736
edits
Zephyr Axiom (talk | contribs) (tidying up the grammar and adding a tiny bit) |
Zephyr Axiom (talk | contribs) m (spelling) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Nor does objective archaeology counter any Biblical claim. | Nor does objective archaeology counter any Biblical claim. | ||
Most so called archaeological claims against the Bible are arguments of lack of evidence, that is the claim is based on the assumption that the Bible is wrong until evidence is found to prove it right. This is a fallacy that | Most so called archaeological claims against the Bible are arguments of lack of evidence, that is the claim is based on the assumption that the Bible is wrong until evidence is found to prove it right. This is a fallacy that ignores the fact that evidence may exists but has yet to be discovered, or that evidence has been destroyed by time or act of man. A good example is the fact that Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt at least twice, and thus much useful would have been destroyed and deliberately so. History has shown that when new evidence is found it supports the Biblical account. | ||
{{to quote| | {{to quote| | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
}} | }} | ||
First of all creation would not have left any direct archaeological evidence. The only direct archaeological evidence for the Flood would be finding Noah's ark and unless it is in a fairly inaccessible location like [[Mt. Ararat]], it would probably have long ago been stripped to nothing for relicts. The main archaeological difficulty deals with the accepted chronologies of ancient civilizations like Egypt. However there are reasons to suspect that there are errors in these chronologies that, when corrected, bring them in line with the Biblical account of the Flood. | First of all creation would not have left any direct archaeological evidence. The only direct archaeological evidence for the Flood would be finding Noah's ark and unless it is in a fairly inaccessible location like [[Mt. Ararat]], it would probably have long ago been stripped to nothing for relicts. The main archaeological difficulty deals with the accepted chronologies of ancient civilizations like Egypt. However there are reasons to suspect that there are errors in these chronologies that, when corrected, bring them in line with the Biblical account of the Flood. Furthermore the presence of [[CG201|over 500 Flood]] legends from all over the world, provide some archaeological support for the Flood. | ||
Reference: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp Searching for Moses] | Reference: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp Searching for Moses] | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
}} | }} | ||
[[Talk Origins]]' claim here is based on an error in [[Egyptian chronology]]. This flawed Egyptian chronology is used to date artifacts from Israel. Based on the flawed Egyptian chronology, there is no | [[Talk Origins]]' claim here is based on an error in [[Egyptian chronology]]. This flawed Egyptian chronology is used to date artifacts from Israel. Based on the flawed Egyptian chronology, there is no evidence for a conquest of the Holy Land at the time the Bible says it took place, but if the Egyptian chronology is corrected for the errors, then there is abundant evidence for the conquest of the Holy Land. | ||
Reference: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp Searching for Moses] | Reference: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp Searching for Moses] | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions. | Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions. | ||
|} | |} | ||
This is a totally unsubstantiated claim, based on the unspoken assumption that only the scoffers are objective. Given the obvious bias of one of [[Talk Origins]]' sources, they | This is a totally unsubstantiated claim, based on the unspoken assumption that only the scoffers are objective. Given the obvious bias of one of [[Talk Origins]]' sources, they are hardly in the position to accuse any one of forcing the evidence to fit their preconceptions. It is a fact that both sides of the issue of the authenticity of the Bible tend to interpret the evidence based on their presuppositions. | ||
If one accepts the theory that the first five books of the Biblical were not written by Moses and that the official chronologies (particularly that of Egypt) is accurate, then one will not find much evidence to support the Biblical account. | If one accepts the theory that the first five books of the Biblical were not written by Moses and that the official chronologies (particularly that of Egypt) is accurate, then one will not find much evidence to support the Biblical account. |
edits