NationStates Jolt Archive

I just heard a creationist friend of mine state that the Bible is historically accurate.

I want to know in what cases is the Bible historically accurate, and in what ways is it not?

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.


I'd say it starts out on the wrong foot...

The Bible is not a history book. You should not quote it in history papers. It does have some historical relevancy because it was written by people a long time ago.

and wiki is sometimes your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

It probably falls somewhere between the Iliad/Aeneid and the writings of Plutarch or Livy in terms of its historical accuracy. For its time, it's a rather accurate piece of work in some sections intermixed with religious mythology. It was never meant to be a history book as we know it because that concept of objective history did not exist at the time; that's a product of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which, of course, would not happen for another 4,000 years after the development of the Bible.

The Bible does have significant historical value. It let's us see the ideas and beliefs of those who wrote it-how they saw morality, their world, and themselves.

I don't want to sound uptight, but wouldn't you actually learn more if you go out and research it yourself? I mean if it is really bothering you, why would you ask a group of strangers of the internet for "facts"?

I post this because the list of inaccuracies is too long for me to even list.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.


I'd say it starts out on the wrong foot...

I was more referring to archaelogical discoveries that provide evidence for biblical stories. Or the lack thereof.

I don't want to sound uptight, but wouldn't you actually learn more if you go out and research it yourself? I mean if it is really bothering you, why would you ask a group of strangers of the internet for "facts"?

I post this because the list of inaccuracies is too long for me to even list.

I am. I'm hoping that this thread will provide me even more information.

I was more referring to archaelogical discoveries that provide evidence for biblical stories. Or the lack thereof.
Eh... hard to say. Miracles rarely leave historical evidence after all. ;)

A lot of the places named IN the Bible have shown up, even after they had been discounted (and a lot of the current field of archiology was started by people trying to 'prove' the Bible true). People are a little harder to pin-point, and, as noted, walking on water doesn't leave traces.

The book Unearthing the Bible noted that while there was indeed a city of Jericho, and while it had indeed been burned to the ground more than once, at the time the Bible has the Israelites coming into "the Promised Land," Jericho was little more than a village at best, with absolutely nothing resembling walls. In fact, most textual scholars think that pretty much everything before King Josiah is about as reliable historically as the Arthur legends, which is to say there may be glimmers of accuracy, but most of it is myths and stories collected over the years, the type of gathering together of tribal myths that allows a tribal-kingdom to make the next step toward becoming a nation-state.

They have proven that the pharaohs didn't use slaves in building the pyramids... They used the males of the near by villages (as the building of pyramids was too holy for slaves). They have found writings from people who worked on the buildings that described the recruitment process. They are an interesting read. If you don't want to read them, then people have made a few documentaries about the texts.


Noah's arc didn't happen, because you would see a MAJOR population bottle neck in fossil records. There is no evidence that shows that there was ever a world wide flood. There have been bottle necks throughout time, but not on the scale of world wide destruction of life.

Those are the first major ones that come to mind.

it's no good at all for anything before the time when it was actually written down - 6th or 7th century bce

I am. I'm hoping that this thread will provide me even more information.

Well, a million people walked through the desert but didn't leave a trace for archaeologists to find.

Jericho at the time it was supposed to be invaded didn't have a wall. They do exhibit one at the site so as not to disturb the visitors.

Several places they talk about nations that didn't yet exist at the time the book was to have been written.

The Hebrews didn't take over the land in a great war. Archaeologists have found that it was a slow process of intermarriage and minor conflicts.

They fought the Philistines before they had even moved from Phoenicia to Gaza.


The list could go on forever.

They have proven that the pharaohs didn't use slaves in building the pyramids... They used the males of the near by villages (as the building of pyramids was too holy for slaves). They have found writings from people who worked on the buildings that described the recruitment process. They are an interesting read. If you don't want to read them, then people have made a few documentaries about the texts.
I'm confused, where does the Bible say that slaves were used to build the pyramids?

Moses didn't put his name on Genesis for a reason.

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id18.html

You might find this worth a read, if you are really interested. It isn't much, but it is all of the effort I plan on putting in this discussion. (Sorry, but I am currently in college in a very religious area, and I seriously need to take a break from the biblical arguements for a while.)

Noah's arc didn't happen, because you would see a MAJOR population bottle neck in fossil records. There is no evidence that shows that there was ever a world wide flood. There have been bottle necks throughout time, but not on the scale of world wide destruction of life.

