People should be aware that many Hebrew Bible verses were doubted due to lack of outside evidence, and were later substantiated by archaeology.
Accordingly, researchers should have an open mind, viewing obscure verses as being potential pointers to as-yet-undiscovered finds.
Some examples of archaeology corroborating the Hebrew Bible:1) Before the late 1800s, the Hittites were known only from the Bible, and many critics said that they were fictitious.
In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this view. A. H. Sayce, a British scholar, found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at Boghaz-koy. German expert Hugo Winckler uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several big sculptures. Boghaz-koy turned out to have been the Hittite capital city.
2) Until recently, no evidence outside the Bible attested to King David's existence. Many critics questioned his existence. In 1993, an archaeologist named Dr. Avraham Biran and his team, digging at Tell Dan, discovered a black basalt stele, containing Aramaic inscriptions. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David." This discovery has forced critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. In 1994 more pieces were found, with inscriptions referring to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was "The ruler over the House of David." Dr. Hershel Shanks of the Biblical Archaeological Review states, "The stele brings to life the biblical text in a dramatic way."
3) At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah were known only from the Biblical books. Some critics charged fabrication. But then came to light the royal cuneiform records of many Assyrian kings, mentioning the kings of Israel and Judah, including Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Menahem, Hoshea, Pekah, Hezekiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoram and Jehoshaphat.
4) The Assyrian king Sargon was known only from the Bible account (Isaiah 20:1). This Bible verse was discounted by critics as of no historical value. Then excavations revealed the ruins of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad, with many inscriptions. Sargon is now one of the best known of the Assyrian kings.
5) In 1934-39, excavations were conducted at ancient Mari on the Euphrates River (present-day Iraq). They found that ancient towns were named after the ancestors (Genesis ch.11) of Abraham:
The "city of Nahor" was found near the city of Haran which still exists to this day. Equally clear signs of early Hebrew residence appear in the names of other towns nearby: Serug (Assyrian Sarugi), Terah (Til Turakhi, "Mound of Terah"), and Peleg (Paliga, on the Euphrates near the mouth of the Habur).
6) The critics claimed that the Babylonian captivity never happened.
However, in 1935-38, important finds were made 30 miles from Jerusalem at a site thought to be ancient Lachish. Lachish was one of the cities recorded in the Bible as being besieged by the Babylonians at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7).
Twenty-one pottery fragments were found in the latest pre-exilic levels of the site. Called the Lachish Ostraca, they were written during the Babylonian siege. Some of them are exchanges between the military commander and an outlying observation post, vividly picturing the final days of Judah's struggle against Babylon.
Since the 1930s, there has been more unearthing of Babylonian texts which describe the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The historical fact of the Babylonian captivity is now undisputed.
7) The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser the 3rd shows Jehu, king of Israel, bowing before the Assyrian king.
8) Tablets from the time of Tiglath-Pileser state that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah. This is the full name of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7).
9) A limestone relief from Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh shows the siege of Lachish.
10) The cylinder of Nabonidus, last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, shows that his son Belshazzar was co-regent with him (Daniel 5; 7:1; 8:1). Scholars had previously scoffed at Belshazzar's very existence.
Archaeological finds, such as the Ugarit documents and those of Nuzu, Mari, Susa, Ebla, and Tel el-Amarna, have repeatedly caused doubters to retract specific claims. The entire social milieu portrayed in the Torah, once criticized as anachronistic, has been shown to be historically accurate, including customs of marriage, adoption, contracts, inheritance, purchases, utensils, modes of travel, people's names and titles, etc. Professor Gleason Archer Ph.D of Harvard University states: "In case after case where historical inaccuracy was alleged as proof of late and spurious authorship of the biblical documents, the Hebrew record has been vindicated by the results of recent excavation, and condemnatory judgment has been proved to be without foundation."And a quote from a researcher named Norman Geisler: "In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is good evidence from archaeology that the Scriptures speak the truth. In many instances, the Scriptures even reflect firsthand knowledge of the times and customs it describes. While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.
"In fact, while thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad outline and often in detail the biblical picture, not one incontrovertible find has ever contradicted the Bible."
And for those who would like a little more:
"Although critics contended that the Hebrew Bible is untrustworthy, time and time again, the archaeological record supports places, times, and events mentioned in Scripture." (Professor John Arthur Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology). The personal names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are names of the time and area mentioned in the Bible (ibid).
"One city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, who were known only from the Bible, have been restored to their place in ancient history through archaeology" (Prof. Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction).
No parchment, scroll, or inscription has ever been found that would support the Bible-critics' JEPD (different sources) hypothesis, which remains a set of mere postulates. And those ancient writers who mention, describe, summarize or translate the Torah (Josephus, Samaritans, Targum, Septuagint etc.), describe it in its complete form.
Archaeological finds, such as the Ugarit documents and those of Nuzu, Mari, Susa, Ebla, and Tel el-Amarna, have repeatedly caused the critics to retract their claims. The entire social milieu portrayed in the Torah, once criticized as anachronistic, has been shown to be accurate, including customs of marriage, adoption, contracts, inheritance, purchases, utensils, modes of travel, people's names and titles, etc. Professor Gleason Archer states: "In case after case where inaccuracy was alleged as proof of late and spurious authorship of the biblical documents, the Hebrew record has been vindicated by the results of excavations, and the condemnatory judgment of the Documentary theorists have been proved to be without foundation."
Link: Refuting the Bible-critics
Link: The authorship of the Hebrew Bible
The answer for this question is in your borring class text book The answer for this question is in your borring class text book
media element.
read your open uni text book and you will find the answer LOL ;p
i don't know i want to answer this question for my text tomorow
The primary source for mummification is actual mummies and text references to how it was done at that time such as The Book of the Dead.http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/exhibits/online/mummification/sources.html
the Tanakh (Jewish Bible).
The Tanakh (Jewish Bible).
A parsha is a section of a biblical book in the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh.
Yes - only in the original Hebrew. Translations will give you a look at the Tanakh but are not the text of the Tanakh.Why yes. Yes it is. Yes, that's exactly where you can find it.Right at the very beginning of the entire Tanakh, in fact.Just open any Tanakh to page-1, and there it is, right there.
As soon as the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) was translated (270 BCE) - and every time afterwards, changes were made. The original Tanakh is only the Hebrew text, which has never changed. Translations are never perfectly accurate, especially because the Tanakh contains levels of meaning.
No. The Religious Text of Judaism is the Jewish Bible or Tanakh. The Zend Avesta is the Holy Book of Zoroastrianism.
If you mean "sacred" text, it is the Hebrew bible, or Tanakh (×ª× ×´×š). Although it's fair to say that some of it is quite scary.
No. The Talmud is an explanatory legal treatise in Judaism. It is not a "sacred text" nor is it affiliated with Christianity in any way. (The Jewish sacred text is the Tanakh or Jewish Bible.)
an encyclopedia article
An encyclopedia article
Judaism is drawn from the Jewish Bible (Tanakh). To read more about the Jewish Bible, please see the Related Question.
If the article you are citing is not paginated and you have mentioned the author's last name in the text of your sentence, you do not need to include any additional information in the in-text citation. Simply mention the author's last name in your text and your reader will be able to refer to your Works Cited list to find the full reference for the article.