Archeologly proves the Bible?

[supercorgi]

This is an offshoot of a discussion with Kurious Kathy in which she asked me to start a new thread. The topic is archeological evidence that the Bible it true to which she attests. I attest that there is next to no archeological evidence that the Bible is true. Here is my response to one of her posts:

Hey Tim and Sc I am in Maui on a family vacation so some of my resources are at home and I can't get to it right now, plus I do not have this info memorized since archeology is not one of my specific areas of special interest or study. I just know there are many new discoveries especially in the last few years so I would not ignore that. I can share some of the other info I have for you once I get back home.

I understand. Enjoy your vacation. Yet when you get back, I'd be very interested in any information you could provide.

Also you can also easily find other archeological discoveries that are documented well if you'll pick up a copy of an Archeology Bible. Since you seem very interested in this subject I think you'll find this resource very helpful. I do not own a copy myself but I have seen them and now maybe I'll buy one too so I can help others like you who have these kinds of questions.

Please supply the full name of the book. A search on "Archeolgoy Bible" on amazon produces a number of hits. I'd be interested in reading this.

You should also be aware of that Biblical archeology, as a whole, does not get a lot of respect from the archeological community. This is because, archaeologists do not go into the field with a lot of presuppositions. They do field work to find what is there and then draw some tentative conculsions from it that they hope will be verified by more field work. Yes archaeologists have hypothesis which they go into the field to test - yet, if the evidence does not support these hypotheses, they refine or abandon them. They go to examine the evidence, not to pigeonhole it into their theory.

Biblical archaeologists (and I repeat not all - some are fine scholars) go into the field with a bunch of presuppositions. They go into the field to find evidence that the Bible is true - and sometimes ignore or discount evidence that does not fit with their hypotheses. They go with a certainty that something is true and look for evidence to support it - they do not go with an idea (which may or may not be true) and let the evidence (or lack of) speak for itself. They do not use accepted archeological methods.

For example, my area of specialty was pre-iron age Europe - basically the Celts. My professor's area of expertise was on how trade contact with the Romans transformed the Celts. The evidence - trade goods from Rome in Celtic lands, trade goods from Celts in Rome, change in burial practices amongst the Celts, changes in communities amongst the Celts. Strong evidence yet at the same time (this was 20 years ago) not conclusive.

You need evidence. Solid evidence. Not just evidence that such and such a city actually existed. This is no evidence for the Bible but just evidence that such a place existed and was widely know in the Roman/Biblical world. If you are trying to provide evidence that the Bible was true, you need strong evidence that the things that occurred in the Bible actually happened. For example, we know that the Jews did not build the pyramids and may not even been slaves in Egypt. We have no evidence to a mass exodus and no evidence that a large group of people wandered in the Sinai for many years. Nil, nada, nothing.

The same is true for the Flood. There is no evidence for this and any twisting of the geological record is dishonest. The Grand Canyon provides NO evidence for a world-wide flood despite Creationists attempt to make it so. The Grand Canyon was formed by 1000s of years of sedimentary rock being laid down and then eroded by a river. The strata in the Grand Canyon attest to this. Sedimentary rock to that depth does not form over a matter of a year or so.

 

[boloboffin]

What Kathy surely meant was this:

The Archaeological Study Bible, which "opens your eyes to the archaeological, historical, and cultural contexts of the stories you read and the people you meet in Scripture."

Christian booksellers finally recognized the marketing bonanza suggested by the perennial success of the Scofield Bible -- by releasing copies of the Bible with notes all ready to bolster the confirmation of a particular group of Christians, you can sell virtually the same product to them again and again. A simple rewrite and you can sell it again to people who prefer a different version of the text. Whittle it down and you've got the compact edition. Add some more and correct the spelling, you've got an updated edition.

The possibilities are endless.

 

[supercorgi]

What Kathy surely meant was this:

The Archaeological Study Bible, which "opens your eyes to the archaeological, historical, and cultural contexts of the stories you read and the people you meet in Scripture."

Christian booksellers finally recognized the marketing bonanza suggested by the perennial success of the Scofield Bible -- by releasing copies of the Bible with notes all ready to bolster the confirmation of a particular group of Christians, you can sell virtually the same product to them again and again. A simple rewrite and you can sell it again to people who prefer a different version of the text. Whittle it down and you've got the compact edition. Add some more and correct the spelling, you've got an updated edition.

The possibilities are endless.

I'll have to look into it but I don't hold much hope that it's legimate scholarly work. Apologists seem to pick and choose their "evidence." As I said before, lots of Biblical archeology is often a matter of having a conclusion and look for data to support it of it instead of look for data and then form some hypothesis.

And again, just because the city of Jerusalem is a fact, does not mean that Jesus's life and death (and non death) are a fact.

 

[shadron]

I would direct your attention to a similar thread a few months past:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141570&highlight=archaeology+Bible

 

[Ladewig]

I would direct your attention to a similar thread a few months past:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141570&highlight=archaeology+Bible

I went back to have a look at that thread. I think it will be a very accurate foreshadowing of what this thread will become.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'll have to look into it but I don't hold much hope that it's legimate scholarly work. Apologists seem to pick and choose their "evidence." As I said before, lots of Biblical archeology is often a matter of having a conclusion and look for data to support it of it instead of look for data and then form some hypothesis.

I'd be even ok with this, in principle. After all Troy was discovered pretty much just because someone started from the idea that it must exist, and kept looking for it.

Actually, let me ammend that: I'd be ok with it if it were followed by a honest look at the data or absence thereof, and an honest "we don't know this and that yet."

And again, just because the city of Jerusalem is a fact, does not mean that Jesus's life and death (and non death) are a fact.

Bingo. That's the point. I'm ok with them going looking for evidence of whatever, if they then did the honest thing and said "Ok, we don't have any evidence of that yet."

