world religions?
2007-05-23 02:53:27 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It doesn't... archeology explores ancient things... sometimes they coincide with biblical history, but not all that much... certainly not enough to infer that everything else in that book is true.
case in point: which mountain was named what back then? We don't know...
the "tomb" of jesus is unknown... and probably not the place pilgrims are shown... etc.
Hope that was helpful...
2007-05-23 02:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Archaeology has confirmed several of the events in the Bible to have occured. In fact, such searches were the beginings of the field of archaeology itself. But these cannot confirm larger claims of divine authorship, even if it affirms such for those who already believe. There are also difficult problems of not finding archaeological evidence (yet?) of events that would appear to be easily found, such as the life and reign of Solomon.
There are few other "holy" books that are written to be historical accounts in the same way the Bible is, so I am not sure a direct comparison is in order.
2007-05-23 10:02:45 · answer #2 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it doesn't. Through the study of its history we know it has been rewritten, some parts changed to suit patriarchial ideals, may parts copied from other ancient religions and other parts burnt to conceal the information it held. also some of the books really weren't written by the people who were later claimed to be the authors. So really nothing about the history of the bible makes it stand out anywhere except the fact that a book so contradictory and so inaccurate can be held by a good portion of humanity as a holy book.
And we say we are the intelligent species. Sometimes i wonder
PS: Archeaological digs do not prove the accuracy of the bible. Because many of the stories they support have been found in other myths and legends like the greek mythology and stories of other pagan religions that were in existence before christianity and the bible.
2007-05-23 10:00:29 · answer #3 · answered by uz 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, I don't know about conclusively, but---Archaeologist have used the Bible in their work to find and dig.
They have time and time again made discoveries that back the Bible.
Until recently historians questioned the existence of the Queen of Sheba. Archaeologists found a coin depicting her and again proved the accuracy of the Bible.
There are many more examples.
2007-05-23 10:04:12 · answer #4 · answered by rangedog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is used a road map to many of the ancient digs. It has led archelologists to such tings as the quamran caves where many parchment with writing were found that totally supported the Bible. It has led to the findings of where Sodom andGomorah were and to find that it still smokes to this day and the salt pillar of the woman who disobeyed God(sorry I forgot her name). by looking back. There are so many ways that the Bible has led the researchers to find these awesome and wonderful things. I hope this helps May God BLess.
2007-05-23 10:03:20 · answer #5 · answered by wolfy1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does not.
There is no archaeological, physical, or contemporary historical evidence of any kind that anyone named Jesus, or anyone that could have been Jesus, ever lived. There is no description of what Jesus might have looked like from anyone who would have been alive to see him at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Similarly, there is not one word he might ever have spoken that was written down by anyone who could have been there.
There is no record of a city, town or village called Nazareth, even in the detailed list of cities and towns in Galilee compiled by Flavius Josephus; nor is such as place ever mentioned in the Old Testament.
There is no mention of Jesus, or anyone like him, in the records of Jerusalem or of the personal or official papers of Pontius Pilate (or any other Roman official). Similarly, there is no record of a crucifixion that could have been that of Jesus. The supposed darkness that fell upon the earth at the time he died was not mentioned by anyone anywhere on the planet, including Jerusalem itself.
2007-05-23 10:06:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many sites mentioned in the Bible were "discovered" by archaeologist in recent history. Possible location of two cities destroyed by fire (Sodom and Gomorrah). A large city with the city walls destroyed (Jericho)...
Proves "scientifically" the archaeological accuracy of the Bible.
2007-05-23 10:02:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't, simply put.
The Illiad has lead to more archeological discoveries, and portions of the Bible remain unsubstantiated and even very nearly discredited.
2007-05-23 10:01:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The same way that the bible proves that that evolution explains the beginning of life.
2007-05-23 10:01:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, they keep digging up older and older remnants that say virtually the same thing.
2007-05-23 10:12:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