Does archaeology prove the Bible?

Question

I've seen this claim several times today. While it's true that some aspects of the Bible have been proven to be accurate by archaeology, it's also true other aspects have been proven false. Finkelstein and Silberman document the archaeological evidence that proves that Israel was never more than a vassel state, and that Soloman and David were nothing more than chieftans. Why would people find it surprising that books that are genuinely old might occasionally record accurate history? How does getting mundain facts occasionally right prove the outrageous parts? Does the fact that Mecca exists and the Qu'ran talks about it somehow prove that Muhammed really preached to the Jin?

Maybe I didn't make the question clear. Do accurate mundane aspects of the Bible prove the crazy stuff? If so, why?

Answer 1

I think people can't or simple do not want to understand your question. I've used the example of Minos. There are archaeological findings as well as historical records that indicates his existence, the historical records come from different geographical parts, not only from Crete (Herodotus for example). Even though we see Crete exists, that there are historical records of Minos and archaeological finding of the Minoan civilization, how does such findings validate the records that say that Minos was the son of a god (Zeus in the case), that Poseidon answered his prayers and that his wife (Pasiphae) had a monster as a child (the minotaur) after having sex with a bull. I'm not a bit surprised that christians would say all this is a "myth", even if they can recognize Minos actually existed, they'd more likely agree he was a mere human and everything added was just a myth (still maybe a fundi will say it was the devil's work). I have no problem with that so far, since such stories (being son of a god and the minotaur) are not plausible.

The problem starts when we reach to the "christian myth" or any other myth still alive as religion, they seem to forget their logic and affirm that the finding of some archaeological places and events narrated in the bible validates the whole bible, including that god made man from clay and that Jesus healed the sick, walked on water and resurrected, and some even boldly state the bible is the "most accurate" historical document in the world (ack!), that's quite a big affirmation. The logic of a man ends when you question his faith.

Answer 2

There is a lot of proof for the accuray of the Old Testament text has come form archaelogy. Numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the bilical documents, even down to occasional use of obsolete names of foreign kings. These archaeological confirmations of the accuracy of Scrtipture has been recorded in numerous books.

Sodom and Gomorrah
The destruction of Sodom and Gmorrah was thought to be spurious until evidence revealed that all five of the cities mentioned in the Bible were in fact centers of commerce in the area and were geographically situated as Scriptures describe.

Jerico
Bryan Wood, writing for Biblical Archaeological rewiev, includes a list of collaboration between archaeological evidence and biblical narrative as follows:
1) The city was strongly fortified ( Josh. 2:5, 7,15; 6:5, 20 )
2) Attack occured just after harvest time in the spring (Josh 2:1, 3:15, 5:16 )
3) the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Josh 6:1)
4) The siege was short (Josh 6:15 )
5) The walls were leveled, possibly by an earh quake (Josh 6:20)
6) The city was not plundered ( josh 6:17, 18)
7) The city was burned ( Josh 6:24 )
Talking about outrageus parts; because the walls of the cities do not fall outwards, they fall inwards. And yet Joshua 6:20 we read "The wall fell down flat. Then people went up into the city... " In reference to to the foundings during the excavations of Jerico ( 1930 - 36 ), Garstang said " As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outward completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city.

Saul, David, Salomon
It was thought to be an error to claim that when Samuel tells that his armor was put in the temple of Ashtaroth ( a Canaanite fertility goddess ) at Bet She'an, while Chronicles records that his head was put in the temple of Dagon, the Philistine corn god, because it seemed unlikely that enemy peoples would have temples in the same place at the same time. However, excavations have revealed that there are two temples at this site that are separated by hallway: one for Dagon and the other for Astharoth.

There are many more, but problems still exist, in the complete harmonization from archaeological material with Bible. But there is a real promise of imminent solution through further investigation. I do not know of any archaeological founding that proves the Bible to be in error.

Answer 3

Like most works of fiction the bible includes some currently known cities, people, etc., weaves a fictional story around it and some people seem to try to pass it off as fact. A good example is the Da Vinci Code. An excellent written work of fiction. It contains a ton of known facts, people, places, events, etc., and then has a good fictional story woven around those facts. The bible is the same. So has archaeology proven the bible? No. Considering that most of the bible was written well after the suppose events ever took place it is no wonder they managed to get some names and places right. However that does not explain away the vast contradicitons, falsehoods, and out right fairie tales contained in the bible. It is a work of fiction, nothing more. It should be renamed The Big Book of Christian Mythology.

Answer 4

You see, that is the problem with books of fiction that use actual settings and/or persons. After a while, once can say anything about them and people believe.
Case in point; remember Forrest Gump, there are people out there now that will SWEAR they saw footage of a soldier showing his bottom to President Johnson back in the '60's.
Re-writing history is just that simple. One has to keep that in mind with books of fiction like the bible too.
Soddom and Gommora are another fine example, no archaeological evidence exists for either of them. Yet people will swear up and down that they were real. Ask them for some sort of proof however and they point to the bible. Laughable! Thier "proof" for the existence of a fictional place is the fictional book in which they appear.
One may as well say that Oz exists and point to the "Tin Woodsman of Oz" as proof.

Answer 5

It doesn't "prove" the Bible so to speak. What archaeology does is it proves locations that the Bible speaks about. It makes the Bible more reliable. For instance, if you are reading a non-fiction book but question some of the things it said. If you go out and discover places that it talked about, you don't question the book as much. But, if you go out and dig up things that completely contradict that book, you start doubting the author of the book. It's the same thing. Archaeological findings make the author of the books of the Bible more reliable.

Answer 6

Archeology would not instruct something. It makes lists of persons, places and events that got here approximately interior the actual international many, some years in the past. a number of those events, places and human beings have parallels interior the Bible. most of the Bible places, events, and human beings have no parallels with the info uncovered via Archeology. most of the parallels happen in the process the divided Kingdom era of Israel and Judea. There are parallels in the process the Babylonian captivity and the restoration. lots is likewise distorted. It takes a great deal of discover ways to handle the info. have exciting.

Answer 7

Evidence? Yes
Proof? Still to be determined.

An example would be the Nazca lines in Peru.. For years (or centuries) after their discovery (or rediscovery ) it was assumed by many that these lines were proof that "Gods" from the sky could only see these figures, or utilize them as alien spaceship runways. Later excavations of ancient library records in the mid 80's provide different evidence that the lines were probably indicators of irrigation canals and water rights made by the Nazca. Still, experiments have been made as to whether the lines were possible to have been constructed by the Nazca with the technology available at the time period, producing pale results at best. This returns some to thinking that the lines could have only been produced by aliens or at least with alien help.

hence my point,
Evidence? Yes
Proof? Still to be determined.

Answer 8

considering the fact that a lot of archeologist actually denied soloman and david ever existed before now theyve found evidence to the contrary im sure they have just hit the tip of the iceburg they dont know it all..their still searching and some people are actually trying to cover up evidence in these places

Answer 9

Those are hardly facts that change the general gist of the bible.
The basic idea of Jesus kingdom and his deliverance are still very much a part of our lives. Just as Noah's preaching in the wilderness, while building the ark.
Maybe the type of nail he used wasn't recored accurately.
But the ark was nevertheless build and they survived.
Or even the amount of animals it contained is under debate.
But their were animals and they survived.

Answer 10

No archeology does not prove the Bible. The Bible needs no prove. The only prove that a Christian has of the Bible is their faith and that is enough. If we could prove it by man standards then there would be no need for faith and no one could be saved Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through FAITH and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. Not of work lest any man should boast