“It
may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery
has
ever controverted a single biblical reference.
Scores of
archeological findings have been made which confirm
in clear
outline or in exact detail historical statements in the
Bible.”
---Nelson
Glueck--
There
are many books on archeological discoveries and not one has ever
proven the Bible false.Archeologists do not conduct digs with the
discovery of contradictory evidence in mind.Most discoveries are made
by accident,and some archeologists follow up those discoveries with
the Bible in mind,but like any other branch of science,their evidence
is subjected to peer review.The evidence is real,but the
interpretations of that evidence may not always be correct.Incorrect
interpretations can hurt both sides of the argument.While evidence
that proves the Bible is fabricated does not exist,evidence that
proves the possibility of events being real should be presented with
care.There may never be any evidence in favor of the Bible that will
satisfy critics,and the best that defenders can hope for,in many
instances, is proof of the possibility.Having done that,we are able
to discredit any evidence that contradicts Scripture.There is no such
thing as evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt,which defenders are
expected to present.When the possibility is shown,we are told that
the date given the evidence does not match the chronology of the
Bible.Critics will most often accept the events of the Bible from the
time of the divided kingdom on,but reject the idea that the
Israelites were the forunners of the Jews.It's the period of the
Patriarchs,the enslavement and the Exodus that critics claim are
fabricated.In the past,it was common to claim that the nation of
Israel was founded during the Babylonian exile.As more evidence was
discovered,their claim was pushed back to the time of the later
kings.There is now evidence of the existence of the kings
Ahab,Omri,Jehu and other,which has caused critics to push the
founding of Israel farther back.They now agree that the kingdom may
have existed but not as early as Solomon or David.Now archeology has
evidence of king David,in the form of the Tel-Dan inscriptions.In
spite of that,critics claim that the inscription may not be referring
to the Biblical David,or to a dynasty.The phrase “House of
David” is a dead giveaway.The use of “house of” has
always indicated a dynasty,and coupled with the name Israel could
mean nothing else except “The dynasty of David.”For there
to have been a dynasty of David,there had to have been a king
David.At one time critics made the claim that the kingdoms and cities
named in the Bible were fabricated.Archeology has discovered
inscriptions from Canaan naming some of those kingdoms,and at least
one Egyptian inscription from prior to the Exodus,mentions Edom.In
years to come,critics will not be able to deny the evidence and will
have to push their time of the founding of Israel back even
farther.Much of the evidence now points not only to the
possibility,but to the absloute.In most cases critics deny events
simply because they came from the Bible.It is probably safe to say
that if the only evidence of a mammoth came from the Bible,some
critics would claim it is a myth and there was no such thing as a
giant elephant.They deny the existence of the Biblical
giants,although Sumerian inscriptions claim they existed.Egyptian
inscriptions refer to the Anakim.Extreme physical appearance in the
bible is difficult for critics to believe,yet they admit that pygmies
exist.it's not so much that critics are unwilling to accept the
unbelievable,but they are unwilling to accept anything
Biblical.
Historians that are critical of the
Bible can't be trusted to present accurate interpretations of the
evidence.Many have gone so far as to claim that the absence of
evidence is evidence of absence.No scientist worth His diploma will
make that claim.If that were true,scientists would have to admit that
evolution absolutely does not include speciation.There is no evidence
in favor of any species evolving into a completely different
species.Science has been searching for the missing link,since someone
claimed there is one,and nothing has ever been found.Charles
darwin,Himself,claimed that evolution began after the Creation.Most
critics claim that Darwin was an atheist,or that he bacame an
atheist.That's not true.Darwin had difficulty in combining his
discoveries with His religious beliefs,and abandoned the belief that
the Bible should be taken literally.He did not abandone His belief
altogether.He tried compromise between creation and evolution and was
troubled with problems in His theory until he died.In defense of the
Christian belief,Darwins daughter claimd that His theories was
anti-Biblical and therefore He had become an atheist.In His
writings,Darwain often referred to Creation and creatures.Critics
have always implied that Darwin believed in accidental existence,and
have never been able to explain His use of Creation.When quoting
Darwin they leave that out hoping that Bible defenders won't
know.Critics depend on Bible defenders knowing less about science and
history than they do.There are many critics and defendres both that
have the wrong idea about speciation.It doesn't indicate a complete
change in appearance or habits.In science it indicates a change to
the point of not being able to reproduce offspring with members of
the parent group.That member is then referred to as a new
species.
It is dangerous for critics to believe
every anti-Bilical book published.Among the foremost authors of such
books are Israel Finkelstein,and Ze'ev Herzog.They based their
beliefs on no evidence,but didn't apply that belief to evidence of
other nations.There are so much missing information from the early
dynasties of Egypt,that some archeologists have taken the stand that
some of the Kings listed in the turin King list and Menethos king
list never existed.Some historians list the names,but use a question
mark instead of the dates of their reigns.In reality,the Israelite's
history is better preserved than their neighbors,but there are still
over zealous scholors and Bible defenders who jump on the first
evidence that appears to verify the Bible.That can lead to the loss
of credibility for the defenders that use such information.The one
that has done the most damage to Apologetics is Ron Wyatt.He claimed
to have found Noah's ark,which had never been done in over a hundred
years of searching.He claimed to have discovered the place where the
Israelites crossed the Red Sea,and even included photos of Egyptian
chariot wheels under the water.He has since been exposed as a fraud
by archeologists,but many people continue to use His
“discoveries.”Following His death,the number has
escalated.There is enough real evidence that Bible defenders do not
have to resort to fabricated evidence.Below is a lit of some of the
most often disputed evidence.
