Archeology has never disproved a Biblical point

TheAnachronism

Critical Thinker
TheAnachronism
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
439
My friend made the claim that "archeology has never disproved a biblical point."

I have every reason to doubt that claim, but am unsure where to find specific examples and sources to back up my thoughts about that. I have a feeling that there are many examples, with varying degrees of evidence, that disprove specific Biblical happenings.

This mainly applies to events that are studied through history/archeology, rather than things like "biology disproves the Genesis account of creation."

I would greatly appreciate any input and look forward to what you have to say upon the subject.
 
I would try the TalkOrigins site, it has a wealth of counter-creationist claims laid out in a fairly accessible way. Of course, they will probably just say that their god intentionally made the early look really old and fossilized or something
 
Last edited:
Archaeology has also never disproven the Tales of Grimm. If your friend has a claim, pointing out lack of evidence does not support his claim. he would have to find evidence to support it, not say that something has never disproven it.

For example:

"I believe in Kangaroo shaped fairies that deliver babies from their pouches in the night! That's where babies come from."

"Well, I've never seen any of these on my home security system cameras, and I've had 4 kids."

"Well your home security camera has never DISPROVEN them!"


Which is ridiculous. Firstly, everyone knows it's a bloody stork and they are invisible, but secondly absence of evidence is just that, and nothing more. If your friend is claiming the bible is true, he needs to support it with his own evidence and not try to co-opt the work of an entire section of science and wrongly interpret it.
 
TheAnachronism said:
My friend made the claim that "archeology has never disproved a biblical point."

I have every reason to doubt that claim, but am unsure where to find specific examples and sources to back up my thoughts about that. I have a feeling that there are many examples, with varying degrees of evidence, that disprove specific Biblical happenings.

This mainly applies to events that are studied through history/archeology, rather than things like "biology disproves the Genesis account of creation."

I would greatly appreciate any input and look forward to what you have to say upon the subject.
Click to expand...


Jericho.
 
Hokulele said:
Jericho.
Click to expand...

Could you be a little bit more specific? Are you claiming it never really existed (it did), or that it was never destroyed (it was), or that it wasn't destroyed in the way the OT depicts? I have a feeling it is the last one, but what evidence, exactly, has been unearthed to discount that story entirely?

I realize that he should be providing evidence of these things, not I, but I'd like to show his statement to be outright false. I have a feeling he made that statement out of ignorance, not because he's so well-read that it would be impossible for him to have missed such evidence if it existed.
 
Ducky said:
For example:

"I believe in Kangaroo shaped fairies that deliver babies from their pouches in the night! That's where babies come from."

"Well, I've never seen any of these on my home security system cameras, and I've had 4 kids."

"Well your home security camera has never DISPROVEN them!"


Which is ridiculous. Firstly, everyone knows it's a bloody stork and they are invisible, but secondly absence of evidence is just that, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I demand equal consideration for Stork Theory Front-Loaded Waterfowl!!

 
Unbroken thriving civilisations when there should have been a flood leaving a handful of people up a hill in Turkey.
 
Archeology provides no "proof" that Jesus existed. The Bible states he did, but there is no acheological record to back that assertion up.
 
TheAnachronism said:
Could you be a little bit more specific? Are you claiming it never really existed (it did), or that it was never destroyed (it was), or that it wasn't destroyed in the way the OT depicts? I have a feeling it is the last one, but what evidence, exactly, has been unearthed to discount that story entirely?
Click to expand...


The dates for the destruction of the city are wrong for it to have fallen to Joshua's army. Archeological examination thought that it might have occurred in the mid 1500's BCE.

http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class of 51/jericho/kenyon.html

Seismological evidence points that way as well.

Page 164 of this paper (note, real page 164, not the PDF page numbering).

http://www.tau.ac.il/~zviba/uri/abs/ZBA_et_al_2005.pdf
 
there are hundreds of examples
this is just one

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Click to expand...

using the fundie approved biblical dating method of counting backwards adding the ages of the Patriarchs this means that Abraham lived around 1800bce
the chaldean dynasty didn't start until 800 years later

archaeology and geology has proved that there was never a flood
archaeology and genetics has proved that we aren't made from the dust on the ground and women aren't engineered from a mans rib
the period that the bible claims the Israelites were in Egypt the country was actually ruled by the foreign Hyksos, you would think they would notice
exodus in the pentateuch 1:11 claims that the Israelites built Heliopolis during their stay, archaeology has proved it was there since predynastic times
archaeology has proved that Hebrew didn't exist as a language when Moses was supposed to be using it to inscribe the ten commandments

these are just off the top of my head, the list is practically endless.
:D
 
Last edited:
TheAnachronism said:
Could you be a little bit more specific? Are you claiming it never really existed (it did), or that it was never destroyed (it was), or that it wasn't destroyed in the way the OT depicts? I have a feeling it is the last one, but what evidence, exactly, has been unearthed to discount that story entirely?

I realize that he should be providing evidence of these things, not I, but I'd like to show his statement to be outright false. I have a feeling he made that statement out of ignorance, not because he's so well-read that it would be impossible for him to have missed such evidence if it existed.
Click to expand...

Jericho was uninhabited during the period David was supposed to be knocking the walls down with a trumpet around 1000bce
Archaeological evidence indicates that in the latter half of the Middle Bronze Age (circa 1700 BC), the city enjoyed some prosperity, its walls having been strengthened and expanded.[15] The Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed c.1200 BC,[16] and the site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BC.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Ancient_times


:D
 
Archeology has never disproved a Wizard of Oz point
Archeology has never disproved a Harry Potter point
Archeology has never disproved a Gone with the Wind point

this isn't even fun anymore...
 
TheAnachronism said:
My friend made the claim that "archeology has never disproved a biblical point."
Click to expand...

There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus, or even that there was ever a population of Hebrews ni Egypt. Of course this doesn't "disprove" the Exodus, which is why your friend phrased the statement the way he did.
 
You might want to look at the history of Canaan.

Current research suggests that the Isrealites did not invade Canaan, but were actually Cannanites themselves, who took over the land after the Canaan culture collapsed.
 
Segnosaur said:
I think parts of the story surrounding the birth of Jesus are disproved by archeology (or history).

Some example:
- The killing of children by Harod following Jesus' birth doesn't have any supporting evidence
- The bible references Herod, who died around 6 BCE; however, the first census took place years after Herod had died.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Birth_narratives_of_Jesus
Click to expand...

I've not read your link, but an interesting idea was put forward not so long ago regarding the killing of children.

Although as you suggest there is no evidence the slaughter took place, a point was made, assuming it had. How big would have been. The demographics of the town etc lead researchers to consider that the slaughter would not have involved more than 7 or 8 children

Such a small event would prorbably not have made the papers if it had occured. Herod is histoically famous for other far greater bloody acts. So in terms of finding documentary evidence it is not suprising we have no accounts of it.

At the very best it was an extremely small event that was blown out of all proportions with reality by the early writters of the Bible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom