Does archaeology support the Bible?

Answer 1

Yes: Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible--sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.7

The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.8

In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.9

Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."10

Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."11

Answer 2

No. The existence of some general settings and a few historical people (King David, Pontius Pilate, et al.) has been confirmed, but that is true of many ancient documents, and furthermore, reveals nothing about the Bible stories themselves. Evidence of the actual stories is elusive.

Apologists are fond of parroting, "No archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible." They are dreaming. They're the same people who somehow have missed all the evidence for evolution. Every dig in the Middle East proves something else wrong about the Bible.

There is no sign of any large population of Hebrews in Egypt. There is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration across Sinai. At this point, the inerrantist will point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I respond that if we don't find evidence where an event *ought* to have left evidence, we can conclude that the event did not happen, or else was so different from the report as to render the report meaningless as a record.

Archaeology has shown that the cities allegedly conquered by Joshua were actually destroyed over a period of centuries. In fact, Canaan was under Egyptian rule at the time of the alleged invasion, making the whole story beyond implausible! Archaeology has shown that there was never a unified kingdom of Israel. David and Solomon's kingdom was little more than the city-state of Jerusalem.

There have been several reports of Noah's ark, including a satellite photo of a large rock (accompanied by a large dose of pareidolia), a story published on April 1 (hint, hint), 1933, and someone with a piece of wood from the ark (yeah, right). Funny how no archaeologist has managed to dig it out, or even photograph the thing.

P.S. William F. Albright's school has been discredited. It was observed that he did his research under the ASSumption that the Bible is true. Any scientist will tell you that that's a prescription for finding what you want to find. Today, the only archaeological expeditions that "confirm" the Bible are those by apologists.

Answer 3

Its a bit of a mixed bag.

In some cases the Bible has come agreement with contemporary records and archaeological finds. In others these alternative records are in direct contradiction to the Bible.

Remember that the Bible is a book of political indoctrination aimed at justifying a particular power structure and justify wars.

In some cases archaeological evidence that contradicts the Bible has been violently suppressed by the State of Israel.

Answer 4

. The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood The Sumerian King List, for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed. The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and “scattered them abroad and made strange their speech.”

Answer 5

No.

There are SOME Biblical truths but they are few. What is more interesting is the lack of archaeological support for things. Like the thousands living in the desert for 40 years after escaping from Egypt not leaving any trace. Come to that, other than the Bible, there is NO evidence of any kind that the Jews were EVER enslaved in Egypt.

Answer 6

The Bible's accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archaeological finds produced by both believing and no believing scholars and scientists. This included verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible.
One among many examples is the fact that for many years the existence of the Hittites (a powerful people who lived during the time of Abraham) was questioned because no archaeological digs had uncovered anything about them. Critics claimed the Hittites were pure myth. But today the critics are silenced. Abundant archaeological evidence for the existence of the Hittites during the time of Abraham has been uncovered.
Bible scholar Donald J. Wiseman notes, "The geography of Bible lands and visible remains of antiquity were gradually recorded until today more than 23,000 sites within this region and dating to Old Testament times, in their broadest sense, have been located." Nelson Glueck, a specialist in ancient literature, did an exhaustive study and concluded: "It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverter a biblical reference." Well-known scholar William F. Albright, following a comprehensive studies, wrote: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of History."

Answer 7

In a geographical way, to some extent, yes. But that doesn't prove anything more than that some of the places mentioned in the Bible actually existed, Guess what? Some of the places and events mentioned in "Gone With The Wind' are real. That doesn't make GWTW a history text book!

Answer 8

Some does. There are some theories on things like the arc. There is proof that there was flood in the area that Noah would have lived in, but no not the whole world. Though it would have felt like the whole world to him, I'm sure. The evidence can go either way in SOME of the bible stories.

Answer 9

It supports parts of it. It does not support the 6000 year old Earth or that we came from 2 people but kings and some people are found to be true.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22060312-2,00.html

My opinion : the Bible is an historical allegory which contains true events as well as author interprtations of events. It's not 100% true, some is utter exaggeration, but parts are true.

Answer 10

Archaeology could support an Agatha Christie book confirming locations mentioned in the story etc but it wouldn't make an Agatha Christie book any more than a fictional story liberally sprinkled with factual details.
Hundreds of years from now archaeologists will find the ruins of the Cataract Hotel beside the falls on the Nile and they might say "This confirms that Agatha Christies "Death on the Nile" was true, because it is mentioned in the story and here we've found the ruins".