What archaeological evidence has been found to prove the Bible false?

The Bible has been proven false scientifically, what about archaeologically?What archaeological evidence has been found to prove the Bible false?
Well to start with; through core samples and strata studies the like it has been proven that the earth is much older than the 5000 years the bible claims. there is lots of other archeological evidence I just really can't remember right now.... I will get back to you on this after I do some research.What archaeological evidence has been found to prove the Bible false?
There is no record whatsoever of Hebrews being in Egypt, or of a massive Exodus from Egypt. The Egyptians were inveterate record keepers, and if such a thing had happened, there would be something written about it somewhere. Many of the cities said to have been destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua were not inhabited at the time of the invasion of Canaan, having either fallen much earlier or not even having been built yet at that time. The massive building projects attributed to Solomon are actually from decades after his period, built by the Northern (Israelite) kings. Judah remained an unsettled backwater for several centuries after Solomon.





Check out this book: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel by Israel Finkelstein. It goes into great detail about the archaelogical discoveries in Israel that reveal quite a lot about when (and why) the OT actually was written.
I'm sure there are plenty of archaeological finds that date back before 4000 B.C. So that eliminates young earth creationism.





Also even if you think the events in Genesis could have been spread out over thousands of years, that still doesn't explain Noah's flood (which some biblescholars claim happened in 2304 BC)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation鈥?/a>





There is recorded history before that. There is no way everyone in the world could have died at that date and all the world's civilizations continued on like nothing happened.
Can it be? Is archaeology really so important in Biblical terms that, once all is known about it, the book will be proven wrong.





Besides, there would probably be something cooked up similar to The Bible Code which says ';What they said was this, but they REALLY meant THIS';.
Well quite a lot actually. read the God Delusion for a full result but in short:


Moses did not cross the Red sea, but the Sea of Reeds, a marsh (mistranslation).


Mary was not a virgin because the Greek word was confused with the Aramaic (an easy mistake to make when you think of the English ';maid'; and ';maiden';).


Jesus may not have been a carpenter because the Aramaic ';N@gger'; (it stars it out) just means craftsman.


No other evidence has ever been found in any historical texts for the Massacre of the Innocents found in Matthew (including in Josephus and he hated Herod and slandered him regularly).


Matthew and Luke contradict each other in the birth narratives (shepherds and kings).


Luke lies to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem because he has no idea where Jesus was born, he just needed to fulfill prophecy (Micah 5:2). He invents a Roman tax census which the Romans have no record of (and the Romans have very good tax records) and he says they used a method that they have never used in the entire empire's history (Luke 2:1).


Mark's scene with Pilate and Barabbas is regarded as invented as the Pilate portrayed differs from all the other records which show him as cruel. And Barabbas is a fake name (it just means ';Son of the Father';).


The end of Mark (16 verse 8 onwards) was written by a different person from the rest of it as the style of Greek is completely different (Mark had bad Greek). Probably added by an early church member to show Jesus.


John hints that Jesus was not born in bethlehem: ';But shall He [the Messaih] not come from bethlehem and the Sea of Galille?';





That is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Happy reading, and please read the bible with an open historical mind. Some of it is true (there was amn called Jesus) some isn't and some is just nonsense.
Im not sure about archaeologically but i have been told by many people that there have been many prints of the bible through time it started with one person writing a story and slowly people adding things and changing things. because there have been many copies of it through the centuries.


But i personally don't believe in god in a religious way yes there may be something out there i wont pass that up but who can truly say yes Jesus did rise from the dead who from this time who was there truly and honestly turn around and say yes its true he did.


because once your meant to be dead there's nothing you can do. if he was unconscious then yes that's a different story but being dead then coming back how can someone truly justify that. The only possible way of coming back is being re-born if you believe in it.


But one day i reckon that someone will find the truth about the bible until then you will have people believing and following the religion.


And the bible never mentions the first parts of history either.


i hope this helped


xxx
There wasn't a census in palestine around the year 0.


The romans were pretty good at writing that sort of things down. Somehow they didn't.


And they would never, ever demand from people to ';go to the city of their ancestors of 1000 years before';. Think about it, where would you go?
The fact that we found dinosaur bones that are millions of years old and that we still have animals alive today who have been around for over 40 million years (sharks, if you didn't know) seems to contradict the claim that the earth is only 8,000 years old.
There is no real archaeological evidence that the bible isnt real due to the fact that most of the stories are put in a real setting, just affecting the people in the stories.
Oooh, let me think now...


The date of the flood, dinosaurs, primate fossils, the location of the so called 'garden of eden' [that's actually an interesting read if you like your geography], Jesus' tomb [or lack thereof]....
Isn't archaeology an off shoot of 'science'. I thought that the dating of the fossils etc proved the world to be in existence for far longer than the bible dictates.
Archaeologically the Bible has been proven to be somewhat accurate. Of-course any good fiction happens in an actual place. The places are real, it's everything else that is false.
There's the fact that Nazareth didn't exist 2,000 years ago. How could Jesus have been born in someplace that didn't exist?
The people who built the pyramids were not Hebrew slaves.
what evidence has been found to prove it correct
None zero zip








The bible never claims the hebrews built the pyramids.


The pyramids were built well before Rameses reign








The fact that light existed before the sun, proves that God is God and you better get on your knees bubby





And the mustard seed WAS the smallest seed that they knew of.








Utter failure
None





Kyle, how can sharks be dinosaurs? Even according to the evolution theory this would not make sense, as reptiles are supposed to be ';downstream'; in the evolutionary scale....





Think about it before you throw in nonsensical answers
none, yet, maybe...all scientific inquiries regarding the universe and purpose of life or how it came about are theories and hypothetical, every scientist knows this and i don't believe the bible to be complete truth
I would love to see the scientific ';proof'; myself.





God Bless.





^ Where in the Bible does it tell us who built the pyramids?
There is no evidence that proves the bible to be false
None