Skip to comments.Does archaeology support the Bible?
Posted on 03/19/2010 8:34:02 PM PDT by restornu
The material evidence that archaeologists have discovered supports the Bible.
Sadly, in the 1900s there was a great deal of archaeological work interpreted in a way that discredited the Bible. Of course, it has been said that archaeology proves the Bible, and this is not technically correct either.
The Bible contains much information about God, the spiritual nature of the world, and the future of man that archaeology can never prove. The best archaeology can do is substantiate what the Bible says about the past, but the importance of that should not be understated.
If, time after time, archaeology substantiates statements the Bible makes about the past, it would be logical to conclude that because the Bible is reliable historically, it must be reliable when it speaks of salvation, the coming of Christ, the Judgment, and everlasting life.
Many modern archaeologists do not think archaeology substantiates the Bible; they say it disproves the Bible. In fact, most of the universities that offer degrees in archaeology are staffed by archaeologists who do not believe the Bible.
What is the situation? As the discipline of archeology developed, many theories were set forth concerning the dating of the ancient time periods being uncovered in the ground. As the many theories gradually gave way to an accepted chronology, there was a misdating of the layers in the ground.
The subject is a complex one, and many books and articles have been written on it, but we can summarize the situation thusly: because archaeologists have mislabeled and misdated the eras of the ancient past that have been uncovered in excavations, the evidence they find in the ground does not match the biblical record. This has resulted in many of them doubting the accuracy of the Bible.
The Old Testament town of Jericho provides an excellent example of what has happened. According to the book of Joshua, when Joshua came to Jericho it was a formidable city, enclosed by a large wall and inhabited by Canaanites. Through a miracle, part of the wall of the city collapsed, which allowed the Israelite army to rush in, kill the people, and set the city on fire.
Later, Jericho was rebuilt and inhabited. If the Bible is accurate, archaeologists should be able to dig into the tel, the dirt mound, at the site of Old Testament Jericho and find a large collapsed wall associated with a burn layer. Sure enough, archaeologists do find a large wall at Jericho, which is partially collapsed and associated with a deep burn layer indicating great destruction, not just a small fire.
However, because of the way most modern archaeologists misdate the various layers, they claim when Joshua arrived, Jericho was either a deserted city or a small settlement. They say the wall was destroyed and the city burned before Joshua arrived, and Joshua simply took credit for what others had done by writing the story that now appears in the Bible.
This viewpoint, or some similar idea that discredits the Bible, can be found in many books on the archaeology of the Bible. Warner Keller, whose book, The Bible as History, has sold more than 10 million copies, writes:
For if it is the case that Israelites did not come to Jericho until the time of the occupation, i.e., about the middle or towards the end of the 13 th century B.C., they did not need to conquer the city for they found it uninhabited! 
The Bible states that Jericho was inhabited, and even fortified. Remember the record of the prostitute Rahab whose house was built into the wall and who helped the spies Joshua sent?
What about the wonderful account of the blowing of trumpets and the fall of the wall? Keller notes the findings of archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon who excavated Jericho from 1952-1958.
According to her findings the walls of Jericho had to be rebuilt during the Bronze Age no less than seventeen times. The walls were repeatedly destroyed either by earthquakes or erosion.
Perhaps this weakness of the walls of Jericho found expression in the Bible account of how the children of Israel, in order to conquer Jericho, merely had to shout their war cry when the priests blew the trumpets. 
Is Keller serious when he writes that the record in the Bible is a fable, and the idea that the walls of Jericho fell when the people shouted and blew trumpets most likely came from the fact that Jericho was known to have weak walls? Sadly, he is.
Let me restate that according to many modern archaeologists, archaeology actually disproves the Bible. This disproving happens over and over with record after record until there is little of the biblical account that they believe.
The truth about Jericho is that the weak walls were built after Joshua destroyed the Canaanite city of Jericho.
Those who believe the Bible realize that the massive wall and associated burn layer in Jericho is good evidence the Bible is true; and there is more evidence from many more archaeological excavations all over Israel and the Middle East that also supports Scripture.
Thankfully, in spite of the fact that archaeologists who do not believe the Bible hold very important positions in many universities, there are some who reject the accepted chronology and show that archaeological evidence, if interpreted properly, does support the Bible. 
One who understands what has occurred in archaeology, and has information to help correct it is David Rohl. He does a good job of summarizing the position of modern archaeologists who do not believe the Bible, and notes why there is a problem:
What lies behind this jaundiced opinion of the Bible as history? Peeling away all the layers of scholarly debate which have tended to obscure the issue over the years, we are left with one fundamental problem for those who would advocate using the Bible as a source for history: archaeological excavations in Egypt and THE LEVANT, ongoing for the best part of the last two centuries, have produced no tangible evidence to demonstrate the historical veracity of the early biblical narratives. 
