[Casekirchen]

"There is sometimes a reality, a very precise reality, though maybe not all true, described in the Bible," Mazar said. "This is giving the Bible's version a chance."

--- Has there been an instance where archeology has proven the Bible wrong?

[MeanWestTexan]

Of course not, but I bet it has changed several pre-conceived notions about what the Bible says.

A distinct difference, that.

[VOA]

From what I've picked up, there are plenty of cases in which archaeology
has eventually been show to back up the Biblical account.
E.g., those non-existent Hittites, names of folks like Pilate finally
found in stone, etc.

[Junior]

The Biblical account Israelite conqest of the land of Canaan has been called into question by archaeological findings.

[GOPPachyderm]

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, the answer is that there are no archaelogical discoveries that disprove the Bible. Previously, however, assured results of higher criticism used to tell us the Bible wasn't true because there was no proof of the existence of the Hittites. Subsequently archaeological evidence proved these experts wrong and the Bible right. Assured results of higher criticism also said that people didn't travel as far as Abraham claimed in his travel from the city of Ur. Archaeologists later found proof that not only did people travel that far, wagons were rented that presumably would not only travel that far - but be returned! Bible critics were again proved wrong.