Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[angellous_evangellous]

It is no less credible than Darwinian evolution. Such a generalized statement means little. But this is a topic for another thread.

.....

EDIT: If that is so, why isn't the scientific community divided over the issue?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is no less credible than Darwinian evolution.

The ignorance here is staggering - evolution is arguably the most elegant and successful paradigm of modern science.

 

[Autodidact]

May I just suggest something in response to these two challenges? I know I said I would bow out of this thread, but I can't help but point out something here.

Who are you talking about when you say "mainstream"? Would it not be mainly scientists, geologists, etc., who are not religious (or, more specifically, non-Christian)?

No. A scientist's religion has no bearing on their scientific work. I believe that most scientists are in fact theists, and most of them Christian. How would you even know the religion of a scientist, unless s/he stated it in some other context? So, no, I don't care what religion they are, as long as they are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal--not a creationists propaganda organ.

So, supposedly, because they have no religious agenda, they have no agenda at all, huh? I find this hard to believe. I don't doubt their credentials, their intelligence, or their knowledge of their specific fields, but I do call into question the claim that they are somehow unbiased, or have no agenda of their own. Everyone, whether you're a Christian or an atheist, looks at things through certain lenses, and has certain presuppositions. These "mainstream" scholars are not excluded.

What do you scientist's agenda and presuppositions are?

"They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true." Take this quote for instance. Why could it not be true that "mainstream" scholars do the same thing?

Because they don't operate from a preconcieved conclusion. They don't have to make their conclusions fit into a previously adopted outcome--they can follow them wherever they lead.

I am convinced that they often do this as well. The very fact that they dismiss the possibility of miracles shows they have an agenda and certain presuppositions. The main presupposition being, of course, that miracles do not happen. They in no way can prove miracles do not happen. They just assume they don't. This is no different than a creationist scientist assuming that miracles do happen.

You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, define "miracle."

Secular scientists approach what they see with the presuppositions that the world was not created and was formed through evolution. And, just like Christian scientists, they will interpret everything they find through their specific worldview lens. And sometimes even "construct elaborate theories," just as creationists supposedly do.

What? There are not "secular scientists" and "Christian" scientists, there are just scientists: atheist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and agnostic. Their religion doesn't affect their work, as long as they use and accept the scientific method. The only way their religion would be a problem is if it requires them to repudiate the scientific method itself. Does yours?

So let's not pretend one side is less biased or less qualified than the other. That is deliberately putting on blinders.

Sorry, it's the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh I beg to differ. It is a very fair comparison.

It appears that you know very little about science then.

Well, at least you admit it is a presupposition. That's a start.

It isn't. It's a conclusion. That's the opposite of a presupposition.

I would say this is only the case with some creationists. Only the strictest of creationists will dismiss all forms of evolution. I believe evolution does happen on some levels.

Science isn't about belief.

What I'm trying to say is that both creationists and Darwinian evolutionists twist evidence to suit their worldviews. It is not a lopsided affair relegated only to "crazy creationists," as has been implied by many in this thread. This is why I'm saying people are putting blinders on in this unfair assessment. People who don't believe in the Bible should at least be willing to admit that they bring just as many presuppositions to the table as creationists do. I'm not denying that creationists sometimes twist data to fit their worldview----it would simply be nice if evolutionists admitted they often do the same thing. Because there's no question they do.

You couldn't be more wrong. It is indeed a completely lopsided affair relegated to creationists, whatever their degree of mental health. It actually takes blinders to not see this. People who do not believe the Bible does not mean scientists. Some scientists believe the Bible, and some do not. The group you are trying to identify consists of scientists and people who accept science as a way of learning about the world. And no, this group does not bring just as many presuppositions to the table as creationists do. Creationists assume their conclusions--science does not allow this. Scientists use the minimum "presuppositions" (we call them assumptions) necessary to do science: that it is ossible to learn about the natural world by observation, that observed phenomena generally tend to continue to behave in the same way unless something comes along to change it, and so forth. They're the same "presuppositions" that you use and rely on every day of your life. Scientists do not, repeat, do NOT assume there is no God. They do rule out miracles as part of their methodology, because allowing them makes it impossible to do science. That is, if miracles exist, science cannot detect them. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that science has no way to deal with them. Same for God--God is just outside the scope of science. If God exists or does not exist, science can never determine one way or the other.

