What about archeoligists?

Question

Why do archeologists use the bible as a historical record with much success in doing so?

Does this mean anything?

Why don't you ask the archeoligists before answering this question?

Answer 1

If true, it means that the bible has some historical accuracy.

But
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;
--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;
-- No evidence of 400 years of slavery in Egypt
-- In 40 years, walking 8 hours a day, one could walk at least 200,000 miles. The circumfrence of the earth is 24,000 miles. Why didn't it take the jews about 2 weeks to get out of the desert?

Answer 2

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but I wouldn't say that we archaeologists have had "great success" in using the Bible as a historical record. The Bible has been used as a historical source for archaeological inquiry and to interpret some archaeological remains. The justification for doing so is not always adequate - a number of scholars in the past and some current scholars have performed what can only be termed mental gymnastics in an attempt to force evidence into a shape that fit with the Biblical record when that evidence would otherwise have disproved certain events, people, places, etc. as related in the Bible.
There are a number of events related in the Bible that simply cannot be demonstrated to have happened and for which there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that they did not occur as related in that text.

It should also be pointed out that the Bible was not written as a historical document any more than the commemorative stelae in ancient Egypt or the texts on temple walls in Egypt were written as historical documents. All of these texts were written with a variety of goals - religious, political, ideological, etc. The modern western concept of history is quite new in the scheme of things. This means that we must treat all ancient documents with a certain degree of scepticism and review them with an eye for ascertaining the ulterior motives of the authors and the function of those texts in the societies that composed them.


I would point out that the fact that the Bible may not be an inerrant historical document does not necessarily negate the veracity of the religions that regard it as a holy book. It does not make Judaism or Christianity "invalid" or "wrong." Nor does archaeological or other evidence that fits with other Biblical accounts necessarily prove that the Bible is "true." One cannot dig God out of the ground. Religion is based on faith. The Biblical texts are works of ancient literary art, they contain many profound thoughts on morality, religion, and what one might call philosophy. Again, they are useful tools for research into the past, but like all historical sources, especially those dating before the rise of "modern" concepts of historical recording (and many of those post-dating "modern" concepts of history), they must be used with a critical eye. The same is true of other ancient texts, however, as most other ancient texts are no longer associated with a living religion, there seems to be far less sensitivity to the critical evaluation of such texts.

Answer 3

The Harry Potter books mention London. Does that mean that they are a true historical account? Robert Heinlein mentions San Fransisco and Tulsa in his story "The Roads Must Roll." Does that mean that an entire transportation system has been working right under our noses for the last 60 years?

Every work of contemporary fiction includes references to current cities and events to add to the realism.

The Oddessy and the Illiac were known works of fiction, but they too are used by archaeologist to pinpoint ancient cities. So what? It means absolutely nothing.

Answer 4

That many historical events mentioned in the Bible are true?

It still doesn't prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of the Judeo-Christian God.

Answer 5

"In the summer of 2006, I went to Iraq. While I was there, I saw lots of american GI's. Some of them were abusing prisoners at Abu Graib, so I told them to stop and they did. Then I saw Shiites and Sunni's killing each other. This made me cry. I taught them english and they stopped fighting. It was cool."

Now then, since it mentions the war in iraq, the american military being there, the abuses at Abu Graib, and the growing civil war, that must mean ALL of it is true?

Yes, there is quite a bit of historically verified information in the Bible. There's also historically disproven information in the Bible. Your point?

Answer 6

It means that many of the places mentioned in the Wholly Babble actually existed... just like many of the places mentioned in Stephen King novels actually exist. It means nothing more than that. It doesn't prove that the events recounted in the bible actually happened any more that it proves the events recounted in Stephen Kings books actually happened.

Answer 7

Yeah, it means that some of the Bible is an accurate account of certain historical events. Gee.

Answer 8

The bible mentions real places. Fiction can be set in a real place, in fact it often is. That doesn't make it any more true.

Answer 9

So? There are tons of archaeological finds in Egypt and Greece and Rome, and their histories mixed with their religions...Shall I believe in their gods/goddesses because of archaeological finds?

You cannot use archaeological evidence to "prove" god, especially when you aren't willing to extend the courtesy to other religions.

Answer 10

not really. doesnt prove there is a god. proves that the biblical descriptions of a place were perhaps accurate but the events accounted for not necessarily.