Eden.There
is evidence that Eden was a real place,and was known to
Mesopotamians.
The
Flood.Archeology
has proven that there was at least a local flood that is consistent
with Bible chronology.
The
Table of Nations in
the Bible and the dispersion of tongues is very accurate according to
Linguists.
The
Patriarchs.Evidence
from Egypt tell of famines that can be placed within the time Abraham
would have gone to Egypt,and a famine at the time Isaac would have
gone to Gerar.The evidence even expalins why Isaac didn't go to Egypt
as was customery in time of famine.
The
Amorites invasion
and subjecation of the Canaanites was a real event.
The
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.Archeology
has proven it was a real event,and gives the causes for the complete
destruction.The date of the destruction can be placed within the
actual chronology of the Bible.
The
Philistines were
in the middle east far earlier than critics claim.
The
King that knew not Joseph has
been shown to be accurate.There was not only a new king on the throne
of Egypt at the time of the enslavement of the Israelites,but the
return of the rule of Egypt to Egyptians.
The
Exodus can
now be considered an actual event due to the discovery of the Sinai
inscriptions,along with archeological evidence that relates to events
that only an eyewitness would have been aware of.
The
Conquest has
been recorded in Syrian and Canaanite letters to the kings of
Egyptians,which describe a situation in Canaan that mirrors the
Bible.
Walled
cities abundant throughout Canaan at the time of the
Conquest,and many existed at the time of Abraham.Jerusalem was not a
cowtown.
Israel
has been recorded in the
Mernepthah stele proving that the kingdom existed much earlier than
the divided Kingdom.The stele is,in fact,dated prior to the time of
King Saul.
Cyrus
actually
received a command from God to conquer the Babylonians and return the
exiled people to their lands.
There are many good web sites that
cover Bible archeology,from the patriarchs to the time of Jesus.
The
Book of Joshua is not
contradictory,and there was only one conquest,which lasted into the
time of the Judges.
The following is a short list of some of
the best archeloogy sites.
Probe.org/
Bible
history
Bible
Mysteries
Base
Institute
Fordham
BibleEvidences
The
above Bible evidences was written by an ex critic of the
Bible.Research led Him to accept the Bible as truth.His story is
interesting in that it is similar to mine.I developed an interest in
Bible archeology to prove that critics were correct in claiming that
evidence proves the history of the Bible wrong.I believed in the
Bible as being inspired by God,but thought of the history of the
Israelites as seperate and for the most part fabricated.The more I
researched,the more I discovered that archeology not only doesn't
disprove the Bible,it helps to fortify it.I continued to research
archeology but with a different goal in mind.Believers in Bible
history don't need to be shown the Bible is accurate.The evidence
can,however,make a believer out of a critic.Archeology can be a
useful tool for teaching the accuracy of Scripture,but all sources
should be checked out.That includes myself.While I have attempted to
produce evidence as truthful as possible,I expect and suggest that
mine also be researched.The following is a list of resources from
which my material was taken.
Kathleen Kenyon
1942
The Buildings at Samaria
1954
Guide to Ancient Jericho1957
Digging Up Jericho1960
Archaeology in the Holy Land,second edition 1965,third 19701966
Amorites and Canaanites
1978
The Bible and recent archaeology
A. H. LayardNineveh
and Its Remains, London 1849
Nineveh
and Babylon, London 1853
The
Stones of Assyria (1936
Sir
Leonard Woolley
1953
and Excavations at Ur: A Record of 12 Years’ Work, published in
1954.Ur
of the Chaldees: A Record of Seven Years of Excavation.The
Sumerians (1928), Digging Up the Past (1930),
Ur
of the Chaldees (1938, rev. ed. 1952),
A
Forgotten Kingdom (1953, rev. ed. 1959),
Excavations
at Ur (1954).
Nelson
Glueck
Explorations
in Eastern Palestine (4 vol., 1934-51),
The Other Side of the
Jordan (1940),
The River Jordan (1946),
Rivers in the Desert:
A History of the Negev (1959),
Hesed in the Bible (1968).
One
of the interesting things about the discoveries of Kathleen Kenyon is
that she wanted the destruction of Jerico to fit the commonly used
dates of the conquest of Canaan.At that time the date was based on
the reign of the Egyptian king,Ramesses II which placed the Exodus in
the 13th century bce.Her date for the destruction of
Jerico was around 1400 bce,and her dissapointment showed in one of
her quotes:
‘It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the
Late Bronze Age,
within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any
dating,
not a trace remains …. The excavation of Jericho, therefore,
has
thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is
so vividly described in the Book of Joshua.’.
With a
conquest in 1200 bce,Joshua would have found Jerico in rubble.Bible
chronology places the conquest more accurately in 1418 bce which
makes Kenyon's date coincide with the Bible more accurately than she
could have imagined.Garstang agreed with Kenyon on the dating which
he placed around 1400 bce.There was pressure to make the destruction
fit the believed date of the Biblical conquest,and Garstang gave in
and agreed to a date of 1200 bce.Although many historians and Bible
scholors stay with a conquest date of 1200 bce,that is not accurate
according to Scripture.The historian Flavius Josephus,The
Septuigent,the Samaritan Pentateuch,and other manuscripts give a
chronology that would place the Exodus in 1458 bce and thus the
Conquest in 1418 bce.The Bible
also makes the same claim,which is covered in the Moses
and the Conquest.