 

[Autodidact]

From AiG: (2 posts)

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask:

• How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
• Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

How many types of animals did Noah need to take?


The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3.

Genesis 6:19–20:​

‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’​

Genesis 7:2–3:​

‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’​

In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.
However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.
Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term ‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’ land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5
One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.
Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6

This entire quote is a hilarious example of creationist non-science. If you can't see all the absurdities and contradictions in it, I don't know that I can help you. More than anything else, it's just making stuff up out of whole cloth, without a shred of evidence to support it, which of course is the exact opposite of science.

Try this: within an order of magnitude, approximately how many creatures did (fictional) Noah take on (fictional) ark?

 

[Autodidact]

Much easier to look at the evidence of a more specific claim.The Bible and science agree. In times past men lost their faith when certain scientific "facts" seemed to refute the Bible however these "facts" as they were proven false only show the Bible stands true.

Read some of these articles and get back with me:

No thanks, I've slogged my way through enough creationist balogna in my day. If you have an argument to make, make it.

 

[Autodidact]

And anyone "can put together a so-called respected journal that might have been through peer review."

No, they can't, and this demonstrates your ignorance of the community of science. Do you know wha the difference is between a scientific, peer reviewed journal and any other form of publication?

If you aren't even willing to check out someone else's sources, then what makes you think they should check out yours? That's arrogant and lousy debating. At least have the decency to look at the websites instead of dismissing them out-of-hand.

No, what's lousy debating is just posting a string of websites, any one of which contains dozens of pages. I don't expect people to visit some websites and absorb my argument--I make it myself. The only time I would ever give someone a website is if they need a basic introduction to understand evolutionary theory. If Joe wants to make an argument, it's his job to make it and support it, not his readers job to figure out what from reams of material what he's trying to get at.

Here's what I am willing to do when I get time. I'll click on his first website (please believe me when I say that I have not done this yet, don't even know what it is) and find at least one outrageous lie and at least one piece of purely invented imaginary nonsense. If it's typical, chances are that I will also find at least one dishonest quote-mine. Want to take me up on it?

 

[Autodidact]

Certainly. I'm just sick and tired of the arrogant attitude of so many opposed to creationist and Biblical theories in regards to archeaology. It is somehow "beneath them" to actually consider there might be credible archeaologists, geologists, etc., who are also Christians and find no conflict in the Biblical account and what they research in their respective fields.

It's like this. Creationists assume that the Bible gives an accurate description of, for example, whether there was once a world-wide flood. Then they go looking for evidence to confirm this assumption. That is the opposite of science. Scientists gather the evidence and derive their conclusions form it, whatever that may be. Had there in fact been a world-wide flood, the evidence would be there, and geologists would have determined that is what happened. There is no atheist geologist presupposition that there was no such flood. What happened was, they looked at the rocks, and found that the evidence indicates the contrary.

 

[Autodidact]

It is no less credible than Darwinian evolution. Such a generalized statement means little. But this is a topic for another thread.

Have you visited the "long wait" thread in this forum?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The ignorance here is staggering - evolution is arguably the most elegant and successful paradigm of modern science.

Both points exquisitely understated.

 

[Hope]

Scientists do not, repeat, do NOT assume there is no God. They do rule out miracles as part of their methodology, because allowing them makes it impossible to do science. That is, if miracles exist, science cannot detect them. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that science has no way to deal with them. Same for God--God is just outside the scope of science. If God exists or does not exist, science can never determine one way or the other.

I never said science can prove or disprove God, or prove or disprove miracles. You're absolutely right they are outside the scope of science. I'm not arguing about that.

But what you're wrong about is that many scientists assume there is no God. Just from discussions and debates on this forum with those who don't believe in God (or specifically the Christian God), I've noticed something quite interesting. After much argument, I usually get to the bottom of why these people don't believe in God. Is it because of evidence? No. It's because of deep-seated aversion to the God of the Bible and what belief in Him entails. I suggest to you it is this same reaction that governs atheistic/non-Christian scientists.