Direct material support for the traditional history of the Israelite nation, as handed down in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, is virtually non-existent. It is as if the Israelites had somehow failed to leave their archaeological footprint in the ancient lands of the Bible.
Of course, if you are a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim you may have no doubts about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament or TANAKH [The Jewish Bible] narratives and the parallel stories found in the Koran.
Your weapon against this critical biblical scholarship is your absolute faith. If, on the other hand, like me, you are primarily interested in the search for historical truthwithout the sustaining support of any particular religious beliefit is essential to find archaeological evidence to demonstrate that the events recorded in the Bible actually happened and that characters such as Joseph, Moses, Saul, David and Solomon really walked this Earth some three to four thousand years ago.
It is the lack of such evidence which, in essence, lies at the very heart of the academic skepticism now prevalent in some areas of biblical scholarship. 
Rohl concludes that the reason that archaeologists do not have evidence for the biblical events is they are looking in the wrong layers of the dirt.
They have misdated the layers and assigned the wrong dates to the evidence in the ground. Rohl writes about the need to reinterpret the dating of the evidence in the earth:
This book will demonstrate that all is not well with the conventional chronology and that the only real solution to the archaeological problems which have been created is to pull down the whole structure and start again, reconstructing from the foundation upwards. 
Once the chronology of the layers in the ground is correctly interpreted, the earth yields wonderful evidence for the biblical events and helps us picture exactly what happened in the biblical records.
The depth of ash at Jericho, the strong walls of Megiddo, the pool at Gibeon, the pieces of ivory at Ahabs ivory palace, the household utensils, the weapons, and much more, allow us to get a mental picture of what life was really like when the biblical characters lived. Rohl is one historian who has seen that picture, and he writes about what is there to see when the chronology is corrected.
I will endeavor to guide you to a Promised Land ablaze with the destructions of Joshua and the twelve tribes. We can then take another step back into the distant past to try and identify the cultural remains of the Israelites left behind in Egypt after the Exodus.
A tantalizing prospect presents itself. We will be given the opportunity to wander along the dusty lanes between the houses of Jacobs descendants and look into their courtyards to see bread-baking clay ovens, grain silos and the mudbrick vaults of their tombs. If the overall chronological framework proposed in this book is anywhere near historical reality, then the period of the Israelite Sojourn will become readily apparent in the archaeology of Egypts eastern delta.
The mass graves of the victims of the final horrendous plague which fell upon Egypt will lie at our feet. The archaeological remains of the store-city built with the sweat of Israelite slaves during the Bondage period will be identified. Finally, I intend to take you into the Egyptian tomb of the patriarch Joseph. 
Although it may be debated whether or not Rohl has properly reconstructed the ancient chronology, it cannot be debated that in order to reestablish a correct chronology, the one accepted today by most archaeologists needs to be completely reconstructed. Another scholar who recognized the need to completely reconstruct the chronology of the Exodus and the early years of the Israelite occupation of the land of Israel is the late Donovan Courville. His rare two-volume work,
The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, is a masterpiece offering a very plausible explanation of the chronology of the Exodus, including the name of the Pharaoh who opposed Moses.  The late Joseph P. Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History, is another scholar who recognized the need to adjust the accepted dating of many of the archaeological sites in Israel. 
Once the chronology of the Middle East is corrected and the layers of dirt the archaeologists are digging in are correctly labeled, all the missing evidence for the biblical accounts will be right there in front of our eyes.
When you walk up the steps to the Temple that Jesus walked up, when you hold a 3,000 year old oil lamp, when you stand on the remains of the castle wall at Samaria, or walk through the water tunnel Hezekiah built to protect his people from the Assyrians, there is a powerful emotional connection that occurs between you and the Bible, you and the biblical characters, and you and your God.
That is why many people visiting Israel weep at the ancient and holy sites. The misdating of the layers of the earth by modern archaeologists has prevented many people from seeing the rich evidence for the truth of the Bible. Furthermore, it has contributed to their being skeptical of the Bible and disconnected from God.
It is a blessing that we live in a time when there are some historians and archaeologists who are not content to accept the standard chronology with all the doubt and unbelief that goes along with it, but rather are working to restore the true chronology of the layers in the earth. Anyone searching for the truth can read what these men and women have to say.
It is my sincere prayer that there will come a day when the histories and chronologies of the archaeological sites are corrected, and the discipline of archaeology itself is reconstructed to reflect the true history of the world.
Regardless of how closely archaeological finding match the Scriptural narrative nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.
Does the bible support reality?
Its a book of parables and fables and allegories based on fact that are supposed to give inspiration to make one a better person.
Anyone that takes the bible literally is nuts.
As far as the Bible goes...My tag line pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve read that there is archeological evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate, because his name was on the dedication stone of a theater. Also, I read that King David had been disparaged by archeologists as probably only a minor local chieftain, until a reference to “King” David was found in the writings of some other nearby culture.