You forgot to mention the consequences of inbreeding :D

The bible has an awful lot of inbreeding in it

Noah's arc didn't happen, because you would see a MAJOR population bottle neck in fossil records. There is no evidence that shows that there was ever a world wide flood. There have been bottle necks throughout time, but not on the scale of world wide destruction of life.

Personally, I think it did happen, but reflects the translation of earlier oral flood stories in to the Biblical mythos. My guess is that these stories date from the end of the Ice Age when water levels and global humidity were increasing rapidly, causing sea and river levels to rise and causing it to rain more for prolonged periods of time. These cultures might have been displaced due to changing sea levels (especially in the Middle East where most of it is flood plain or even below sea level), and that would have made ripe fodder for any number of stories.

The apparent universality of flood myths in these regions suggests that they have similar origins. Noah is probably a Hebrew version of other protagonists in these stories. Of course, given that it's a myth the entire point of the story isn't literal truth but to educate people about morals and cultural history through the use of stories.

eh, its not really acurate at all....at anything...anything.

Crap. I had an archeology instructor in college who insisted that finds of places mentioned in the Bible proved the Bible is fact. While I should have pointed out that the same claim could be made for the Iliad after the discovery of Troy, I just asked him if he was teaching archeology or theology. Small wonder I made a C in that course. (okay, that and laziness)

I had an archeology instructor in college who insisted that finds of places mentioned in the Bible proved the Bible is fact.

what a strange argument. has anyone ever denied that the hebrews lived in the levant a long time ago?

I just heard a creationist friend of mine state that the Bible is historically accurate.
I want to know in what cases is the Bible historically accurate, and in what ways is it not?The bible is historically accurate for the most part (except of course is the fantastical creation story). However it is not at all accurate in describing ancient people's actual beliefs and it is not at all accurate in the theological interpretation of historical events. The Bible is a re-interpretation of history to suit Jewish cravings for significance. Sometimes, of course, they just don't get the context right. ;)
I could indeed make a list, but not now as I am at work...


Moses didn't put his name on Genesis for a reason.Did he?
?

it isn't ABOUT history; it's about religeon! (and one tribe's chron-illogical missadventures).

creationsits are dingbats.

=^^=
.../\...

the bible is not a history book. there are the occaisional corrolaries with other texts from the period and the occaisional archaeological finds which could be (if you look at it with the right sort of credulousness) something that was described in the bible. there are a number of archaeologists working in the near east calling themselves "biblical archaeologist" who aim to uncover material evidence for passages in the bible, and to search for the sites of settlements described or mentioned in the bible. they are fairly well respected for the vast amount of work they put into the field but their interpretations are generally taken with a pinch of salt because they are looking at the evidence with some seriously heavy filters over their eyes. they have a journal (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html) which may be of interest to see what sort of research they are currently engaged in.

The problem with Biblical Archeology is that most folks rather try to adjust interpretations of findings to fit the held beliefs instead of adjusting the beliefs.

yes, that's pretty much what i said..

the bible is not a history book. there are the occaisional corrolaries with other texts from the period and the occaisional archaeological finds which could be (if you look at it with the right sort of credulousness) something that was described in the bible. there are a number of archaeologists working in the near east calling themselves "biblical archaeologist" who aim to uncover material evidence for passages in the bible, and to search for the sites of settlements described or mentioned in the bible. they are fairly well respected for the vast amount of work they put into the field but their interpretations are generally taken with a pinch of salt because they are looking at the evidence with some seriously heavy filters over their eyes. they have a journal (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html) which may be of interest to see what sort of research they are currently engaged in.
The problem with Biblical Archeology is that most folks rather try to adjust interpretations of findings to fit the held beliefs instead of adjusting the beliefs.

The problem with Biblical Archeology is that most folks rather try to adjust interpretations of findings to fit the held beliefs instead of adjusting the beliefs.

Which is the same problem that sees to come up any time there's a conflict between received knowledge and discovered knowledge.

You forgot to mention the consequences of inbreeding :D

The bible has an awful lot of inbreeding in it

If you assume each person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents etc etc and a generation length of 25 years then the number of ancestors you had 1000 years ago is many many more than the number of humans who have ever existed, unless you allow for a bit of inbreeding here and there on some level.

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id5.html
I KNEW it!

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id5.html
I KNEW it!

That's possibly the worst thing I have ever read.

In answer to the Original poster: Your local bookshop/library will have a good deal of books about this topic.

I find it disturbing that every second topic in this forum has the aim of discrediting religious belief, or knocking religious people. It's kinda depressing.