The implications of finding evidence that points to the God of the Bible (only points, mind you---doesn't "prove") are immense for unbelievers. Because if there is evidence that this God may be real, and that the Bible is accurate, then that means unbelievers have a very serious choice to make: either they believe in this God and give their lives to Him, or they reject Him and go to hell. So atheistic/non-Christian scientists have some pretty strong ulterior motives for having presuppositions that this God does not exist, and therefore, if He does not exist, then science/archeaology/etc., will contradict the Bible which points to His existence. I"m not saying there aren't brilliant atheist/non-Christian scientists, and that they don't know what they're talking about----I'm merely pointing out that they do have presuppostions (for the aforementioned reasons), and these presuppositions will ultimately determine how they interpret data. That's all I'm saying. To deny this is having "blinders" on, so to speak.

We need to really get to the heart of this evidence for/against the Bible. Neither side is truly objective, and neither side is free of presuppositions. There are "crazies" on both sides, not just on the creationist side. This is why I am so irritated by the arrogance of some who enter these debates. I don't have all the answers---I've already admitted as much---but I can still see the discrepancies in arguments of those who dismiss the Bible as being merely myth.

So far angellous evangellous is the only one to admit that some of these presuppositions exist. This is the kind of intellectual honesty I would love to see in others.

 

[rojse]

I never said science can prove or disprove God, or prove or disprove miracles. You're absolutely right they are outside the scope of science. I'm not arguing about that.

But what you're wrong about is that many scientists assume there is no God. Just from discussions and debates on this forum with those who don't believe in God (or specifically the Christian God), I've noticed something quite interesting. After much argument, I usually get to the bottom of why these people don't believe in God. Is it because of evidence? No. It's because of deep-seated aversion to the God of the Bible and what belief in Him entails. I suggest to you it is this same reaction that governs atheistic/non-Christian scientists.

Scientists can have their own personal beliefs. They can be any religion that they choose, whether it be Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Atheist, or any other religion you care to name, but a scientist's religion should not affect their work or the results of their experiments - that is not scientific. A scientist's work should stand up on it's own merits, not merely because it is supported by, or is not supported by, any holy book, even the Bible.

Science works without presupposing the existence of any supernatural forces (ie God). Science cannot be used to prove or disprove God, because this is outside of it's sphere of knowledge. It's like trying to use philosophy to disprove the way machinery operates, it is two separate fields without connection.

I will stress the fact that science cannot prove nor can it disprove the existence of God. I want to be extremely clear on this point.

What science can disprove are any stories that people use to try and prove their religion. Some people may say that the earth is six thousand years old. Scientists can check the age through valid scientific methods, and come up with a scientific answer. Some people may say that God created all of the animals. Scientists can study fossil records and say that many animals evolved from more ancient creatures.

I will stress the fact that whether the stories in the Bible are correct or incorrect scientifically, it does not change the argument for or against the existence of God.

The implications of finding evidence that points to the God of the Bible (only points, mind you---doesn't "prove") are immense for unbelievers. Because if there is evidence that this God may be real, and that the Bible is accurate, then that means unbelievers have a very serious choice to make: either they believe in this God and give their lives to Him, or they reject Him and go to hell. So atheistic/non-Christian scientists have some pretty strong ulterior motives for having presuppositions that this God does not exist, and therefore, if He does not exist, then science/archeaology/etc., will contradict the Bible which points to His existence. I"m not saying there aren't brilliant atheist/non-Christian scientists, and that they don't know what they're talking about----I'm merely pointing out that they do have presuppostions (for the aforementioned reasons), and these presuppositions will ultimately determine how they interpret data. That's all I'm saying. To deny this is having "blinders" on, so to speak.

There are people that believe in the existence of God and do not worship him already - Satanists, Luciferians, LeVayanists, and Maltheists are four that I can think of immediately. I point this out because a person knows that a supernatural entity exists does not suppose that that person will immediately worship Him.