 

[Damien Evans]

Archaeology disproves the bible by having digs showing humans existed more than 6,000 years ago.

 

[MG1962]

I think it really comes down to expectation. What exactly are we expecting to prove or disprove with the Bible. Many of the 'facts' in the Bible are end points of the evolution of an oral tradition. Example Noahs Ark. As written, archeologists are not going to find anything to back the magnitude of the story up.

However if an archeologist goes into the field looking for communities destroyed by localised flood events. He might uncover the story of Noah, a leader of his people who's descisve action and praying to God saved many people from his community.

 

[supercorgi]

I went back to have a look at that thread. I think it will be a very accurate foreshadowing of what this thread will become.

Ah, thanks for pointing out that thread. It's clear that the lack of archeaological evidence has been pointed out to Kathy and she still claims that there is a ton of archeological evidence for the truth of the bible. Yet another example of her lying/being willfully ignorant.

 

[MG1962]

Archaeology disproves the bible by having digs showing humans existed more than 6,000 years ago.

But see that is the interesting thing. The Bible never said that. Someone sat down and worked out the numbers themselves using a lot of ifs and buts to get to the answer.

Many argue if Genesis is even a creation story, or a story of re-birth of the spirit of God across the land

 

[joobz]

But see that is the interesting thing. The Bible never said that. Someone sat down and worked out the numbers themselves using a lot of ifs and buts to get to the answer.

Many argue if Genesis is even a creation story, or a story of re-birth of the spirit of God across the land

and this is at the heart of claiming any historical significance in the bible. If we allow even simple things like the creation story to be "mythical allegory", then why should I take any other part of it as reality?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

and this is at the heart of claiming any historical significance in the bible. If we allow even simple things like the creation story to be "mythical allegory", then why should I take any other part of it as reality?

Well, at least the catholics pretty much don't claim that any other part can necessarily be taken literally either. You need the Pope who's got the Holy Ghost's number on speed dial, to tell you that when God said black He really meant white

 

[TimCallahan]

Biblical archaeologists (and I repeat not all - some are fine scholars) go into the field with a bunch of presuppositions. They go into the field to find evidence that the Bible is true - and sometimes ignore or discount evidence that does not fit with their hypotheses. They go with a certainty that something is true and look for evidence to support it - they do not go with an idea (which may or may not be true) and let the evidence (or lack of) speak for itself. They do not use accepted archeological methods.

For all that, the archaeologists from Christian institutions, such as Southern Methodist University, who went to what was then Palestine specifically to find evidence of Joshua's conquest of Canaan, were forced to abandon that quest by the evidence against them. A few attempted radical redating to try to shoehorn the archaeology into the narrative of Josuhue, but eventually gave up these schemes.

By the way, since Kathy's on vacation in Maui, perhaps either Doc or Ethnikos would care to weigh in with some archaeological evidence supporting the biblical narrative.

 

[shadron]

My list from the earlier thread:

Lots of negatives:

- no proof whatsoever of any migration from the Tigris-Euphrates valleys into Canaan (Abraham's travels).
- no proof of any slavery of Jewish or other semitic peoples in Egypt. Egypt, rather, conquered and held Canaan for a period in the 2nd millineum BCE.
- no knowledge of any death of a first born pharoah's sin, paricularly in the line of Ramses.
- no archaeological evidence that he world stood still upon a patriarch's command, as surely there would be if it had happened.
- essentially no archaeological support for anything specific in the Bible predating the name of David found on a stele at about 900BCE. That stele commemorates a killing of the king of the house of David, which is, of course, an event not mentioned in the Bible.

Some positive proofs:

- The Dead Sea Scrolls display a literally differing script for various of the common books of the Bible, thereby challenging the concept of literal inerrancy.
- Various genealogical derivations of peoples (Ham's descendants, for example) found in error by both archaeology and genetics.
- any number of archaeological findings that date back farther than the Bible's genealogical dating can reach.
- archaeological proof of cities with continuous populations that reached back through any possible flood dates.
- archaeological field studies done in Cannaan that prove that the Israelites and Judeans were culturally identical, but poorer than the Canaanites that lived in Canaan before the revolution that occurred about 1200-1000BCE.
- Literary criticism of the Old Testament, which is itself a part of the archaeological record.

 

[Ladewig]

My list from the earlier thread:

I would add evidence contradicting the Genesis 11 account of a single language being spoken before ~2200 BC.

 

[Mojo]

I'd be even ok with this, in principle. After all Troy was discovered pretty much just because someone started from the idea that it must exist, and kept looking for it.

On the other hand that doesn't mean that everything in the Iliad is true. I even started a parody thread to make this point a while back: What do you do when the Iliad is proven right on something?

The original thread is here: What do you do when the Bible is proven right on something?

 

[supercorgi]

I would add evidence contradicting the Genesis 11 account of a single language being spoken before ~2200 BC.

Good one.

 

[godless dave]

and this is at the heart of claiming any historical significance in the bible. If we allow even simple things like the creation story to be "mythical allegory", then why should I take any other part of it as reality?

I agree with your point, but on the specific claim of 6,000 years, MG is right. That's not in the Bible or even really implied by it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

On the other hand that doesn't mean that everything in the Iliad is true.

Well, that's what I was trying to say in the sentences after what you've quoted. The real archaeologists are quite honest about what parts they have evidence for, and which parts they don't. I don't think any of them claimed to have evidence for Achiles's partial invincibility, for example.

 

[joobz]

I agree with your point, but on the specific claim of 6,000 years, MG is right. That's not in the Bible or even really implied by it.

I agree. It isn't explicitly stated in the bible. I was speaking more generally.

But one must ask, Why should we assume that the 7 days of genesis be a "god day" and not a "day day"?