I find it disturbing that every second topic in this forum has the aim of discrediting religious belief, or knocking religious people. It's kinda depressing.No, The fight against self-inflicted willful stupidity is the only hope for humankind.

That's possibly the worst thing I have ever read.

In answer to the Original poster: Your local bookshop/library will have a good deal of books about this topic.

I find it disturbing that every second topic in this forum has the aim of discrediting religious belief, or knocking religious people. It's kinda depressing.

You're exaggerating, of course, but let me ask you--shouldn't religious belief be able to withstand scrutiny? I mean, if believers are going to allow it to dictate their conduct (at least in theory) and are in many cases trying to have it dictate everyone's conduct, then shouldn't it be able to hold up under an examination?

You're exaggerating, of course, but let me ask you--shouldn't religious belief be able to withstand scrutiny? I mean, if believers are going to allow it to dictate their conduct (at least in theory) and are in many cases trying to have it dictate everyone's conduct, then shouldn't it be able to hold up under an examination?

I myself am a Christian and welcome questions and enquiries, but some of the stuff I've read on here is either ignorant, or from people who just want to have a jab and not really listen to the answer.

What worries me is the rise of Dawkinism: the grouping together of all Christians as the same, disregarding any benefit from religion, especially post 9-11 and more than ever this idea that religious people doing bad things somehow makes God's existence less likely.

It's all those trends that annoy me. As I say, I don't mind scrutiny. What irritates me is that a lot of posts I've read on here in the past day or two are all about people having made up their mind, being horrifically arrogant (both the believers and the non-believers, but I find fundamentalist atheists a tad annoying) and just trying to score points of one another.

Moses didn't put his name on Genesis for a reason.

True (and this is coming from a Christian): 2 Corinthians 3 (especially 3:9 to and including 3:14)

They have proven that the pharaohs didn't use slaves in building the pyramids... They used the males of the near by villages (as the building of pyramids was too holy for slaves). They have found writings from people who worked on the buildings that described the recruitment process. They are an interesting read. If you don't want to read them, then people have made a few documentaries about the texts.


Noah's arc didn't happen, because you would see a MAJOR population bottle neck in fossil records. There is no evidence that shows that there was ever a world wide flood. There have been bottle necks throughout time, but not on the scale of world wide destruction of life.

Those are the first major ones that come to mind.

i don't know if you've already been rebuttled, but;
there is never any mention in the Bible that the Hebrew slaves worked on the pyramids, simply that they were salves to the Egyptians. also, the reason most people see it historically inaccurate is because the event (Exodus) was to have occured during the reign of Ramses. In Historychannel's special (Exodus Decoded) it's stated that this could have merely been used as a familiarity marker. just about everyone knows Rameses, but no one knows Ahmose I. and the Hyksos Expulsion (a migration of Semitic peoples out of Egypt) has been suggested as the actual departure. Several scholars believe the Hyksos and the ancient Hebrews were one and the same.

There's more to it, but it would be very long. look for Ralph Ellis' Tempest & Exodus and the documentary described for more detailed, and researched, information.

[note] this is all off the top of my head, so any misquotes or false statements are a result of my lack of sleep and not deliberate.

It barely digresses into the realms of historical accuracy. I concede that there is reliable historical evidence for the existance of a figure named Jesus, however, that is it.The rest of the bible is sensationalist, abstruse, fear-mongering twaddle.

Personally, I think it did happen, but reflects the translation of earlier oral flood stories in to the Biblical mythos. My guess is that these stories date from the end of the Ice Age when water levels and global humidity were increasing rapidly, causing sea and river levels to rise and causing it to rain more for prolonged periods of time. These cultures might have been displaced due to changing sea levels (especially in the Middle East where most of it is flood plain or even below sea level), and that would have made ripe fodder for any number of stories.

The apparent universality of flood myths in these regions suggests that they have similar origins. Noah is probably a Hebrew version of other protagonists in these stories. Of course, given that it's a myth the entire point of the story isn't literal truth but to educate people about morals and cultural history through the use of stories.

Flood myths are pretty much universal. But, that is more likely to be because lots of places have flooded, rather than the idea of one big flood that covered the whole globe in one go.

