History Forum / General / Archaeology / March 2006

Yes. There are several references to the Medes and the Persians
in
the Bible (2 Kings, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel).

As for Meluhha, I can only repeat the answers you got last year
when you asked this question:

"The Bible doesn't say anything about "Melluha", so by
definition there was no Biblical people known as "Melluha"."
(Harlan Messinger)

"Meluxxa is a place name found in cuneiform literature,
referring to someplace far to the east -- it used to be thought
to be India, but more recently it is believed to refer to
Bahrein." (Peter Daniels )

Alan

    It would be difficult not to as they ruled the region before Alexander took
over. Of course like everyone else they were just props for the Macabes to spins
fables around. Ester the "its alright when we do it" book is the most popular.

    Most of "identifications" are wishful thinking even when the right name is
used. For example there is mention of Egypt but the descriptions of it in
Genesis and Exodus are unlike any Egypt discovered by arkies.

    Most of the "identifications" were made over a century ago before enough was
known of the other people to know they were false. But as fate would have it
rich Christians and Jews part with their money most easily when "biblical"
cities are being dug. So even a modern atheist arkie is unlikely to tell his
potential benefactors.

    As standard first paragraph of a paper is as follows.

    The first sentence says the site is "thought to be" some biblical reference.
The second sentence summarizes why it is important. The third sentence shows why
it is unlikely to be what is in the first sentence but without explicitely
saying so.

    The rest is the usual arkie work.

    Needless to say religions only pick up on the first sentence and change
"thought to be" to is.