Got everything except Patmos, never heard of that before. I'm sure I knew all the other answers already but I'm reading through Jerusalem: A Biography right now and most of these places feature. Good read, aside from the beginning being quite repetitive (king A conquers Jerusalem, kills all the Jews, king B conquers Jerusalem, lets them come back, king C conquers Jerusalem, kills everybody, and so on and so on for a couple thousand years)
There are more than two Jewish kingdoms in history and mentioned in the Bible- but still easy to figure out which ones you mean. Also, the Philistines had no nation and I don't think Samaria was ever a country, but whatever. :) Consider your nits picked.
Most of the places presumably existed. A lot of the events, particularly the New Testament ones, are likely to have occurred. Proving Old Testament events, and matching events to places, is rather more difficult.
While the stories are largely fictional or at least fictionalized, most of the places are real enough. Exceptions being the Garden of Eden, of course, and possibly Sodom and Gomorah. There is a real Mt. Ararat in Turkey... however... this mountain was named after the Biblical place and probably not the actual mountain referenced in the Bible, which could have been a different mountain, or could have been entirely made-up, same as the flood story was. Though if the authors of this story had ever seen Mt. Ararat it's possible they were inspired to include it in the story. It is quite impressive to see with your own eyes.
I did see an interesting discussion once about how the flood story was likely inspired by a true event. Something about how all the Arabian and eastern Med civilisations have a great flood story in their mythology, so it's quite likely that there was in fact a flood or tidal wave in that region.
Considering how often early civilizations sprung up in flood plains (access to flowing water, very fertile soil)... it's not surprising that almost every early civilization also has a story about a catastrophic flood. Most of them predating the Biblical story.
The Biblical history was written about, well...history. It's talking about events in the past, so it coming after other accounts of those events doesn't make it null and void.
The Biblical story and the other stories that predate it are mythology not history. If they're all writing about the same event then the fact the Bible differs on many important points from these earlier accounts would prove the Bible is not historically accurate. But... they are not history.
Did you know that a boat was found right by Mt. Ararat recently? And then scientists drilled down and figured out the boat was the exact proportions mentioned in Genesis. Furthermore, God instructed Noah to construct the ark out of gopher wood. And scientists determined it is gopher wood! It was found frozen under ice, preserved for thousands of years! I think it's so cool to see how we can still find evidence that the Bible is true in the 21st century and also how God preserved the ark just so we could find it years later!
eagles fan: I would suggest that from now on you don't trust any information you get from whatever place it was that you read that story. Though, it doesn't sound like the sort of thing you would find published somewhere... my guess is.. anonymous or falsely attributed e-mail forwarded from a family friend?
Archaeology as a discipline was invented by early Christians seeking out evidence to validate their beliefs in the lands where Biblical stories took place. There have been many, many expeditions that set out in search of the Ark. They've found precisely jack and squat. There is no evidence that there was ever a global flood and enormous amounts of evidence that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt this story is fictional.
^according to the Mormons. Muslims place it in Saudi Arabia, somewhere near Jeddah, of course. Just like ancient Palestinians picked out locations for their stories that were known to them.
Like Ararat that kal mentioned above, those rivers were named after two of the four rivers mentioned in the Genesis account, and are not likely the originals.
Archaeology's religious roots are an interesting study, and are certainly linked to our inherent desire to have our beliefs validated--one has to be acutely aware of confirmation bias. Anything found archaeologically is at best seen as an external supporting evidence of a belief rather than proof positive of a religion's truth.
This was easy for me, except for some reason I drew a blank on the question about Solomon. I kept thinking of the Midianites, but I think that was another judge, perhaps Gideon? Anyway, it's a great quiz. Thanks.
How stupid I feel now. After the first Jesus questions, I read the Adam & Eve one and somehow thought Mary and Joseph. Couldn't get the answer, and when I saw Garden of Eden I also realized my mistake. So note to self; learn to read :P
just a thought about Noah's ark .If Noah was in the desert somewhere in the middle east waiting for the flood and was to put two of every animal on the ark how did he get two kangaroos ,wallabies ,llamas etc ,I don't think they were good swimmers .???????.
