Archaeological Evidence for the Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
No, to your first question.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I grouped the prophecy in with Jesus' second coming, because of the prior verses.

But (I think) you are saying that perhaps verse 5 has been fulfilled, but not as part of Jesus' second coming?

Zech 14:3 - 4Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
 
Married_Richenbrachen said:
Sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I grouped the prophecy in with Jesus' second coming, because of the prior verses.

But (I think) you are saying that perhaps verse 5 has been fulfilled, but not as part of Jesus' second coming?

Zech 14:3 - 4Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear that most of the events described in Zechariah 14:1-5 have already occurred; thus they have nothing to do with Christ's second coming. The 'splitting' of the Mount of Olives has already very definitely happened. There is no question about this. Scientific and photographic evidence proves it. The problem is the unclear translation that was based on a preconceived interpretation based on religious tradition.
 
I know an excellent source for scriptural archaeological infor. Wyatt archaeological Research.com Wyatt died about 6 years ago, but he is the one who did all the research before he died. Really good stuff.
 
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I found it at last! :D

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/74777-nephilim-biblical-archaeology.html

Post 15 of this page, by someone called Rebel.
Click to expand...

The Nephilim hypothesis goes against logic and science. Logically, it doesn't make sense -- if God is opposed to angels having sex with humans and creating offspring (and the flood narrative could lend evidence to that), then why would they be sexually compatible at all? You could argue without evidence that angels are shapeshifters (as many do when confronted with this logic) despite their constant portrayal as human-looking in every case where the bible speaks of them, but that's where we run into scientific problems. We know from studies of genetics that a person's physical traits are inherited from the parents. How would a giant derive from two parents who are not gigantic? Why wouldn't a nephilim instead get the ability to shapeshift? It only makes sense from the point-of-view of a pre-scientific culture.
 
One thing that absolutely baffles me is how Christians ignore these fantastic confirmations of The Bible!
 
Starcrash said:
if God is opposed to angels having sex with humans and creating offspring (and the flood narrative could lend evidence to that), then why would they be sexually compatible at all?
Click to expand...

Just to add my twenty cents to the lot... In another thread they just finished talking about Ring Species - where A can breed with B but not C, and B can breed with C. So according to conventional logic we may only be able to come up with creatures such as AB and BC, but because of the circular breeding habits you could end up with ABC even though A and C can't breed. There're rules against humans committing sex acts with animals, too. And some angels certainly have animalistic characteristics. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I've read an opinion on it that had more of a philosophical/metaphorical reason than a functional one. Leviticus 19:19 says in part "Do not mate different kinds of animals." How similar those animals are supposed to be before we can mate them with each other is up for debate. But there it is. And yet in the above example there happens to be ABC where A and C cannot produce offspring. I mean, there are many laws that advise us not to do things that we normally can do (i.e. we've been given the ability to do in spite of those laws). I think that our ability to do unlawful things, while perhaps and perhaps not being by design, could certainly be argued as being a byproduct and not necessarily the desired function. Some animals are compatible to mate with each other even though they're offspring wouldn't be the healthiest. I think this is just a result of their DNA being similar.

Starcrash said:
How would a giant derive from two parents who are not gigantic? Why wouldn't a nephilim instead get the ability to shapeshift? It only makes sense from the point-of-view of a pre-scientific culture.
Click to expand...

If you've ever heard of a liger (lion + tiger) you'll know that they're bigger than either a lion or a tiger. I forget why this is, but it has a biological explanation.
 
Last edited:
TheAristocat said:
Just to add my twenty cents to the lot... In another thread they just finished talking about Ring Species - where A can breed with B but not C, and B can breed with C. So according to conventional logic we may only be able to come up with creatures such as AB and BC, but because of the circular breeding habits you could end up with ABC even though A and C can't breed. There're rules against humans committing sex acts with animals, too. And some angels certainly have animalistic characteristics. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I've read an opinion on it that had more of a philosophical/metaphorical reason than a functional one. Leviticus 19:19 says in part "Do not mate different kinds of animals." How similar those animals are supposed to be before we can mate them with each other is up for debate. But there it is. And yet in the above example there happens to be ABC where A and C cannot produce offspring. I mean, there are many laws that advise us not to do things that we normally can do (i.e. we've been given the ability to do in spite of those laws). I think that our ability to do unlawful things, while perhaps and perhaps not being by design, could certainly be argued as being a byproduct and not necessarily the desired function. Some animals are compatible to mate with each other even though they're offspring wouldn't be the healthiest. I think this is just a result of their DNA being similar.



