Bible and Archaeology

[Bravus]

I hear very often 'The Bible has been repeatedly supported by archaeological finds'.

As far as I'm aware, this is a very selective view, that requires ignoring quite a lot of inconvenient archaeology.

But how about it? Can someone, IN THEIR OWN WORDS WITHOUT LINKING OUT OR COPYING AND PASTING, give me some examples?

[Ron Amnsn]

Not having been involved in much archaeology myself, it's a bit difficult to give evidence without referencing the work of others.

One example of the Bible being confirmed by archaeology is the evidence regarding the Hittites.  There was a time a century or two ago when some people who wished to discredit the Bible would point to what the Bible says about the Hittites and claim that the Bible must be unreliable because there was no historical or archaelogical record of the existence of the Hittite civilization.  They claimed that if the Hittite civilization was as great as the Bible says it was, there would surely be archaeological evidence. Today, nobody questions the existence of the Hittite civilization as recorded in the Bible because there is now plenty of archaeological evidence about the Hittites.

 

If you spend some time in Israel, you would see abundant archaeological evidence that confirms the New Testament record of the Jews living under Roman occupation in Judea, Samaria and the Galilee.

 

 

[Gail]

I remember listening to an archaeologist talk about the Millo, how there had never been any evidence for it before (until then). His talk was really interesting... I remember seeing his stone ball which to us looked like a cannonball but was actually what they used in slingshots.

[Bravus]

Yes, apologies if I was unclear - I definitely didn't mean you need to have done your own original archaeological research! You can definitely draw on work done by others. It's just that copying and pasting (and links) are usually used to just dump large undigested chunks of other people's thoughts. What I was hoping for in asking for your own words is your own thoughts. Evidence that you have read, thought on, tested and understood what you share.

[Gregory Matthews]

My personal thoughts:  It is a mixed bag.  Some findings are believed to support the Bible and other findings are believed to cast doubt on the bible.  Of course some findings are tentative and on many issues the scholars are divided, so it may depend on whom you accept.

[fccool]

Yes, apologies if I was unclear - I definitely didn't mean you need to have done your own original archaeological research! You can definitely draw on work done by others. It's just that copying and pasting (and links) are usually used to just dump large undigested chunks of other people's thoughts. What I was hoping for in asking for your own words is your own thoughts. Evidence that you have read, thought on, tested and understood what you share.

 

I'm not sure that it matters though?  Much of the belief hangs on the fact that Biblical narrative is correct, or at least mostly correct, or that it's pragmatically correct... if not factually. 

 

If Biblical narrative actually included evolution, most of the people against it (for religious reasons) would accept it, whether evolution was supported by science or whether it was not ... and such is the irony. 

 

I'm just curious as to why you ask.

[LifeHiscost]

It's just that copying and pasting (and links) are usually used to just dump large undigested chunks of other people's thoughts.

That's a comment that makes me believe reading the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" would be something worth accomplishing. I would suggest " The Power of Positive Thinking" might be useful as well, but that one tends to put thinking as a primary key to successful living when I know, though it can be useful sometimes, it also lends a tendency to thinking correctly  takes the place of actionable rightful behavior.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!   

[The Searcher]

Several recent examples come to mind.  There was a question raised whether the kingdom of David ever existed.  They have now found a royal ring with the inscription, House of David.  Another report indicates that Kathleen Kenyon did not include some very important pottery shards in her dating for the fall of Jericho.  These shards date the fall of Jericho in early 1500's to late 1400's BC.  Another discovery showed that the believed site for Ai was incorrect.  They have now found a tell which is Ai and matches the description found in Joshua.  A bone box was found with the name of Caiphus inscribed upon it, the priest at Christ's crucifixion.  A large stone was found, I believe it was found in Caesaria Phillipi, with the name of Pilate as procurator.  The work at Heshban has been completed, and its final reports are now coming out.  Also, they believe they have found the site of Sodom as of the Sodom and Gommorah fame.  These are just a few things that have recently been reported.  Also there is some discussion that the Pharoah of the exodus was killed in the red sea, and a replacement took upon himself the title and name of the deceased Pharoah. It is believed this was done to keep the Egyptian people from the knowledge of the castastrophe. 

[Ted Oplinger]

Archaeology is a science some believe was initiated for the precise reason of proving the Bible was undependable/inconsistent at the least, and a borrowed fraud at the worst. In either case, the main agenda was said to be of "scientifically" proving "yet again" the Word of God could not be depended upon. Biblical archaeology arose as a field with the main when evidence began to accumulate from various excavations that people and places mentioned in the Bible were being verified as historical occurrences. 

 

I agree with Gregory - Biblical archaeology is indeed a mixed bag of results. As always, knowledge that is accepted and contributory, and that which is not, depends on a large extent on who one is talking to in the field. Secular, religious, and political agendas all contribute to make for a messy discourse. The field itself has within it two main schools of thought (with a spectrum of thought between them), with considerable debate as to what various findings really mean. It is by no means "settled".

