Please explain to me how archeology as supposedly "proved" the bible.?

Question

According to an answer here archeology has proved the bible is the word of God.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AijoeV536cnzF4yaAbXKZzbsy6IX?qid=20070725070005AAQlvKq&show=7#profile-info-akDjXudoaa


Then explain to me why the Gnostic Gospels are not proven the same way?

According to the gospel of Mary Magdalene Jesus spoke of enlightenment.

Wasn't Adam and Eve supposedly punished for enlightenment?

To my friends:

Yes, I know it is hard to keep a straight face with this one.

Kayne do you really believe that a deity would need Job to prove his love and allow his family to be murdered to do so?

Answer 1

Sweetie, if you don't choose to believe it why are you so infatuated with it? It seems to get you to the point of rage. If you feel that " To take the bible literally is a sign of a very very small and extremely stupid brain! " as you said then why not just chalk us up to being just that? I could mention how the creation story in Genesis states exactly what order things began and evolved. How did Moses, a man that lived in 1,400 BC know what scientists have just discovered in the last 200 years? I could mention all of the kings mentioned in the Old Testament that skeptics claimed never existed but recently evidence has been found of their existence such as King David, King Senacharib and King Sargon. I could ask you how hundreds of men over thousands of years could have writen their writings with the same themes as to make one spectacular book. I could ask you how Isaiah and the other's could've prophecied of coming events especially of Jesus and His mission so accurately centuries before they happened. And it has been proven by the finding of the dead sea scrolls that these writings were truly written before they happened. Why is it so inconceivable to you who are so smart that there could be a God, a God that left us a book of wisdom and history? Why do you call Him "evil" and "hateful" because He dealt with barbaric man in the Old Testament in the only way they could understand for their times?

Dear gorgeoustxwoman - This world was not created as our final utopia, it was created to be our testing ground something WE asked for the day WE all ate of the forbidden fruit (that is the day we each committed our first sin). We asked for knowledge of good and evil. We all have to be tested and we all have to die here. We asked for it and but there is a reward later if you just believe and trust in Him. Job trusted God even through all that. It's been good debating with you as usual. :>))

Answer 2

Well, archaeology hasn't "proven" the Bible, but it HAS shed light on some events described in the Bible (like that they happened exactly the way the Bible described.).

For example (WARNING: Going to get Biblical for a moment here):
The story in Joshua about the battle of Jericho. If one reads the details, here's what they find:
1. The Israelites were sheltered by a prostitute by the name of Rahab. Rahab and her entire family were spared from the fate of Jericho by staying in Rahab's house.
2. The walls fell OUT, instead of in.
3. The Israelites were commanded not to take any grain or treasures that they found.
4. After they went into the city, it was burned.

So archaeologists started excavating around the ancient ruins of Jericho, and here's what they found:
1. The walls were still intact in one place, and one place only. This section of wall was JUST large enough for a house, and part of the house was actually still intact. (Could that have been Rahab's house?)
2. The walls had fallen OUT, instead of in.
3. Jars full of grain were still there.
4. The city had been burned after the walls collapsed.

So does this prove, once and for all, that the Bible is the utter truth, and that God is real? No. However, it DOES prove that a historical fact was recorded accurately, and that the Israelites THOUGHT they had been commanded by God to destroy Jericho.

There are other things too. Characters in the Bible (even Balaam, you know, the guy that had a donkey talk to him?) have been proven to have existed. Places mentioned in the Bible (Ur, where Abraham was from, Sodom and Gomorrah...) really did exist, though they were thought not to until the late 19th and 20th centuries.

I can provide links regarding these if requested, but I'm running low on time right now. Anyway, as I said, this doesn't prove the Bible is 100% true, there are still a lot of things in doubt, but at least SOME things have been shown to have happened the way they were described.

Now bring on the thumbs-down, I guess.

Answer 3

There are some parts that have been proven by archeology and probably an equal number that have been disproven, assuming you are talking about events described in the Bible. Naturally, the book itself could not be proven archeologically, since it didn't exist before 300 AD. Most of the incidents in both the New Testament gospels and the Gnostic gospels are not things that can be proved by archeology. There were a whole bunch of gospels available when the Council of Nicaea met. They put the ones in the New Testament which reflected their preferences. But you can't dig up anything that proves Jesus spoke on the Mount or died on the cross.

Answer 4

The one with the long answer had much of them. I would add simply men have always bragged about their knowledge and that men, cities, or events in the Bible never happened. Then some archaeologist digs up a pot or tablet with the name and receipt from that name on it proving the Bible to be true. Some how, the braggers are not so braggy or loud then.

On the Discovery channel, I watched a program about did Moses write the first 5 books of the Bible. Many loudly scoffed at that, saying they did not have a written language. This guy goes to find already in a museum a small scroll. When they open it on the front and back is written some of the language said to not exist.

Answer 5

In essence, some liberal scholars have long held that the Bible is complete fiction, and have claimed that certain people, places, and events were completely made up, and that the various books of the bible were forgeries written centuries after the event. Archeology can verify that certain cites and people groups were at the same general place at the same general time as the Bible claims. Many stories in the Bible also mention architectural details and local customs in passing that can be used to date the approximate time of writing of the story -- forgeries written centuries later would either omitted these details, or else would have mentioned later period architecture or customs.

And for the guy who claims that people have only used archeology to verify events in the Old Testament only, but not the New, he is incorrect. The Book of Acts, for example give enough detail that a circumstantial case has been made that it is historical accurate, and must have been written quite early (1st-2nd century).

No one has done this for the Gnostic Gospels. Feel free to start your own project if you think that you can "prove" them thus. Most archeologists are NOT Christians, so if there were some historical evidence to show that the Gnostic Gospels had some historical accuracy, you think that someone would have found this evidence by now.

For example:
-------------------------------------
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Until recently, there was no contemporary evidence outside the Bible for Pilate's existence (although Tacitus, Josephus, and Philo all wrote about him). Then in 1961, Italian archaeologists excavating the theatre at Caesarea found this stone inscription of Pontius Pilate.

In describing the local officials Paul bumped up against, the author of ACTS uses a range of different titles. For example, he talks about praetors in Philippi, calls Publius the first man of Malta, refers to the Asiarchs who governed Ephesus, and calls the city council of Thessalonika politarchs. (Acts chapter 17 verse 6). In the past, scholars 'knew' that Luke was an inaccurate and unreliable historian, who did not know what he was writing about, or perhaps just could not be bothered to be consistent in his use of official titles. For example, there was absolutely no known use of the word 'politarch' anywhere in Greek literature. Luke must have got it wrong!
But recent discoveries have shown that a range of different titles were in use at the time for local government officials, and that - wherever we know what the title was - the author of Acts got it right.

Until recently some scholars considered the description of Christ's crucifixion to be false. They thought it was impossible for a human body to be held up by nails driven into the hands and feet since the flesh would eventually tear away. Instead they thought the victims must have been bound by ropes. Yet, in 1968, the body of a crucified man dating to the first century was found in Jerusalem. Here the true method of crucifixion was discovered: His ankles, not his feet, had been nailed and could easily support his weight.

Answer 6

You appear to be confusing two things.

The Bible, esp. the O.T. has historical comments regarding the names of rulers, etc. and archeology has found evidence to support the accuracy of Scripture in that regard -- from its historical perspective.

The gnostic gospels and those cannonized are no different then in that respect, as even a false account of an event can have factual references historically.

So your whole question becomes a Non Sequitur.

.

Answer 7

1- Archeology has proven parts of the Bible to be accurate. Only God can prove it is His Word.

2- The Gnostic gospels were written centruies after the fact (Gospel of Mary is dated around 600, if I remember correctly). But again, archeology can only prove accuracy, not inspired authorship.

3- Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not enlightenment.

Answer 8

I'm sure you have already made up your mind, but some example of how archeology is "proving" what is told in the bible as being accurate are as follows.

The bible speaks of the Hebrew people building the treasure cities of Ramases. We now know these are real places that exist.
The bible speaks of Joseph as second in command in Egypt and saving many from starvation from a famine. We know from Egyptian records this to be the case.

We read of the city of Jerico, and how it was completely destroyed by Joshua, They have found the remains, and it was completely destroyed by fire.

We Can read about David, and Goliath, you can now see pottery shards with both names inscribed as well as tablets in ancient Babaloyn that talk of the "house of David"

I know you probably say so what?, so try these: Daniel spoke of one coming a from the west, as a young goat, so swift it did not touch the ground, It knocked down the other "goats" and trampled them, and there was no one to rescue him. The victor became proud and powerful, but suddenly at the height of his power his was broken and there came four to take his place, and how they fought against the Jews. This is a perfect picture of Alexander the Great and his conquest of the Middle East, 500 years before he was born.

You may choose how you wish, but the truth is there for anyone who will look, and no, Adam and Eve where not punished for enlightenment, but for disobedience, as any parent would punish a child for disobedience, at least the parent would if they loved the child.

Answer 9

The answerer wrote: "It is truth. Archeology has proven it. Fulfilled prophecy has proven it."

I cannot disagree. Both archeology AND fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible is true. However, I would clarify that it's FAITH that confirms for the believer that the Bible is truly God's word.

There once was a time when most of the prophet Daniel's historical accounts were thought false. However, archeology eventually proved otherwise. Do a web search for Daniel and Darius and you'll see one example. Another example: the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that there has been no salient changes to the Hebrew Bible in thousands of years.

Similarly, there are hundreds of fulfilled prophesies of the Bible. As an unbeliever, you disagree. So I'll point you to one that's about to be fulfilled: read Ezekiel 38 and 39. Research what each of the countries mentioned in the prophecy are called today. Then ask yourself when, in all of history, have the first two countries mentioned EVER had an alliance? (the answer is never.) When it comes true in the near future, possibly even this summer, then will you believe?

As for the "gnostic gospels," evidence proves they were all written hundreds of years after the events transpired.

Answer 10

Hi,
The Bible is accurate enough for Archaeologist to use as a map to locate ancient cities and other sites of interest.
As far as Eve goes. She had sex with Satan and produced Cain. Cain and Able were fraternal twins but of different fathers. If you read the lineage of Adam you will not find Cain listed. That's because Cain was not Adams' child. If you read the parable of the reapers you will find that Jesus said the devil came and sowed his seeds amongst the seeds (children of Adam) they were to be left until the harvest. Jesus also said that the Pharisees were sons of Vipers. He meant Satan offspring. He also said they were of their Father the Devil. Jesus couldn't say that unless it was true. Don't confuse enlightenment with doing or knowing evil. Wrong is wrong no matter how people construe it. The Tree of knowledge wasn't an apple tree.