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 destroyed and deliberately so. History has shown that when new evidence is found it supports the Biblical account.

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 striped to nothing for relicts. The main archaeological difficulty deals with the accepted chronologies of ancient civilizations like Egypt. However the are reason to suspect that there are errors in these chronologies, that when corrected bring them in line with the Biblical account of the Flood. Futhermore the presence of [[CG201|over 500 Flood]] legends from all over the world, provide some archaeological support for the Flood.

[[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 evidce 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.

If it were only a few instances [[Talk Origins]] would have a point but there are many, the alleged problems are with popular theories not actual archaeological evidence.

Correction: Some archaeological theories and interpretations claim that archaeology contradict significant parts of the Bible.

First of all [[Talk Origins]]' source only makes the case for the lack of evidence outside 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.

Furthermore there is 1st century evidence for the existence of Nazareth.

# An inscription found in Caesarea tells of priests from Jerusalem being assigned to live Nazareth, following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

# Pottery dating from the 1st century has been found about 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 one 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 stressed that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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 assumes that the Bible is false.

And there is a good reason why there is no evidence of Israel wondering in the Sinai. The Bible does not say they wandered 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 wandering 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 evidence of Israeli occupation. It also includes 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 evidence for both their existence and their power.

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 that the first five books of the Biblical were written by Moses and that there are errors in the official chronologing particularly that of Egypt, then one will find considerable evidence to support the Biblical account.