Tag Info

There is no evidence at all for any of the biblical stories involving Egypt. There is also overwhelming evidence that the origin of the Israelites is indigenous. There is no indication of a takeover as described in the Bible for example. As for the plagues themselves, although there is one papyrus describing a series of disasters they do not fit with the ...

According to the graph on the World Population wiki page, global population at 1000 BC was about 50 million. The vast majority of that would have been in the areas of intensive farming, which at that time means Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and perhaps the Indus valley. So that number doesn't seem completely out of line. However, Israel is much more marginal ...

Barring some archaeological find in the future, the answer is: No. On skeptics.SE, there is a question about the Biblical figures who are also historical and there's a fairly long list of people who verifiably existed. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego don't make that list. On the other hand, you might need to readjust your historical lens. If the events ...

As a Christian myself, I regret to inform you that the answer is "No". There are two events in the Gospels that scholars almost universally agree most likely did happen: Jesus' baptism and his Crucifixion. This is chiefly due to the logic that they both appear in all of our older sources, and they'd both be bad things to make up if you are a Christian ...

The overall "feeling" is that it is neither historical fact nor legends. It is a book of stories, many of which have real events that lies behind them, and many that do not. There is a discussion about exactly what is true, though. The well known stories such as the flood and the exodus generally have no or little evidence behind them, and often a lot of ...

The story of Utnapishtim is adapted from the story about Atrahasis, which in turn is probably adapted from the earlier Babylonian flood myths. The same goes for the story in the bible. So to answer your question: Yes, it's "legendary plagiarism". As to your original question, as these Babylonian flood myths are at least one thousand years older than the ...

Excluding the claims that Jesus was resurrected, I say that there is no reason to doubt the events detailed in the Gospels. The first thing that should be mentioned is the possibility of textual 'perversion' from the original texts. Historians commonly use a method called the bibliographical test. The test is quite simple and is meant to show the relative ...

John's Revelation is generally accepted to have been written sometime during the reign of Domitian (although some still argue for Nero, and many argue it was about Nero). A quick check of still extant coins from Domitian and Nero's era shows no coins with figures holding stars. I typically see stuff like wreaths, palm branches, lightning, or various kinds ...

To start, I'm going to correct the O.P's quote. FOR MORE THAN THREE CENTURIES THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH HAD NO NEW TESTAMENT. Not until the Muratoriun [sic] Canon (350 A.D.) did the Christian church begin to compile a New Testament that resembles the one we have today. There are a few flaws in this conclusion. First of all, the text in all caps is just ...

The exact population is a bit unclear. Estimates for the time period fall in between 2 and 4 million. This area of Egypt was one of the more densely populated areas in the world at that time due to the fertility of the Nile delta. In the Biblical account, Exodus 12:30 says "for there was not a house without someone dead". Family size is also tough to nail ...

The Book of Exodus, as near as scholars can tell, was written during the time of the Babylonian Exile (in the 6th Century BC). That means any actual real events depicted would have had to have been part of an oral tradition among the Jewish people for nearly 1,000 years. Expecting such a work to be historically factual is rather unreasonable. During the ...

According to this site the population was around 100 million and the jewish population was 2 million people, fitting the biblical narrative. But it could be that this data was extracted solely from the bible, and not from other sources.

Backing up Jon's answer a bit here... The surrounding events place Daniel's life at around the seventh and sixth century BC. Daniel however is a rather unique book in the Hebrew scriptures, in that it was actually not written in Hebrew. Instead, it appears to be a work of Aramaic. Why the difference? Well the most logical reason would be that it was ...