinai desert even though they spent 40 years there.

Check out this website. It shows the “Split Rock in Horeb†(the rock that provided water), that Mt. Sinai is actually in modern-day Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of other cool stuff.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm

Also archealogical evidence all suggests that the Israelites were native Canaanites and that the conquest described in Joshua never happened.

They were Canaanites. The entire land of Canaan was promised to Abraham and his seed by God as an inheritance. This “Promised Land "covers modern-day Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course!), Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. As for the evidence of Joshua’s conquest, it’s out there. You just have to dig.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm having a bit of a crisis in my faith here and would appreciate hearing what fellow believing Christians have to say about this.

To have faith in anything, one must have the evidence to prove it is true, otherwise it is blind faith. Perhaps your crises is teaching you that blind faith is susceptible to every little thing that comes along and causes one to doubt because that faith wasn’t built on solid ground. To believe something just because someone says it is true or because everyone around you believes it, isn’t really believing… it’s presuming. You can’t will yourself to believe something. You have to examine all the evidence and then decide if something is true or not.

Super Dan1… is your question above the source of your crises or a symptom? In otherwords, is there underlying doubt about something else?

 

[Aardverk]

I'm not going to play word games with you.
I asked you a question and you did not answer it.
Mr. Aardverk, please answer my question.

John 14 is all word-games allenwynne. You can see twice where Jesus said that he would return for the apostles and also that He and God his father would come to live with them on Earth. None of that was meant literally - was it? Jesus also said that he was preparing a place in his father's house for them. Do you think that should be read literally too? Did Jesus really go up to heaven and put fresh bedding out for them - of course not, yet you wish to select a few words literally. What possible 'preparations' do you think that Jesus would need to make?

My interpretation of 'the house of my father has many mansions' is that people of many different religions or even different species reside there. I see absolutely no reason why people should live good, blameless lives on Earth or elsewhere, loving and helping others and yet not go to His Father's house because they followed a different religion. (Read 'Captain Stormfield's Visit To Heaven' - it raises some interesting concepts).

 

[Super Dan1]

That’s because they’re in the Sea of Reeds. The English “Red†is mistranslated from the Hebrew “Reeds.†Today it’s known as the Sea (or Gulf) of Aqaba. Google “Pharaoh’s chariots in the Gulf of Aqaba.â€

Check out this website. It shows the “Split Rock in Horeb†(the rock that provided water), that Mt. Sinai is actually in modern-day Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of other cool stuff.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm

They were Canaanites. The entire land of Canaan was promised to Abraham and his seed by God as an inheritance. This “Promised Land "covers modern-day Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course!), Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. As for the evidence of Joshua’s conquest, it’s out there. You just have to dig.

To have faith in anything, one must have the evidence to prove it is true, otherwise it is blind faith. Perhaps your crises is teaching you that blind faith is susceptible to every little thing that comes along and causes one to doubt because that faith wasn’t built on solid ground. To believe something just because someone says it is true or because everyone around you believes it, isn’t really believing… it’s presuming. You can’t will yourself to believe something. You have to examine all the evidence and then decide if something is true or not.

Super Dan1… is your question above the source of your crises or a symptom? In otherwords, is there underlying doubt about something else?

Well crises is probably too strong a word, reading about this hasn't seriously effected my faith, but its all just made me wonder and have doubts...

I still genuinely believe in God and that Jesus is my personal saviour. But I can't help but wonder - how much of the Bible is literal and how much is myth? If any of it is myth, how can we know which parts are true and which aren't?

And the sources for the claims you make above really aren't all that credible to be honest. Kind of makes me think of Mormons who produce completely nonsenscial "evidence" for the civilisations which supposedly existed in America.

 

[nmwings]

Well crises is probably too strong a word, reading about this hasn't seriously effected my faith, but its all just made me wonder and have doubts...

To wonder, ponder and imagine scenarios is one thing. But doubting any part of God’s Word doesn’t come from God, but from the enemy. “Man lives by hearing every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

But I can't help but wonder - how much of the Bible is literal and how much is myth? If any of it is myth, how can we know which parts are true and which aren't?

Funny thing about myths: there’s always an element of truth in them. For example, the “fire-breathing dragon” really did exist (see “Leviathan” in Job 41:1-34, in particular v 18-21.) But more importantly, God Himself told us in Deut 32:47 there is not one idle word in His Holy Writ. Not one. So if someone is really listening to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, that doesn’t leave any room for myths. God said it happened, and I for one, believe it.