As I have said before, no scientific evidence can prove or disprove God, nor do scientists work with a presupposition against the existence of God. It may only prove or disprove any stories within the Bible, when they make statements in regards to science. Even disproving all of the stories within the Bible does not disprove the existence of God.

We need to really get to the heart of this evidence for/against the Bible. Neither side is truly objective, and neither side is free of presuppositions. There are "crazies" on both sides, not just on the creationist side. This is why I am so irritated by the arrogance of some who enter these debates. I don't have all the answers---I've already admitted as much---but I can still see the discrepancies in arguments of those who dismiss the Bible as being merely myth.

I will agree with you on this. An unobjective Creationist is just as bad as an unobjective Atheist.

So far angellous evangellous is the only one to admit that some of these presuppositions exist. This is the kind of intellectual honesty I would love to see in others.

I do agree that scientific arguments are not complete, in terms of factual knowledge. I have no debate with you on this. There are many scientific questions I want to know that are currently unanswered.

But what I disagree with is when you dismiss important scientific arguments, not through any inaccuracies that they may have, but because it is not in alignment with your beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

Because if there is evidence that this God may be real, and that the Bible is accurate, then that means unbelievers have a very serious choice to make: either they believe in this God and give their lives to Him, or they reject Him and go to hell.

Hope.

If it can be ever proven that God exist, with real verifiable evidences, and only then I would believe of his existence. But I must stress to you that even though I may believe, I still may not worship him. Believing and worshipping are two different things.

You may ask "why"?

Well, it is quite simple. I would like to get to know this God, find out what he want and more importantly "why?"

If it is shown that he is a good god, then I can possibly worship him. If he, on the other hand, turn out to be evil, then there's no way I would worship him, even if it meant going to hell.

But so far, there have been no evidences, and no real manifestation of the god being any more real than ghoul, goblin or the fairy godmother.

Lot of the stuff that appeared in the Genesis, have being written long before by the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians. Eg. Creation of man out of the earth, have being written by the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonians centuries long before Moses supposedly have written the Genesis (though I believe that the Genesis was written in David or Solomon's time in the 11-10th century BCE, but that's a totally different subject). Even Gilgamesh's companion, was created out of clay, had existed in Old Babylonian literature, long before Moses' exodus out of Egypt.

It is similar with the Flood myths, the flood hero existed in name long before Noah was ever written down. Before Genesis, there was the Sumerian Ziusudra, or his Akkadian counterpart Atrashasis, or in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, Uta-napishti. Lots of Genesis' 1st chapter on the creation itself, sounded like the various versions found in Mesopotamian myths. Ziusudra had also built the ark, to save himself and his wife, surviving the Flood, can be found in the fragments, in the so-called Eridu Genesis, composed around 2100 BCE, if not before that.

When was the Genesis composed? At the earliest in Moses' time, but nothing survived in his time. The earliest fragments are only found in 1000 BCE or later (David's time).

So lots of Genesis' earlier chapters seemed derived from older myths. If you want non-believers to believe in your Bible, then you, yourself, should believe in Sumerian-Akkadian myths, because it would seem that Hebrews copied and adapted the original legend for their own use.

 

[gnostic]

A scientist's work should stand up on it's own merits, not merely because it is supported by, or is not supported by, any holy book, even the Bible.

Well said, rojse.

Wanted to give you frubals, but for some reason it won't let me, until I spread the frubals around.

There are people that believe in the existence of God and do not worship him already - Satanists, Luciferians, LeVayanists, and Maltheists are four that I can think of immediately. I point this out because a person knows that a supernatural entity exists does not suppose that that person will immediately worship Him.

More good points.

I was just making the same thing when replying to Hope (post #174). I didn't read your post until I had already replied to Hope. It would have save me some time in typing what I did, if I had done so. *sigh*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We need to really get to the heart of this evidence for/against the Bible. Neither side is truly objective, and neither side is free of presuppositions.

And neither of these points is particularly relevant. The value of science has little to do with a presumed objectivity of the scientist and everything to do with scientific method and a reliance on intersubjective verifiability.

The persistent failure of the bible to stand up to the rigors of this method is reflected in the fact that, in a thread titled "Archeological evidence for the Bible," absolutely nothing of worth has been offered. Let's refocus on this topic and see if the drought continues ...

