The debate "The historicity of the Bible has tremoundous amounts of evidence" was started by
October 11, 2016, 11:18 am.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Blue_ray, dalton7532, Brady, razzy00, fadi, Ematio and 5 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, TheExistentialist, PsychDave and 4 visitors disagree.
to add to Historybuff's comment; you need to show that events vital to the story within the bible took place. I.e. show that there was a global flood, show that Jesus was actually real, show that some natural laws were temporarily suspended. Otherwise it's just like movies based on true events: while there is a shred of truth to them, the main story arch is not and therefore can't be considered a factual account of the events.
the fact that the Bible includes people who really existed doesn't in any way support the historicity of the Bible. I can write a story about Abraham Lincoln being a vampire and killing Queen Victoria. just because those people really existed doesn't make the story true.
if you want to prove the historicity of the Bible you need to provide evidence that the events of the Bible happened, not that particular characters were actually real people.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees regarding the existence of King david, as well as pharaoh ramses also mentioned in the bible. I was hoping you would cite events rather than the simple existence of characters.
you yourself used the word events when describing what you were going to back up.
This excavation supports King David, a biblical character, who once many people believed to be fake.
well when the document is supposedly the main idea of a whole society...
I will show you the first piece of evidence to support the history of events in the Bible. (There is numerous other sources with this archaeological discovery, but this one is by far the most concise. If you do not like this source, type in "tel dan" and you shall find more.)
well when the document is supposedly the word of god...
show me a document 2,000 years old that is a 100% accurate and I'll show u a lie.
also, if the bible has evidence of accurate correlation in some parts, but wild inaccuracies in other parts, how would you judge the work as a whole?
ok, provide that evidence.