I apologize if I'm being too harsh - I studied to be a historian and I get very sore when people try to conflate history and religion.

One good reason why I am not so interested in your over generalized, weird posts

...snip...

weren't you banned?

But here I am :)

One good reason why I am not so interested in your over generalized and weird posts

BiblicalArchaeology.org - Certainly not a biased, unreliable source!

Regardless, you have ignored what I've written. I was clear that there is some historical fact in the Bible, and in fact that site in particular is cross-referencing very specific excerpts with actual known references outside of the Bible. They are not taking the Bible at face value with no external evidence, in this case. In this particular case, the Bible doesn't offer much extra information about most of the people (if any). However, that site is taking the opposite of the Scientific Method - the purpose of the SM is to observer, explain the observation, and test the explanation. Basically - find an explanation for the observation. They are doing the opposite - they are beginning with an assertion (that the Bible is historically accurate) and trying to find evidence of that fact. That's not proper.

Past that, I am not impressed that the Bible was able to reference 50 historical figures, all of them from around the time the Bible is believed by historians to be written. Remember that it is often claimed outside of historical circles that Moses wrote the Old Testament... yet there seems to be a strange absence of historical figures from anything other than thousands of years afterwards, including historical figures we knew existed before then.

Baal is found both in the Bible and in old mid eastern mythology ... which doesn't prove anything about how accurate the Bible is historically ... in all non Biblical references, he is the god of fertility and life ...

One good reason why I am not so interested in your over generalized and weird posts

BiblicalArchaeology.org - Certainly not a biased, unreliable source!

Sorry, I couldn't find "Noreligionarchaelogy.org" because for some reason, you want sources from people who have NO interest in finding anything Bible related.

I should go to "cSharp.com" when looking for tutorials on Lua.

Past that, I am not impressed that the Bible
was able to reference 50 historical figures,
all of them from around the time the Bible is
believed by Historians to be written.

What time would that be?

Baal is found both in the Bible and in contemporary mythology ... which doesn't prove anything about how accurate the Bible is historically ... in all non Biblical references, he is the god of fertility and life ...

More interesting in that the Jews are a subset of the Canaanite people, and worship a variant of the Canaanite gods (proper reading of the Old Testament suggests that early Jews were polytheistic).

Ba'al would have been part of their pantheon. You don't see any references to Jupiter or Tiwaz, for instance.

One good reason why I am not so interested in your over generalized and weird posts

BiblicalArchaeology.org - Certainly not a biased, unreliable source!

Sorry, I couldn't find "Noreligionarchaelogy.org" because for some reason, you want sources from people who have NO interest in finding anything Bible related.

For the same reason I am not going out of my way to find evidence for the invisible pink unicorn or the World Turtle.

I should go to "cSharp.com" when looking for tutorials on Lua.

Biblical History is its own field, and you are misrepresenting it as well - it focuses on trying to find historical fact within the Bible; it doesn't presume the Bible is entirely true or factual. You are presupposing that it is entirely factual, which is silly.

Past that, I am not impressed that the Bible
was able to reference 50 historical figures,
all of them from around the time the Bible is
believed by Historians to be written.

I'm not sure what you were expecting.

Given that the Bible suggests it was written thousands of years before they exist, and there is a strange gap between when the Old Testament says it was written, and their first reference to actual historical persons, I would suggest that the Old Testament is wrong about when it was written.

Baal is found both in the Bible and in contemporary mythology ... which doesn't prove anything about how accurate the Bible is historically ... in all non Biblical references, he is the god of fertility and life ...

More interesting in that the Jews are a subset of the Canaanite people, and worship a variant of the Canaanite gods (proper reading of the Old Testament suggests that early Jews were polytheistic).

Ba'al would have been part of their pantheon. You don't see any references to Jupiter or TIwaz, for instance.

..

I think Jupiter is the Romanized version of Yamm ... however the Bible does not mention either name ...

Edit: Tiwaz ( Tyr ) is a Nordic god ...

Baal is found both in the Bible and in contemporary mythology ... which doesn't prove anything about how accurate the Bible is historically ... in all non Biblical references, he is the god of fertility and life ...

More interesting in that the Jews are a subset of the Canaanite people, and worship a variant of the Canaanite gods (proper reading of the Old Testament suggests that early Jews were polytheistic).

Ba'al would have been part of their pantheon. You don't see any references to Jupiter or TIwaz, for instance.

..

I think Jupiter is the Romanized version of Yamm ... however the Bible does not mention those ...

Jupiter isn't a Romanized foreign god. Jupiter (Iu Pater) and Zues (Zues Pater) come from the same Proto-Indo-European deity - Dyeus Pater. ED - Forgot to mention - they all mean 'Sky Father'.

For the same reason I am not going out of my way to find evidence for the invisible pink unicorn or the World Turtle.

But for some reason, you want evidence of such from people who share your views. That's silly.

Biblical History is its own field, and you are misrepresenting it as well - it focuses on trying to find historical fact within the Bible; it doesn't presume the Bible is entirely true or factual.

Biblical history is not a living thing so it has no presumptions on the history of Bible.

Given that the Bible suggests it was written thousands of years before they exist, and there is a strange gap between when the Old Testament says it was written, and their first reference to actual historical persons, I would suggest that the Old Testament is wrong about when it was written.

When was the Bible written according to the "Historians"?