If you've ever heard of a liger (lion + tiger) you'll know that they're bigger than either a lion or a tiger. I forget why this is, but it has a biological explanation.
Click to expand...

You need citations, please. Angels have animalistic characteristics? No more than humans. Can humans create offspring from sex with any known animal? If God were so much against it then He could've simply followed the same rule as applied to every other animal species.

I looked up the liger, and it is indeed bigger than its parents. Good point, and it does lend support to Nephilim being giants. But still, the liger is the exception to the rule rather than the norm, even if the example grants reasonable doubt.

Finally, I agree that our "ability to do unlawful things" could be "argued as a byproduct", but in this case we're talking about motive for destroying all life on Earth. Surely this a last resort, and could've been avoided with any of my suggested alternatives.
 
Starcrash said:
You need citations, please. Angels have animalistic characteristics? No more than humans. Can humans create offspring from sex with any known animal? If God were so much against it then He could've simply followed the same rule as applied to every other animal species.
Click to expand...

Ezekiel 10:14 Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to give a different perspective, so I hope you don't take it the wrong way. If the above is intended to be taken literally as a physical description, then I'd say they're DNA was somewhat similar to a human's and somewhat similar to an animal's. Although there are drastic differences. haha

As for destroying all life on Earth... God gave everyone the ability to obey him or to sin. Those who sin are condemned to destruction unless they accept Christ. But the account in Genesis does not state intermingling as the primary reason for the destruction of those human beings.

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

One could speculate that the intermingling had something to do with the destruction, but I don't think it was the primary reason. Also, you might be interested to find that the liger is not really the exception to the rule. I hesitate to comment further, since my memory is a bit hazy on this point. But I think if you looked you could find similar situations with other creatures - even plants.
 
Last edited:
Starcrash said:
The Nephilim hypothesis goes against logic and science. Logically, it doesn't make sense -- if God is opposed to angels having sex with humans and creating offspring (and the flood narrative could lend evidence to that), then why would they be sexually compatible at all? You could argue without evidence that angels are shapeshifters (as many do when confronted with this logic) despite their constant portrayal as human-looking in every case where the bible speaks of them, but that's where we run into scientific problems. We know from studies of genetics that a person's physical traits are inherited from the parents. How would a giant derive from two parents who are not gigantic? Why wouldn't a nephilim instead get the ability to shapeshift? It only makes sense from the point-of-view of a pre-scientific culture.
Click to expand...
I think TheAristocat has answered most of your questions better than I could. I just wanted to add that there are historical accounts and legends of giants (not just in the bible, often six-fingered), and the bible describes these offspring as "men of renown". So it seems like all these offspring were always male.

I'm not an expert on genetics, and even if I were, I think there is still plenty we do not understand about the spiritual side of reproduction and life. Suffice it to say that the bible claims that nephilim were born as the product of angels and women. I can't explain it well, but I'm happy to go with the historical account that tells how it happened.
 
While in Israel, I went on a tour to Tel Meggido. A tel is a mound usually covering the remains of cities in the form of foundations or ruins. Tel Meggido is fascinating because there are foundations of one city on top of the foundations of another. This in itself is not too interesting because this type of tel may be found just about anywhere in the ancient world. The truly interesting feature of Tel Meggido is simple, looking at the cut down the stacked foundations, one counts 26 foundations. For me this is amazing, especially keeping in mind Megiddo has not been populated for centuries. This is evidence of nothing, just a bit of information to add to the thread...........
 
Why go through all that effort with a crop circle and then leave it to be decoded? Just write the warning in the crops!

Nonsense
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaumeJ
IntoTheVoid said:
Why go through all that effort with a crop circle and then leave it to be decoded? Just write the warning in the crops!

Nonsense
Click to expand...

LOL, from someone who is even uncertain about Christ LOL

Archaeology falling from the sky, to prove the time of the giants, Into the Void is putting your condition mildly LOL.
 
WeStand said:
[video=youtube;K_jRGE6wAwA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_jRGE6wAwA[/video]
Click to expand...

Guess I should have made it clear, that this is just factual info to gather about the existence of this phenomenon; I, in no way endorse the conclusions reached.

It is the study of The Word that draws my conclusion, which is way different, than the conclusion drawn by any teaching of man; though there is some truth about the alignment of the universe, there are much better explanations available.
 
WeStand said:
LOL, from someone who is even uncertain about Christ LOL

Archaeology falling from the sky, to prove the time of the giants, Into the Void is putting your condition mildly LOL.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say I was uncertain? You obviously haven't read any of my posts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back