The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it (Talk.Origins): Difference between revisions

Most so called archaeological claims against the Bible do to 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 fallacy that ignors the fact that evidence may exists but has yet to be discovered, or that evidence has been destroyed by time or act man. A good example is the fact that Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt at least twice, much useful would have been destoyed and deliberatly so. History has shown the when new evidence is found it supports the Biblical account.

[[Talk Origins]]' claim here is based on an error in Egyptian chronology. This flawed Egyptian chronology is used date artifacts from Israel. Based on the flawed Egyptian chronology, there is no evidce for a conquest of the Holy Land at the time the Bible says it took place, but if Egyptian chronology is corrected for the errors, then there is aboundent evidence for the conquest of the Holy Land.

Correction some archaeologocal theories and inerpretation that its the work of obviously biased scoffers contradict significant parts of the Bible.

First of all [[Talk Origins]]' source only makes the case for the lack of evidence out side the Bible. Given the fact that Both Matthew and Luke were written in the 1st century, that qualifies as evidence that Nazareth existed at the time. At best this is a classic case of an appeal to a lack of evidence. It assumes that the Bible is wrong unless proven right and to the satisfaction of biased scoffers. It also ignores the fact that Nazareth is reference to in four 1st century writings. A fact that does qualify as evidence for it existence.

# Pottery dating from the 1st century has been found a Nazareth.

Finally note that the url of [[Talk Origins]]' source is [http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ jesusneverexisted.com]. It is not only a biased source, but its home page has a clear tone of bigotry about it. Their depiction of president Bush as a borg is just on example of the fact that they clearly have an ax to grind.

This is nothing but an [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Appeal to Authority] since no details are given for how this conclusion is arrived at. Most likely it is a case that 1,000 B.C. is earliest that the there exists extra Biblical  evidence of wide use of camels. It needs to be remembered the the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absents.

However even if it is true, the fact that camels were not widely used does not mean that they were not used.  If camels were a luxury item, they would not be widely used, but they might be used for long hauls by people of wealth, which abraham was.

The all such alleged anachronisms are based on  ether disagreements in chronology or a simple lack of extra Biblical evidence. It is interesting to note they do not consider the Biblical record is be evidence. This because those who make such claims are basing their view of the Bible on a theory of Biblical authorship that asumes it be a fraud.

And there is a good reason why there is no evidence of Israel wondering in the Sinai. The Bible does not say that wondered in the Sinai, but the wilderness in general.[http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Num/Num014.html#33 Num 14:33] So the reason why there is no evidence in the Sinai, is that they were not wondering in the Sinai. Furthermore there is evidence the that Mt. Sinai is not even on the Sinai peninsula, but in Saudi. Arabia. This includes Mt. Sinai itself with evidnece of Israeli occupation. It also includeso evidence of the Red Sea crossing.

As is so offten the case this claim is based on an error in chronology, correcting for the error provides ample evedence for both their existance and their power.

This is a totally unsubstantiated claim, based on the unspoken assumption is that only the scoffers are objective. Given the obvious bias of one of [[Talk Origins]]' sources, they are are hardly in the position to accuse any one of forcing the evidence to fit their preconceptions. The fact is that both sides tend to interpret data based on the theories that they consider valid.