BIBLE
Out of context: Reply #179
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
Discipler the article says there is no evidence supporting the Genesis story. This does not mean a figure like Abraham did not exist.
Look, this is what the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA SAYS:
"The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. The Biblical narratives about them are generally held to be myths, that is stories which may have a basis in fact but are not themselves historical. (The King Arthur myth is a good example — there is a kernel of historical truth there, though finding it is difficult and requires much archaeological detective work. Several Biblical passages narrate realistic and detailed cultural traits of the 2nd millenium BCE, as corroborated by archeology, fueling the debate.) No archeological evidence supporting the person of the Patriarchs was found, nor was it likely to expect archeological proof for the existence of a single household in the 18th century BCE."
I other words these are myths handed down throught out the century, built up on some long forgotten lore of maybe a real figure in a land once long ago, which is retold in the bible. But the bible should not be taken as a historical document as such.