48
edits
The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it (Talk.Origins): Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it (Talk.Origins) (view source)
Revision as of 23:33, 11 July 2006
, 11 July 2006Fixed some errors
m (Minor corrections, some new additions.) |
m (Fixed some errors) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Nor does objective archaeology counter any Biblical claim. | Nor does objective archaeology counter any Biblical claim. | ||
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 destroyed and | 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 destroyed and deliberately so. History has shown that when new evidence is found it supports the Biblical account. | ||
{{to quote| | {{to quote| | ||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
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 are are hardly in the position to accuse any one of forcing the evidence to fit their preconceptions. It is | 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 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 of 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 of 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. | ||