 

[Hope]

The persistent failure of the bible to stand up to the rigors of this method is reflected in the fact that, in a thread titled "Archeological evidence for the Bible," absolutely nothing of worth has been offered. Let's refocus on this topic and see if the drought continues ...

Fine by me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So far angellous evangellous is the only one to admit that some of these presuppositions exist. This is the kind of intellectual honesty I would love to see in others.

Just to clarify how I've been using this term...

I call it a "presupposition" because most creationists and scientists don't completely prove creationism or evolution (or theism and naturalism) in each argument or finding. Since the sum of theism and naturalism may be well laid out elsewhere, we can merrily go along with our thinking...

Creationists' presumptions are unproven, and they are completely inconsistent with the scientific method. So when creationists try to interact with science, or communicate "scientifically," or interact with logic, they start out with a presupposition which is a logical fallacy. Not only are the creationists' presupposition illogical, they amount to an entire religious system - the character and nature of their God. They also have to adhere to an interpretative philosophy if they are relying on the Bible, a textual theory, and dogmas concerning the inspiration and perfection of Scripture - each portion of these presuppositions dramatically decrease the probability of correctness because all of them are unproven.

 

[joeboonda]

The persistent failure of the bible to stand up to the rigors of this method is reflected in the fact that, in a thread titled "Archeological evidence for the Bible," absolutely nothing of worth has been offered. Let's refocus on this topic and see if the drought continues ...

I haven't been too involved in this but I agree. Here is an excerpt of an article: (Archaeological Evidence Supporting the Bible | Amazing Discoveries Ministries) ---full article there---

Archaeological Evidence Supporting the Bible

The Bible contains 66 books written over a 1500-year period of time by 44 different authors. The authenticity of its stories and of the people that lived in its history has been authenticated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, dating back to 150-170 BC, and containing all or parts of the Old Testament books except the book of Esther. Many other discoveries have helped vindicate many details of the Bible that had been scoffed at by higher critics.

The Cyrus Cylinder discovered in 1879 records Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon and his subsequent deliverance of the Jewish captives.

The Rosetta Stone discovered in 1799 in Egypt by Napoleon's scientists, and written in three languages - hieroglyphics, demotic and Greek - unlocked the mystery of the hieroglyphics which have helped confirm the authenticity of the Bible.

The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 at Dibon, Jordan, confirmed Moabite attacks on Israel as recorded in 2 Kings 1 & 3.

The Lachish Letters, discovered in 1932-1938, 24 miles north of Beersheba, described the attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Another evidence of the Bible's inspiration is found in its cohesive unity. In more than 3000 places, the Bible declares itself inspired. It does not contradict itself.
As has been seen in previous articles, the prophecies of the Bible in cases such as Babylon, Tyre, Petra and Egypt, as well as the Messianic prophecies, vindicate the Bible's authenticity.
The Bible has survived centuries and even millenia. Despite all the attempts of Satan to hide it, destroy it, and make it unaccessible to the common person (remember the Dark Ages), the Bible has been preserved by God. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver, tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6,7 Jesus also promises that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt 24:35

 

[joeboonda]

From:
Evidence from archaeology for the reliability of the Bible 2 posts:


Real people, real places - Evidence from Archaeology for the reliability of the Bible

Web sites
Books
Someone wrote to this web site recently saying
I find it funny that you claim archaeological evidence supports the bible. It's actually a well known fact that archaeology is the Achilles heel of religion...
They could hardly have been more wrong. In fact there is so much archaeological evidence supporting the historical accuracy of the Bible that our problem has been how to make it easily accessible on these pages. This page is a kind of 'home page' for the archaeological evidence - expect us to add more to it as time goes on.

photo: BiblePlaces.com
Real People

• Lysanius - ruler of Abilene
• Nicodemus and the ben Gurion family
• Mary, Martha and Lazarus
• The crucified man
• Simon of Cyrene
• The Pilate inscription
• Sergius Paulus inscriptions
• Erastus the treasurer of Corinth
• Gallio the governor of Corinth

Real places

Nazareth

• Where Jesus grew up?