Also, there are are clues, even in the Hebrew, that suggest a limited flood, and that suggest a mere retelling of earlier Mesopotamian stories.

i don't know if you've already been rebuttled, but;
there is never any mention in the Bible that the Hebrew slaves worked on the pyramids, simply that they were salves to the Egyptians. also, the reason most people see it historically inaccurate is because the event (Exodus) was to have occured during the reign of Ramses. In Historychannel's special (Exodus Decoded) it's stated that this could have merely been used as a familiarity marker. just about everyone knows Rameses, but no one knows Ahmose I. and the Hyksos Expulsion (a migration of Semitic peoples out of Egypt) has been suggested as the actual departure. Several scholars believe the Hyksos and the ancient Hebrews were one and the same.

There's more to it, but it would be very long. look for Ralph Ellis' Tempest & Exodus and the documentary described for more detailed, and researched, information.

[note] this is all off the top of my head, so any misquotes or false statements are a result of my lack of sleep and not deliberate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Hyksos in Egypt as rulers rather than slaves?

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Hyksos in Egypt as rulers rather than slaves?

You're not wrong, my friend. The sudden appearance of two 'dynasties' in the lineage of Egyptian history is an artifact of the Hyksos conquest. If the biblical Hebrews were the Hyksos - and there are a fair few reasons to believe they were - then 'Exodus' should read as an account of overlords finally being ousted by those they had oppressed.

It's not too surprising that the Hebrew scholars might choose to tell the story in a more sympathetic light, in their own 'internal memo', though.

The problem with Biblical Archeology is that most folks rather try to adjust interpretations of findings to fit the held beliefs instead of adjusting the beliefs.

Everyone does that, not just those who believe the Bible.

You're not wrong, my friend. The sudden appearance of two 'dynasties' in the lineage of Egyptian history is an artifact of the Hyksos conquest. If the biblical Hebrews were the Hyksos - and there are a fair few reasons to believe they were - then 'Exodus' should read as an account of overlords finally being ousted by those they had oppressed.

It's not too surprising that the Hebrew scholars might choose to tell the story in a more sympathetic light, in their own 'internal memo', though.

Speculation doesn't prove the point, however, and even if the Hebrews were the Hyksos, it's a good possibility that they were never the ruling Hyksos, but just another bunch of Canaanites (as the Egyptians would have considered the Hebrews to be).

disregarding any benefit from religion, especially post 9-11

what?

You forgot to mention the consequences of inbreeding :D

The bible has an awful lot of inbreeding in it

Actually the whole basis of evolution is an inbreeding to isolate genes that are beneficial. When a new characteristic comes about it needs to be isolated in order to become permanent. That happens through inbreeding. That is why islands have rapid evolution. They are easier to have inbreeding.

Speculation doesn't prove the point, however, and even if the Hebrews were the Hyksos, it's a good possibility that they were never the ruling Hyksos, but just another bunch of Canaanites (as the Egyptians would have considered the Hebrews to be).

Speculation doesn't prove anything, of course. But then, we shouldn't accept the uncorroborated protestations of a religious text as automatically true, either... no?

There are a number of reasons to directly link the Hyksos with the Hebrew peoples of the scripture - not least in linguistic clues like the name of the people that were nomads, turned conquerors: 'hapiru'.

I'm not sure about your idea of 'other' Hyksos - if I'm reading you right. You seem to be suggesting that the conquerors came in and ruled, but some of the Hyksos were also not rulers...? Looking at conquering powers (like Roman occupation of England, for example)... clearly not everyone is 'king'... but there does tend to be a general trend to favour your own. The Hyksos sat on the thrones of Pharaoh, and they formed the aristocracy. I don't see much reason to speculate some kind of 'slave' caste of Hyksos.


There is more than enough evidence that the absolute accuracy of the Exodus story as an UNBIASED account, should be questioned - don't you think?

The Bible is generally historically accurate when it comes to places existing. It is not generally historically accurate when it comes to events happening in those places. The entire book of Exodus, for example, is most likely straight-up fiction.

Flood myths are pretty much universal.
Pretty much everywhere but Egypt, which probably had more experience with flooding than any other place on Earth.

The Bible is generally historically accurate when it comes to places existing. It is not generally historically accurate when it comes to events happening in those places. The entire book of Exodus, for example, is most likely straight-up fiction.

Even the places are often best taken as metaphors or allusions. A literal Sodom, for example, is unlikely to ever be found... although a place that could be described as Sodom could be...

Pretty much everywhere but Egypt, which probably had more experience with flooding than any other place on Earth.

I would the common occurrence of Nile-bank floods in ancient Egypt lead many of them to go "Oh, another flood. Oh well." Whereas in other places the reaction was more along the lines of "Holy Shit! Water."

