Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Biblical Reliability - Archaeology Part I

I am going to start pointing to some other resources that discuss the archaeological support for the Bible as a whole. Unlike some of the prior arguments, archaeology can add support to the credibility of the Bible as a whole, not just the Gospels or the NT.

With that in mind, here are some sites that touch on archaeology supporting the Bible. Tomorrow I'll add some information on some archaeological controversy, and on Friday complete the subject. Stay tuned...

This page from includes a summary of what archaeology can support:
There is a growing mass of evidence from archaeology that the Bible accounts deal with real people living in real places. But what can this evidence from archaeology do?

It might disprove something in the Bible documents. If the Bible was false, we would expect new archaeological discoveries to do this. In fact, there is no known case where archaeology decisively disproves the Bible. This itself is strong evidence for the truth of the Christian message.
It could provide direct confirmation of what the Bible says. We would expect that in many cases there is no direct archaeological evidence one way or the other, and this is what we find. However, there are some cases where archaeology does provide direct confirmation, and we have listed some of them on this site.
It can provide background information that helps us to understand what the Bible documents say.

The key quote here is that "there is no known case where archaeology decisively disproves the Bible." provides information on some specific finds. Not a great deal of detail here, but some decent starting points.

Interesting article on Jericho by the Answers In Genesis folks. Also touches on something of a dispute in the archaeological community about dating certain finds.

An article on archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

Dr. Paul Maier includes a discussion of archaeology in this article.

This should at least provide a start. As I indicated above, the field is not without controversy, some of which I'll get into tomorrow.

Happy reading:)

No comments: