Do archaeologists and historians sometimes ignore simple biblical answers?

Question

There was an episode on the history channel about the Hittites on which it showed systems of underground cave cities where it stated that the Hittites went to protect themselves from their enemies. It also stated that the Hittites disappeared around 1200 BC, and that their disappearance cannot be accounted for.

The next day my husband and I were having our daily devotional. We were reading about the Israelites going in to conquer the land of Canaan (around 1200BC-1100BC). It tells of them conquering the Hittites, among others, and completely destroying them. Also, in Judges Chapter 6 it tells of the Israelites living in caves to protect themselves from invaders.

Seems to me this would explain the "unexplained disappearance" of the Hittites. Even if some people don't want to admit it, the bible is full of historical information.

To stiggo 62.
The bible does not list dates. I obtained the date from a timeline chart, which was created by scholars.

To: The angels have the phone box

Goodness, I wasn't trying to "make a mountain out of a mole hill". Please forgive me if it seemed that way. I was just wondering why the biblical text was not considered.

To: oozɐƃ ʇɐǝɹƃ,
newgrang, and
beer drinking lemur

Thank you for your answers. On a personal basis, as a Christian, I still feel that the answer in the bible is correct, but now I can more easily understand that physical proof is required in order for the scientific community to render a definite conclusion in the matter.

Answer 1

Bravo! I was thinking about historical evidence and the Bible this morning and wondered the same thing.

Answer 2

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Few people say that the Tanakh has *no* historical information. But it has been proven to have a good deal of historical MIS-information as well. Archaeologists of that region and period make plenty of use of the texts. They just know that it's not always right.

So while, the Tanakh *might* tell what happened, archaeologists are looking for *physical* evidence (including unearthed texts). If they find it, and thereby confirm the story in Judges, that's even better proof.

Why not accept that that's the way they work?

Answer 3

They have a saying in archeology. If you're looking for something, you'll find it. If you have preconcieved ideas, any information can be read to support you.

Most of the stuff on the history channel and the discovery channel are one sided. I don't really care for the Naked Archeology show because he only interperets things the Biblical way and leaves next to no room for anyone who disagrees with him. There was one show about Nefertiti they had where they gave all this information supporting this woman's belief that a mummy that she found was her. But if that were her she would have to have out lived her husband. There aren't many people out there who accept that theory.

Another problem I have with the learning channels about is they don't have a unified belief on things. The information you get from one cannot be transferred from one to another. An example of this is their endorsement of the arch being invented by the Romans. It wasn't invented by the Romans but the Romans used arches everywhere.

Answer 4

first of all, the History Channel does not represent the entirety of historical or archeological views.

in history, there is always an ongoing debate. Various people present evidence and offer conclusions; others agree or disagree, challenging points or offering counter-points or alternatives.

From a historical pont of view, the bible is a perspective that can be considered, just as oral aboriginal stories, artwork, or other evidence can be. But there is not a lot of corroboration. The bible does not automatically gain or lose weight as a historical source, but like other sources that are not readily supported by other sources, it can be called into question.

Answer 5

While the Bible does contain some historical information that could be used as a starting point .It is neither a historical or a scientific document. Archaeologists must prove their theory's and the bible does not contain enough proof to back up any information from a scientific standpoint.

Answer 6

Well usually there is pretty easy to read archaeological evidence if they were all killed off in a battle. Walls toppled, bodies left in the streets, general every day things left in place because of the hurried exit.

That site probably exhibited none of the signs. And there are plenty of things in the Bible that aren't historically accurate, so it isn't going to be a primary source.

Answer 7

some extremely have confidence he did no longer exist. Discovery channel? My information there grow to be references to "the instructor" yet those could have been yet another instructor. Press releases of the time which could have talked approximately Jesus' execution made no point out of it, suggesting that the Crucifixion could have been an invention. different historians propose, Jesus grow to be areal guy or woman yet Mary Magdalene grow to be bankrolling Jesus and he or she could have been the authentic chief of the early "christian" church. that is even nonetheless a stretch to have confidence the miracles etc weren't in basic terms fairy memories. i like to have confidence in my own own miracles yet genuine miracles that bypass muster with the skeptics society are no longer project-free to discover today and there's a stable hazard that some embellishing could have taken place. E.g. Mary and Joseph would possibly no longer have slept walked one night to cudddle below the celebs, and dreampt God had performed the deed with Mary. Or Joseph might have snuck in claiming to be an angel. Or Mary might have lied approximately being a virgin. in the OT the observe used meant youthful teen. In New testomony greek observe for virgin grow for use. The OT observe grow to be comparable to todays use of maiden. I.e a youthful woman probably a virgin. today maximum toddlers are presumed by utilising their mothers and fathers to be virgins yet maximum of them are having intercourse. Biblical situations could have not been so distinctive.

Answer 8

Have you considered the fact that not everyone is a christian. The history channel documentaries use science and factual evidence when trying to explain something.

I dont think most of the viewers watching the history channel would be happy with 'because god did it' to be honest.

I have nothing against christians and your beliefs but would you people please stop trying to impose your beliefs onto people.

Answer 9

I'm sure that scholars have considered that possibility. However, they have no actual evidence. Thus, their disappearance remains unaccounted for.

When someone goes missing, police might turn up a lead in someone's diary claiming to have killed that person. However, if they can uncover no corroborating evidence they continue to consider the disappearance unaccounted for.

Answer 10

Since the time line is merely an arbitrary number created by 'scholars', it is meaningless. As is any attempt to use the bible to prove anything.