It was probably just a flood of the middle east, I reckon that during the ice age some glaciers further north or south melted and with a hard rain season the rivers overflowed and there's your flood. Obviously it's debatable whether Noah was an actual guy
Spyglass: if the story was based on a real event, and not just a particularly bad year for flooding in the Nile, Indus, or Mesopotamian flood plains or river valleys, there is some evidence that it may have been inspired by the flooding of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean (google Black Sea deluge hypothesis). This would have happened somewhere between 7 and 14 thousand years ago, so right around when humans first started coalescing into primitive settlements and early villages and cities, and it's possible oral accounts of the event survived across generations and found their way into Akkadian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, and Hebrew great flood myths. Prior to the Black Sea deluge there may have been an even more catastrophic flood when the Atlantic Ocean breached the strait of Gibraltar and flooded the Mediterranean, but that like happened several million years before humans were around to witness it.
I guess (after looking it up) that the term can be used to refer to both the place and the event (the battle of Armageddon)... in Hebrew Har Megiddo... okay. I had the (false) impression before that Megiddo was the place and Armageddon was the battle. Just different spellings.
The bizarre way that the Bible placed Jesus' birth in Bethlehem per the prophecy about the Messiah's birthplace is a strong argument for the existence of a historical Jesus. The census that required Joseph to bring Mary to Bethlehem never happened. Besides there being no record of it, it would be hugely disruptive to the economy to uproot everyone to force them to return to their place of origin, and there would be no need to do such a thing to count them. (The Massacre of the Innocents also didn't occur.) So why make up such a ridiculous story; why not just say that Mary and Joseph were from Bethlehem? It doesn't make sense unless there was a historical person named Jesus of Nazareth about whom 1st Century Christians would have known. The census story answered the question, "But wasn't Jesus from Nazareth?" "Why yes he was, but here's why he was actually from Bethlehem." This argument comes from Christopher Hitchens. I find it hilarious that an atheist convinced me that Jesus existed.
Did Hitchens make that argument? Interesting. This is also the most compelling reason I can think of to suspect that the Jesus character was based on a real person. But I don't recall ever hearing Hitchens talk about it. I may have forgotten or we may have both had the same thought independently.
I didn't say that they didn't. That doesn't mean they have good evidence. They absolutely do not. And virtually all scholars of antiquity will admit that they do not.
I'm not sure that argument, though interesting, really convinces me. It's more likely that inconsistencies in the bible are the product of it being written over a long time by a great number of authors, and compiled and edited even later, by people who had no first-hand knowledge of what (if anything) really happened.
I understand why we all feel the need to debate on the validity of the Bible, the most scrutinized text in history, but it's really not ideal to do it in Jetpunk or any other social media's comments. Your arguments will be scattered, separated, misinterpreted, and difficult to explain fully. If your goal is to make people angry and copy-paste their various resources, go ahead. Referring to it as mythology and the like is not helpful either. You know exactly what will happen by saying that.
There are more than two Jewish kingdoms in history and mentioned in the Bible- but still easy to figure out which ones you mean. Also, the Philistines had no nation and I don't think Samaria was ever a country, but whatever. :) Consider your nits picked.
Ever wonder where Palestine comes from?
Galilee). Didn't try it--Sea of Galilee is how it's better known--but just curious if it's accepted.
Archaeology as a discipline was invented by early Christians seeking out evidence to validate their beliefs in the lands where Biblical stories took place. There have been many, many expeditions that set out in search of the Ark. They've found precisely jack and squat. There is no evidence that there was ever a global flood and enormous amounts of evidence that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt this story is fictional.
Archaeology's religious roots are an interesting study, and are certainly linked to our inherent desire to have our beliefs validated--one has to be acutely aware of confirmation bias. Anything found archaeologically is at best seen as an external supporting evidence of a belief rather than proof positive of a religion's truth.
Also saying Armageddon was the battle is incorrect, that part of the bible is prophecy, so technically it hasn't happened yet.
As an atheist, I have no problem accepting that there was a historical Jesus.
If a Christian accepts that argument though, they basically need to also accept that he was not the messiah.