I agree, though, with Natural Law, that the Bible isn’t a history book. It’s a love story about God and his people.
Archeologists can’t prove or disprove the Bible, but they can use the Bible as a reference tool, since it does refer to various historical events.
Wow. That's a HUGH leap!
Historical accuracy does not automatically validate magical claims.
Read Rohl’s book before you spew ignorantly. If you’d done any actual research...even cursory, you’d not embarrass yourself.
Besides, the advocated child slaughter in 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 doesn’t seem divinely inspired.
i guess there a lot of nutty folks out there.... and yes republicans have to show more spine everywhere...
“Anyone that takes the bible literally is nuts.”
That comment in and of itself is literally nuts - and grossly uninformed.
Ya’ll go ahead and put me in the “nuts” category then. I’m fine with that. I’m not afraid of taking God at His word, nor do I need historical accuracy of this or that to validate what I’ve experienced personally. It’s validated to me in me. I know this God and I recognize His voice.
"Experts" once claimed the city of Ur was a myth. Archeaologists found Ur in it's Biblical location.
"Experts" once dismissed the book of Daniel as a forgery. The earliest known copies were written after the events clearly described in it's "prophesies." Later, copies of the book of Daniel predating the Prophesies were found.
lefty-lie-spy, are you an Expert?
The Bible wasn’t intended to be a historical work, but it is one. It’s authorship is not known, and it’s purpose is to teach faith, but it also contains long lists of who did what and where they did it. There are not a lot of records extant from those days. The Romans weren’t there for most of the Old Testament days and the Greeks didn’t leave much about Israel. Neither did the Israelis, apparently, except for The Torah, The Bible and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The debate about historical accuracy of The Bible is a very important one. We can take it as an article of faith and a guide to life, but at the same time, we want to know about the people who lived when it was written. Thus we wonder, how accurate are the stories?
I spent 20 years as a Christian. I was a Sunday School teacher, church pianist, youth group worker, and deacon. Losing my faith was a long, painful process involving years of studying, and yes, praying.
I was only commenting on the statement that historical accuracy somehow gives credence to Biblical claims about the supernatural.
Same here. See #8.
The Bible is 'HIS-story', and from Genesis to HIS birth in the flesh is His historical record.
Paul says ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples) and they are written for our admonition, (warning), upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.
For any who would can read the 'script' and have at least a general idea of where we are in time appointed, and what to expect next. The Heavenly Father needs no man created/formed filtration system to speak to whom ever He decides to speak to. He put His WORD into print.
People have the 'right' to believe whatever they decide to believe. I can't wait for the day when people that ridicule the WORD of God get a front row seat and find out how far out in left field they literally are.
IF Rahab was a hooker, why did she have enough flax drying on her roof to hide two men?
I find there are usually 3 kinds of opinions. 1) People who beleive without question. 2) People who reject without any research. 3) People who don’t care.
I used to be in the number two category until I did my homework. Now I can make an honest opinion and say without any doubt that the Bible is truly a facsinating and historical document that dates thousands of years of middle east history. It is also a very short version of hundreds of thousands of scrolls, books, prophetic writings, generational stories and eye witness testimonies. It also merges all this information from many different civilizations..Accadian, Chaldean, Egyption, Sumerian, Hebrew, just to name a few. Do your research on Bible History instead of trying to just read the Bible itself. As far as proof there is a God or Gods? That is for you to decide!
Are you saying that Rahab's profession prevented the presence of flax on her roof? This sounds fascinating. Please expand upon your initial statement.
That's because you're a hater! You're just filled with hateful hatred!!!
Just kidding, God bless you sister, -> ;-)
Rahab is the only one described in her house, and initially she is called a harlot. And somebody in the powers that be, was watching her place closely enough, they knew these two men had gone into her place of business.
There had to be a whole lot of flax drying on her roof to hide two grown men. So which is it, she was a hooker or she was in the flax business?
It's analogous to what Einstein (I think) said, that no experiment can prove him right, but just one could prove him wrong.
Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living." If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open minds to understand the Scriptures."
Christianity is a reality not a 'religion'. It gets labeled a religion by the unlearned or anti-Christian mind that will or can not accept reality and decides to do things their way. There is nothing new about this since the beginning of this flesh age.
John 1:1 says In the beginning (Genesis 1:1 and there is NO date given when this was) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The 'Holy Spirit' or 'Comforter' is not going to fill a mind with anything that is anti-God in the name of Christ. However, it is also Written because of what some put into their minds, God said he would send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.
Again Paul said what happened to them was written as our warning as to what would be again and even Solomon penned in Ecclesiastes 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new?' it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
I gladly await the time when these that are in the business of making business in futile attempts to discredit the Bible as though they are seeing 'new' for the first time get exposed as charlatans for the dark side.