If you assume each person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents etc etc and a generation length of 25 years then the number of ancestors you had 1000 years ago is many many more than the number of humans who have ever existed, unless you allow for a bit of inbreeding here and there on some level.
For the record, the loosest definition for inbreeding is between 6th cousins. So any breeding separated by more than seven generations cannot be inbreeding.

Pretty much everywhere but Egypt, which probably had more experience with flooding than any other place on Earth.


"The ancient Egyptians had a legend that the gods had purified the earth by a great flood. Only a few shepherds escaped. In another legend, Surid, a pre-dynastic king was warned of a flood in a dream. He built the two greatest of the Pyramids, recording the secret sciences, the positions of the stars, and all that was known of arithmetic and geometry on their walls. Curiously, the outer casings of the pyramids were removed long ago, and the queen's chamber of Khufu's pyramid shows a curious high water mark inside."

http://biblefacts.org/myth/flood.html

I myself am a Christian and welcome questions and enquiries, but some of the stuff I've read on here is either ignorant, or from people who just want to have a jab and not really listen to the answer.

What worries me is the rise of Dawkinism: the grouping together of all Christians as the same, disregarding any benefit from religion, especially post 9-11 and more than ever this idea that religious people doing bad things somehow makes God's existence less likely.

It's all those trends that annoy me. As I say, I don't mind scrutiny. What irritates me is that a lot of posts I've read on here in the past day or two are all about people having made up their mind, being horrifically arrogant (both the believers and the non-believers, but I find fundamentalist atheists a tad annoying) and just trying to score points of one another.

But all of what you say can very easily be turned around: I find the rise of militant Christianity worrisome, the grouping together of all non-Christians as the same, disregarding any benefit from other religions or from not believing at all, etc. It cuts both ways.

I find the recent phenomenon of militant atheism, as promoted by Dawkins, faintly embarrassing, mainly because I dislike strident voices from any direction, and the reaction of believers more than a little amusing. Having had the playing field all to themselves for so long, militant believers are shocked to find that there's suddenly another team out there with them.

I personally do not believe there is a Supreme Being of any sort who created the universe and all in it, or set it in motion, or what have you. I personally feel humanity would benefit greatly from outgrowing its imaginary friends. Has Religion, in its various manifestations, helped humanity? In many ways, yes, certainly we have benefited from the art and music and philosophy that has come out of Religion. However I think that Religion has done Humankind a great disservice in focusing people's attention on "the next world," by telling people that it's okay to be poor and suffering in this world because there is another world to come in which you will be exalted. It were better, in my mind, to encourage people to rise above their poverty and oppression and make this world Heaven, rather than to wait for the Next World patiently.

Anyway, /lecture.

Even the places are often best taken as metaphors or allusions. A literal Sodom, for example, is unlikely to ever be found... although a place that could be described as Sodom could be...

Oh, quite a few of the places aren't real. Sodom, Gomorrah, the Garden of Eden, none of those exist. Most places the Bible mentions did exist, although often not how they are portrayed. (Jericho's a great example. It was dead and gone several hundred years by the time the ancient Hebrews supposedly stormed it.)

Oh, quite a few of the places aren't real. Sodom, Gomorrah, the Garden of Eden, none of those exist. Most places the Bible mentions did exist, although often not how they are portrayed. (Jericho's a great example. It was dead and gone several hundred years by the time the ancient Hebrews supposedly stormed it.)

There is actually some speculation that they may have found the ruins of two cities that could correspond to the biblical Sodom and Gomorra. If memory serves both cities were destroyed as a result of volcanic activity.

Edit: Unfortunately I'm about to head to class and lack easy access to the citation for that bit of information, so feel free to disregard it until I can back it up with something substantial.

http://biblefacts.org/myth/flood.html

I'd trust that more if they could give any more sources than one book.

Edit: One book that isn't exactly what would be called "credible".

I read an interesting book a few years ago in which it was proposed that the Flood Myths so ubiquitous in the Middle East were born in the flooding of the Black Sea basin. Geology shows pretty conclusively that it did flood in a catastrophic event, and that it had been dry long enough for people to have lived there. An interesting theory, anyway.

I'd trust that more if they could give any more sources than one book.

Edit: One book that isn't exactly what would be called "credible".

I believe this is a logical fallacy. You are attacking the source, rather than the evidence.