Capernaum

• Peter's house
• the synagogue

Tiberias

• The 'Jesus boat'

Jerusalem

• the temple warning notice
• the pool of Bethesda
• Stone water jars
• The pool of Siloam
• The Burnt House - AD70

Caesarea

• Herod's capital

Derbe in Turkey

• The city of Derbe

Ephesus in Turkey

• worship of Artemis
• Demetrius the silversmith

Corinth in Greece

• the synagogue
• the judgment seat
• meat sacrificed to idols

Ancient writings

• a letter of divorce
• a promissory note
• Legal documents

Evidence in the Bible

• Who wrote Luke and Acts?
• Luke's accurate use of titles
• Is Luke's gospel historically reliable?
• Evidence & Paul's journeys

There is a growing mass of evidence from archaeology that the Bible accounts deal with real people living in real places. But what can this evidence from archaeology do?

1. It might disprove something in the Bible documents. If the Bible was false, we would expect new archaeological discoveries to do this. In fact, there is no known case where archaeology decisively disproves the Bible. This itself is strong evidence for the truth of the Christian message.
2. It could provide direct confirmation of what the Bible says. We would expect that in many cases there is no direct archaeological evidence one way or the other, and this is what we find. However, there are some cases where archaeology does provide direct confirmation, and we have listed some of them on this site.
3. It can provide background information that helps us to understand what the Bible documents say.

The examples above either provide direct confirmation of something in the Bible, or provide background information that helps us to understand what the Bible says.

Other Archaeological discoveries

The NIV Study Bible includes a chart listing more than thirty major archaeological finds relating directly to the New Testament. These include Herod's temple and winter palace, an early synagogue in Capernaum, the pool of Siloam, an inscription about Pontius Pilate, and many others. The 'Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels'http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php#_edn7 has a 13-page article on 'Archaeology and Geography' listing archaeological information about the background to various places mentioned in the Gospels.
See also the Century One Dead Sea Scrolls site
Back to top

When were the New Testament Documents written?

Jesus was probably crucified in spring AD 30. In 'Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?' professor F F Bruce says that the writing of the New Testament was complete by about 100 AD at the latest.
However, the Gospels may all have been written significantly earlier than that. (For example, they could all be dated before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.) In any event, they were written within one lifetime of the events they described. When they were written, many people were still living who remembered the events described.

Written sources

Not only that, but scholars today generally agree that at least some of the Gospels (particularly Matthew and Luke) used earlier written sources - sources which go back even closer to the events they describe. Some of Jesus's teaching may even have been written down while he was still alive.
For much of the New Testament, we do not have any independent evidence one way or the other. However, the writers claimed that they were writing accurate history, and they claimed that what they wrote was based either on first hand experience or on careful research.

Eye-witness testimony

A number of small touches in the Gospel accounts sound like the recollections of eye-witnesses. (For example, John's Gospel chapter 12 verse 3, in an account of Mary anointing Jesus's feet, says 'the whole house was filled with fragrance.'). These touches do not appear to have any theological significance - nothing is made of them. So why are they there? The simplest explanation is that the writers included them because that is how they remembered things happening. Anyone who has tried to write accurately about something they have not experienced first hand knows how difficult this is. You get all kinds of details wrong. Of course, some of the details do not matter, but others are important.
So if the New Testament documents had been made up much later (as scholars have sometimes claimed), we would expect that many of their incidental details would not be accurate, and that as our knowledge of western Asia in ancient times grew, we would discover more and more discrepancies.
In fact, exactly opposite has happened. As more archaeological evidence has been discovered, the accounts in the New Testament have been confirmed again and again. This tends to show that they really are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses.

 

[joeboonda]

Conclusion

Although archaeology cannot prove that the Bible's accounts are true, it certainly does not disprove them, and recent archaeological discoveries have tended to confirm the accuracy of many background details in the Bible narratives. This in turn tends to support both their historical reliability, and the claim that they are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses. (It is very difficult to fake the appearance of being an eye-witness if you do not really know first-hand what you are writing about.)
Back to top
Back to 'Confident in the Truth'