And the sources for the claims you make above really aren't all that credible to be honest.

Hmmm. Maybe you don't find them "credible" because your mind is already made up? Maybe you're not really searching for answers but are instead searching for confirmation from others who have the same doubts and unbeliefs as yourself?

 

[Fedusenko]

You can also look at Ron Wyatt videos. He has some stuff on the Reed Sea, Mount Sinai and the Israelite encampment, Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, and even the Ark of the Covenant. The last two may leave you a bit undecided. Also, Rood Awakening has updated material concerning those subjects (and a WHOLE lot more). All of it is very informative. I hope that helps!

 

[Fedusenko]

One last thing to add, I have held in my hands the sulfur balls from the destroyed cities of Abraham's days.

 

[tim-from-pa]

My belief in the historical veracity of the OT is Christ's (Yahshua's) testimony about them. He said "Moses wrote of me". He read from the OT prophets. He spoke about his father David.

If one doubts the OT in anyway, then one has to question Yahshua Himself. That's fine if one wants to do that, but please realize the problem and issue regarding the OT veracity goes much further than asking ourselves if it reported history correctly. We then have to ask if Yahshua is genuine or fake, as NOBODY claiming to be the Son of God can make such a blunder. And is Yahshua real? That depends on the resurrection, the cornerstone of the faith. If he's real, then yes, the OT can be relied upon. If not, then Jesus is a fable, and the OT just wonderful myths.

 

[Grazer]

Tim - depends on what you mean by doubting and what aspects of the OT are being questioned

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

Hello nmwings

I have extracted elements from two of your posts as this is a subject which interests me greatly and you appear to have given it some thought. We are discussing the fundamentals of belief and disbelief. I am an ex-Christian, currently stuck in disbelief but searching for good reason to change my position.

Funny thing about myths: there’s always an element of truth in them. For example, the “fire-breathing dragon” really did exist (see “Leviathan” in Job 41:1-34, in particular v 18-21.)

Interesting! What fire-breathing dragons really did exist? Or do you just mean the leviathan in Job?

But more importantly, God Himself told us in Deut 32:47 there is not one idle word in His Holy Writ. Not one. So if someone is really listening to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, that doesn’t leave any room for myths. God said it happened, and I for one, believe it.

You appear to be saying that The Bible tells us it is true, therefore it 'must' be true. Maybe I have missed your point? Obviously there are many books and story teller's claims to be true but they fail to stand up to scrutiny when we look for corroboration. Are you really saying that there is significant corroboration for the Bible? If so, I would appreciate some detail as I have long struggled to find convincing corroboration.

Maybe you don't find them "credible" because your mind is already made up?

That may be the case for me but I don't think so. I do tell myself that I have an open mind but frankly, how does one tell? It is just as easy to find 'evidence' "credible" if ones mind is already made up.

 

[JCitoL]

Hi

the Scripture is more or less symbolic(-al)/metaphorical/allegorical, especially the books of old testament, so the right faith postulates to be believed in the true God and Jesus, not in the lettering of the Scripture, because only the true God knows the order therein and only He can give the right explanation thereof

2 Corinthians 3:4-6 "such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament(i.e. of the perfectly good testament); not of the letter, but of the spirit(i.e. but of the Holy Spirit): for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.",

Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew(i.e. a righteous believer), which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew(i.e. a righteous believer), which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart(i.e. of the inside), in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Blessings

 

[Aardverk]

.......You can find evidence to support or to disprove the biblical claims.

I think the word 'prove' is a step too far, otherwise, I agree.

I think that some are trying to disprove portions of the Bible based on personal reasons, and preconceived notions.

I don't think anyone is trying to 'disprove' The Bible' but I am certainly one who questions parts of it. If you don't question, how do you learn?

How in the world can some of you say that you believe in Jesus, yet not believe portions in the Bible?

You are mixing up a generalized belief with a detailed belief based upon The Bible.

Does the NT not say that Jesus made everything, and that nothing was made that he did not make? John 1: 1-3

But to those of us with doubts, any argument using The Bible as 'evidence' is not going to be convincing.

So that would show that you contradict yourself. I would suggest that you doubters search your heart and pray for wisdom and understanding and read & study your Bible more.

I would be extremely happy for someone to point out whenever I contradict myself. I am quite sure I make errors.

I have prayed for wisdom and understanding for about 70 years and I have read The Bible many times. Who knows if my prayers have been answered? The fact that my wisdom and understanding results in something different from some other people does not mean that I am right nor that I am wrong.