 

One case where this is very evident is that of the Ebla Tablets, found during excavations made in 1974-75. Some 1700-1800 clay tablets were found in this site, mostly of economic and royal business. Translating the Sumerian cuneiform text revealed a wealth of treasure in available knowledge about the complexity of the regional economies of the age. Some linguistics researchers also noted considerable advances in the method and usage of text language, compared to other tablets of the same era from surrounding excavations. In the secular aspect, this excavation was heralded at the time to be a major contribution to understanding early Bronze Age society.

 

Controversy did not arise until translators found within the economic records the city's business and trade with one Abraham, a wealthy nomad in the Canaan region, and records noting extensive trade with city-states named Zoar, Sodom, and Gomorrah - as well as these city-states sudden destruction. It seems these three Biblical city-states were major players in the regional economy. The former (Abraham) did not elicit too much controversy; the latter (the city-states), however, did.

 

Until the mid-70's, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were relegated to "Biblical mythology". Now, extra-Biblical evidence aged from the same time provided solid evidence the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed valid. I refer back to my comment about secular, religious, and political agendas. The firestorm which erupted had Zionists claiming proof for their claims of a homeland far in advance of the Muslim claim. Muslim political and religious authorities outright rejected both the claims and translated clay tablets. Christian authorities took the evidence as proof of the Bible's historicity and veracity, and secular scientists naturally poo-pooed such claims as exaggerations placed upon the research published.

 

Who is right? We may never know. The tablets are currently unavailable for research - the Syrian government refused to grant further research once the Sodom and Gomorrah issue erupted. With the current political and religious situation in Syria now, there is speculation the tablets have been (or will be) "edited" (aka, offending tablets destroyed). Current thought among many scholars is that the Ebla findings now contribute "very little" to the understanding to this age in the realm of Biblical archaeology.

 

However, this becomes a case where some want to have their cake and eat it as well. The notable findings of economic complexity in the early Bronze Age, coupled with the advances found in linguistics, are still held with little controversy and high regard. Yet, the same evidence also revealed proof of Biblical persons, places, and historicity - this is regarded with distaste among the same scientists as "inconclusive". These tablets seem to fall into the category of whether one side of the coin can be accepted as true while regarding the flip side of the coin to be false - a false premise which is more commonly used in otherwise intelligent discourse than people like to admit.

 

Blessings,

[Joshua-]

Aside from what has already been mentioned one that I always found interesting was the inscription found on the plastered wall at Tell Dier Alla. It fascinated me because it was written by enemies of Israel and the subject of it is Balaam who is referred to as being a seer or prophet.

 

 

--- there aren't anymore tidbits about archaeology below this line, this is more of a tangent --

 

 

Ultimately, something to keep in mind is, there is no such thing as proof*. If a person is determined not to believe something, it doesn't really matter how much evidence you show them. I believe the word in greek 'apistos' is generally translated like 'faithlessness' or 'unbelief' etc, but I once heard someone much more educated than myself explain that the word in the strictest sense meant "refusal to believe"-- not in the sense that they didn't have evidence that they could be compelled to believe, but rather, the person will not believe in spite of any evidence presented because they are determined not to believe. The mind is a complicated thing, and generally speaking, people want to believe they are right-- NOT irrational. Since, again, generally speaking, a person wouldn't want to believe themselves to be irrational, they convince themselves and others that their reasons for disbelief are logical, justified, and rationally based upon something solid (archaeology or whatever else) rather than their own irrational stiffnecked desire not to believe.

 

As EGW put it, "While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God's word until every objection has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to the light."

 

It blew my mind when I finally came to understand this: often times what people claim is their reason for disbelief isn't really the actual reason.

 

If someone is using archaeology as their reason for disbelief of the Bible, you can almost be certain that it isn't really the reason. Sounds weird, but this is my reason for saying that- when learning the ins and outs of being a Bible worker it was shown to me that when a person rejects a teaching (anything-- sabbath, state of the dead, etc) that the reason they are truly rejecting it is almost never the reason they are claiming to reject it, and this is why bombarding people with verses that prove what you are saying is almost entirely pointless. They aren't having an issue with seeing the truth, they are having issue with accepting it. As an example of what I mean, it is truly bizarre that sometimes when a person doesn't want to accept the SDA understanding of the state of the dead, though they may continually refer back to certain verses that seem to convey eternal torture of the damned as their reason, their real problem underneath all of that is unforgiveness: they want someone they knew in particular to burn for eternity.

[LifeHiscost]

Archaeology is a science some believe was initiated for the precise reason of proving the Bible was undependable/inconsistent at the least, and a borrowed fraud at the worst. In either case, the main agenda was said to be of "scientifically" proving "yet again" the Word of God could not be depended upon.

 

However, this becomes a case where some want to have their cake and eat it as well. The notable findings of economic complexity in the early Bronze Age, coupled with the advances found in linguistics, are still held with little controversy and high regard. Yet, the same evidence also revealed proof of Biblical persons, places, and historicity - this is regarded with distaste among the same scientists as "inconclusive". These tablets seem to fall into the category of whether one side of the coin can be accepted as true while regarding the flip side of the coin to be false - a false premise which is more commonly used in otherwise intelligent discourse than people like to admit.

 

Blessings,

Which reasoning clearly reflects we wrestle not against flesh and blood;

 

12For we^c are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

13Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. 15For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared.^d 16In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil.^e 17Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.....Ephesians 6

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!