On The Reliability of The Old Testament

[Viktor]

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen, K. A.: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books

Research says it is

 

[jwoodie]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

 

[Likkmee]

The old testament explains the show in 6000 year old terms.
Maybe God should have said " Mo.. The book of life is a desktop with a Ryzen threadripper and 128G of DDR4 ram. The HDD is solid and 13,000 terabytes with 7000 backups via raid..Tell them there are 4 trillion "watchers" with Go-pros going directly into my database.
They'll understand. Tell Ezekiel to explain it makes Google look like a coloring book.

 

[justinacolmena]

The Scriptures of the Old Testament had to survive the Babylonian captivity under heavy censorship. Some passages were altered, and others are deep and mysterious.

 

[Synthaholic]

New Testament, Old Testament.

”Meet the new fairy tale, same as the old fairy tale”

 

[Synthaholic]

All were written hundreds of years apart. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

 

[MarcATL]

All were written hundreds of years apart. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

Beg to differ.

The entire Bible meshes perfectly together.

A document spanning humongous blocks of time.

The inspired Word of God is how that works.

 

[alang1216]

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen, K. A.: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books

Research says it is

It is theology, history, and myth that survived for a millennia as an oral tradition. To trust any of the 3 components of it completely is an act of faith, unsupported by the evidence.

 

[norwegen]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

 

[Taz]

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen, K. A.: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books

Research says it is

So where's the proof for the 40 day flood?

 

[Viktor]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

Some Christians read the OT and some don't. I have read parts of the NT and I believe some of it.

 

[Viktor]

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen, K. A.: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books

Research says it is

So where's the proof for the 40 day flood?

I just found the book on the Internet and have not read it yet.

 

[Viktor]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Among historians and archaeologists, there are 2 different schools. Some believe most of it and some believe none of it.

 

[Viktor]

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen, K. A.: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books

Research says it is

It is theology, history, and myth that survived for a millennia as an oral tradition. To trust any of the 3 components of it completely is an act of faith, unsupported by the evidence.

The author says you are very wrong.

 

[Viktor]

The Scriptures of the Old Testament had to survive the Babylonian captivity under heavy censorship. Some passages were altered, and others are deep and mysterious.

The OT was not rewritten in Babylon. The rabbis wrote the Talmud there.

 

[Taz]

All were written hundreds of years apart. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

Beg to differ.

The entire Bible meshes perfectly together.

A document spanning humongous blocks of time.

The inspired Word of God is how that works.

Got proof of the 40 day flood?

 

[Taz]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

 

[norwegen]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

 

[Taz]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

Well you said "If only Christians would believe the Scriptures." So like, maybe if you could prove the Flood, that would help?

 

[ding]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

Well you said "If only Christians would believe the Scriptures." So like, maybe if you could prove the Flood, that would help?

Two asteroids struck in the polar regions ~10,000 years ago instantly vaporizing 1500 gigatons of ice into the stratosphere resulting in worldwide flooding events.