[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

Clay tablets written in Sumerian and the local Ebla dialect, with no connection whatsoever to Hebrew or Israelites do not prove the truth of the Bible, despite the unfounded religious fervor drummed up before they were translated. No evidence here.

* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

References to Kheta/Khatti/Hatti were discovered almost 150 years ago. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever here. Even if you did, the existence of a Syrian culture unrelated to the Hebrews does not prove the validity of the bible. No evidence here.

* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

Some kings were very rich, therefore Solomon really existed. I don't think I need to say anything else about this. No evidence here.

* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

An Akkadian king named Sargon probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Another impossible logical jump. No evidence here.

* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

A Babylonian king named Belshazzar probably existed, therefore the bible is true. Same bad logic. The fairy tale associated with Belshazzar is that his great wealth was stolen from Solomon's temple. We have evidence (Nabonidus Cylinder) of the Babylonian but no evidence of Solomon or Solomon's temple. Funny, huh?

So if I write a book that has Reagan and Gorbachev in it and in my book I was the emperor of a country greater than the US or USSR, is my book true? Also, Switzerland stole all my gold. Give it back.