Arguments over whether Christianity is a religion or something else is a problem of languadge, not theology.
Not necessarily so IF the ideology is that all 'religions' by their nature are equal. And these that are in the business of discrediting the Bible in the 'religion' of 'archaeology' deceive many into viewing Christianity as one of the many.
You are partly right. Some books of the bible contain parables and storys to make a point. Other books are song books or books of poetry. But several books are historoical record and serve no other purpose other than to record an historical account. It is from these historical books that archaeology links to. A prime example is the books of 1 & 2 Kings. and 1 & 2 Chronicles. Which list bloodline vs. time spans and lists major events and battles and where and when they occured. Dry reading to be sure. but when you do the math it come out right.
Why not? Obviously it was written in truth since the evidence shows that...so it is perfectly logical that the prinicples also are truth. Besides the fact that they work in our lives! forgive and you will be forgiven...judge and you will be judged...perfect evidence...judge and you will feel self judgement, works everytime! Whether or not we recognize that unhappiness and depression as judgement.
I am not buying into if / then statements for the sake of making your point. We all know what is meant by "religion".
No we all do not know what is meant by "religion". I am not 'selling' anything. God repeatedly used the word IF as in a requirement as to what would follow. IF His people did or did not hearken to Him and His WORD then this or that would surely follow. I used the word IF as in what is worldly branded regarding the nature of all religions.
This article is regarding archaeology supporting the Bible. And then goes on to attempt to dilute Scriptural claims as though they are of knowledge and higher intellect as to entering what their findings literally mean. From the Garden Party onward there has always been somebody on the scene denying, diluting, or disparaging the WORD.
Joshua 2:1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, "Go view the land, even Jericho."
And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.
2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country."
3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, "Bring forth the men that are com to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country."
4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, "There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:
.......6 But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.... (Notice she had laid them, not her father.)
I am not going to type the rest of the story but in verse 18 Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee......
It just does not read to me she was in the hooking business.
As far as I know, every city referenced therein has been found, except two: Sodom and Gomorrah.
So she 'worked at home'. What, she can't have two jobs?
NOW if they lived with her why was she instructed to bring them home to her house??????
She is called a harlot, but then everything else about her says NOTHING about her selling herself for her living. Any idea how much flax she would have to taken up to her roof to hide two grown men. When would she have the time to sell herself and raise and harvest and dry and sell flax.... threat/material etc?
I just expect if somebody is called a harlot, then I would read something, anything that describes what she does as being related to said business.
In some translations she's called an innkeeper instead of a harlot.
They could have been offered as payment, and were being dried for the extraction of the fiber to make linnen. Any step in the process would add value to the flax.
Being a harlot would not necessarily require that she be on her back 24/7.
I saw an article a few years back which said some high dollar call girls were also full-time college students, 'working' their way through school. They worked shorter hours for far better pay than their more conventionally employed counterparts.
Interesting and curious. And thanks.
IF.... this were in the Wall Street Journal or a Forbes business story then I would not 'quibble' regarding the business. However, there can be NO doubt the Heavenly Father touched this woman as noted in Joshua 2:9-13 by her knowledge of who these men were and why they showed up at her business/home. NO pillow talk described.
I can take things as they are, but what I read does not fit the claim she was a hooker.
I read what is Written. And what is Written does not indicate anything about Rahab as being a hooker as she is labeled. Nothing Written about her indicates she makes a living off selling herself for income, except that she is called a harlot.
Now given she knew who these men were and what the LORD had promised was going to happen, where did she get this information, not likely something some 'john' pass on in pillow talk. The label does not fit the story and so I question the label.
There are many characters in the Bible that we don't much about, or their lives or work.... Just because the bible says she was a harlot, does not mean we need to know any more narrative about her as being a harlot, besides, the bible tells us that she stopped being a harlot when she decided to join Israel... Just because there are people in the bible, and the only thing it says, was that they were a .. i.e. a king, a horse care taker, a slave, tax collector, or whatever, does not mean we need to know everything about them, unless ? the bible goes more into what and who they are..... I don't waste my time on those things I can't figure out myself from the bible unless GOD would reveal it to me... How about the man who , when he saw the ARK about to fall to the ground off the cart, and touched the ARK, GOD smote him... do we know much about what he work or job was ? All we know is ? he touched the ARK, and was dead on the spot.. Lesson learned ? don't touch what GOD has made holy...
Actually, I am not convinced she ever was a 'harlot'. Not that I consider a 'harlot' committing the unpardonable 'sin'. However, I would at least expect to find something/anything given all that is Written about her to indicate something that gives credibility that she actually was a hooker. Instead what is Written about her is that she was a hard working, 'GOD' fearing woman that in spite of her city being destroyed, did what was right and was protected.
I don't know is there a Saint Rahab, or do people still refer to her as 'that' harlot?