Strange as it may seem, The Bible has repeatedly been proven as a reliable historical source in relation to the history with which it deals. In the nineteenth century period of biblical skepticism almost everything in the Bible was questioned and doubted as being historically inaccurate and unreliable. Since this time over 5000 archaeological discoveries have been documented in a multi-volume work by archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson. These discoveries, mostly relating to the Old Testament and many to the New are in the museums and private collections of the world.
According to Dr. Wilson and others, not one single discovery of archeology has ever refuted a biblical assertion. This is an astounding fact, especially when considering the large span of time covered by the biblical record.
Chat with our AI personalities
Writers who generally produced a record long after the events, and with consequent distortions. The earliest - Herodotus and Thucydides tried to analyse events which happened mostly within their lifetimes, however later ones relied on early accounts which they could not verify.
Some of the 2nd Century Roman historians even warned that the history of Rome was distorted bt the top families fabricating stories twisted to their family aggrandisment. Others such as Ctesias and Diodorus are so erratic that anything they say needs support from another support before being believable.
Most leaders from ancient history are forgotten and so cannot be named. Those that have not been forgotten can be remembered from writings or archaeological research.
Reliable? Hmm. Peter knew the most about Jesus but was not reliable. I'd say that Paul was the most reliable witness.
Ancient Egyptians had an abundance of gold. Most was thought to be found in the Nubian Desert, which is part of the Sahara Desert.
most Ancient Egyptians were peasant farmers
more ancient, most ancient