You said there was no Egyptian flood myth... I've actually heard of several (and other similar myths, such as Egypt being flooded in blood and/or wine, when Sekhmet was sent to kill everyone)... so I did a quick search and pasted the first thing I found that mentioned it. Considering I was up against no evidence... any suggestion of refutation looks pretty strong.

However, I just ran another, and found references to a damaged version of the story from the Book of the Dead:

"People have become rebellious. Atum said he will destroy all he made and return the earth to the Primordial Water which was its original state. Atum will remain, in the form of a serpent, with Osiris. [Faulkner, plate 30] (Unfortunately the version of the papyrus with the flood story is damaged and unclear. See also Budge, p. ccii.)"

(Sourcing: "Faulkner, Raymond (transl.). The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Book of Going Forth by Day, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1994." and "Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Book of the Dead, Arkana, London, 1923, 1989.")

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Egypt

The Bible states that pi = 3.
That's just wrong full stop. I'd guess that such a huge mathematical inaccuracy could lead us to believe that it's historically inaccurate as well.
Then again, I don't think I'm allowed to comment, being an agnostic mathematician.

Ilaer

You're not wrong, my friend. The sudden appearance of two 'dynasties' in the lineage of Egyptian history is an artifact of the Hyksos conquest. If the biblical Hebrews were the Hyksos - and there are a fair few reasons to believe they were - then 'Exodus' should read as an account of overlords finally being ousted by those they had oppressed.

It's not too surprising that the Hebrew scholars might choose to tell the story in a more sympathetic light, in their own 'internal memo', though.What appearance of two dynasties do you speak of? First of all, the Hyksos were no homogeneous group but came to Egypt in at least two major waves, one from northwest Arabia (Lesser Hyksos, Amalekites tribesfolks, the famous shepherd kings, cf. pharaoh Sheshi/Sheshai (Numbers 13:22)), the other from the Levant, probably originating in Cyprus or the Aegean, those who later became the Philistines (Greater Hyksos). Those groups (Aamu (=Syrians, Canaanites) and Shemau (=foreigners, migrants)) were lumped together by Egyptologists
Secondly, the Hyksos never ruled over all Egypt, there was always the rump kingdom in the south around Waset and probably a more or less independent kingdom in the northwestern Nile delta.
Hyksos is just the graecianized rendition of Egyptian hekau = rulers, short for hekau-khasut, rulers of the hill country (southern Canaan and Arabah), later this title was also born by the second wave of Hyksos, hence the lack of distinction by most Egyptologists.

I just heard a creationist friend of mine state that the Bible is historically accurate.

I want to know in what cases is the Bible historically accurate, and in what ways is it not?

Uh...ok...wow...

I want to know in what cases is the Bible historically accurate, and in what ways is it not?It is pretty accurate in everything after the United Kingdom period, it is less accurate for the Judges and United Kingdom period itself. It is somewhat accurate about Hebrews in Egypt (although not in the currently held timeframe) and the era of patriarchs in the Levant. It is fantastical in the account of events from Adam down to Noah and on to Abraham. That's the historical side. It is however not at all accurate when it comes to the theological aspects that are offered as religiously interpreted history. Mesopotamians, Hebrews, Israelites had never followed the religion the bible claims they did. That part is complete and utter rubbish that was purposely put in the narrative to create an alternative history for Jews by Jews of the (late) Persian era and especially subsequent Hellenistic/Ptolemaic era.

Well, a million people walked through the desert but didn't leave a trace for archaeologists to find.

Jericho at the time it was supposed to be invaded didn't have a wall. They do exhibit one at the site so as not to disturb the visitors.

Several places they talk about nations that didn't yet exist at the time the book was to have been written.

The Hebrews didn't take over the land in a great war. Archaeologists have found that it was a slow process of intermarriage and minor conflicts.

They fought the Philistines before they had even moved from Phoenicia to Gaza.


The list could go on forever.


The more the better.

What worries me is the rise of DawkinismIsm, eh? :rolleyes:
http://www.sfatheists.com/activism/images/DarwinDay2005-15-Cake.jpg
You mightn't ever guess who was celebrating with that cake.

What irritates me is that a lot of posts I've read on here in the past day or two are all about people having made up their mind, being horrifically arrogant (both the believers and the non-believers, but I find fundamentalist atheists a tad annoying) and just trying to score points of one another.
Ah, it's only their immortal souls they're risking. No biggie. As has been said, "let god sort 'em out".
As arrogance goes, let's talk about attempting to pigeonhole the nature of the entire universe in the infantile quibblings of a bloodthirsty, iron-chariot impotent murderer. Or not.