Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

[Diane]

The digging by archaeologists in the remains of past civilizations increase our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. The archaeological record repeatedly backs up what was written in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

For example, Daniel says the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since at that time no mention of  Belshazzar had been found outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and Belshazzar never existed. But in 1853, archaeologists discovered small clay cylinders at Ur in southern Iraq inscribed with accounts of the rebuilding of Ur’s ziggurat by King Nabonidus. The inscriptions concluded with prayers for Nabonidus’ health—and for his eldest son and co-regent, Belshazzar! (Page 54 of The Bible and Archaeology, by Sir Frederic Kenyon.)

This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon. Daniel could then be the third ruler.
I do get a kick out of findings that prove Bible people and places true, but I don't require them. Jesus relied on the historical records in the Bible and that is good enough for me.

[Admin1]

It absolutely does support much from the Bible...but admittedly also helps show us what, in the Bible, should not be taken literally...or is factually/historically incorrect.

(I say that even as I affirm the inerrancy, in matters of faith, of the Bible)

Example off the top of my head:

Until the Pilate inscription was found, people said that there was no such title as "procurator"...as the Bible said was his title.

...but the finding of the inscription proved that the author was correct.

[Diane]

Rick could you please give me an example of what you feel in the Bible "is factually/historically incorrect."

[Admin1]

Mark 7:31
Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

We now know that Sidon was in the opposite direction from Tyre.

[falasha]

The digging by archaeologists in the remains of past civilizations increase our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. The archaeological record repeatedly backs up what was written in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

For example, Daniel says the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since at that time no mention of  Belshazzar had been found outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and Belshazzar never existed. But in 1853, archaeologists discovered small clay cylinders at Ur in southern Iraq inscribed with accounts of the rebuilding of Ur’s ziggurat by King Nabonidus. The inscriptions concluded with prayers for Nabonidus’ health—and for his eldest son and co-regent, Belshazzar! (Page 54 of The Bible and Archaeology, by Sir Frederic Kenyon.)

This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon. Daniel could then be the third ruler.
I do get a kick out of findings that prove Bible people and places true, but I don't require them. Jesus relied on the historical records in the Bible and that is good enough for me.

I would agree with you. The problem lies when every single word is taken literally. Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew. Some things must be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

[archaeologist]

We now know that Sidon was in the opposite direction from Tyre.

we also know that there is a possibility  of there being two sidons.  one thing that people forget is that, the Bible does not give all the details that transpired, if it did, the book would be so thick, no one would read it.  it is quite possible that Jesus went through Sidon on His way back down to the sea of Galilee

Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew. Some things must be taken with 'a grain of salt'

i disagree with you, as that story shows that disobedience is punished, even on an individual level.

[archaeologist]

Rick could you please give me an example of what you feel in the Bible "is factually/historically incorrect."

i would like more detail about your position not just an example.  a surface reading never does the Bible justice and when people make thos eclaims, it is usually done with out research or good investigation.

[falasha]

Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew. Some things must be taken with 'a grain of salt'

i disagree with you, as that story shows that disobedience is punished, even on an individual level.

Just punishment can be shown with a parable as well as literal historic facts.

[Diane]

Falasha, regarding your thought,  "Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew."

Jesus believed it, because he referred to this as history and said: "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.” To emphasize his point he added,  “Remember Lot's wife! “—Luke 17:28-29, 32

Why remember her? Because, while fleeing from Sodom as fiery destruction rained down from heaven upon it, she looked back disobediently, slowed down in her flight and was encased in suffocating salt, to become a pillar of warning to all who choose to reject God’s instructions.
If this event hadn’t really happened it would be senseless of Jesus to use it as an example of what will happen to those who refuse to listen to God’s warnings.

“Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.  Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.  But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”—Genesis 19:24-26

Zephaniah said Gomorrah was a place of  “salt pits.” (Zephaniah 2:9) A fire storm would cause explosions and incredibly hot wind storms even as we see today in horrendous forest fires. And this was a miraculous fire storm.

Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” not in that her flesh, bones and blood became salt but that she was entombed in the downpour of salt as the result of rejecting the specific instructions of the angels, “Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain!”—Genesis 19:17

Peter also used the same history when he wrote that God “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.”—2Peter 2:6
Jude wrote likewise. “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”—Jude 7

[Diane]

Rick you cited Mark 7:31 as being historically wrong.
"Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.
We now know that Sidon was in the opposite direction from Tyre."

Yes Sidon is 25 miles north of Tyre. There is nothing inaccurate in the account.
Considering the context I copied the verse and put my words in italics.
Mark 6:53 —“When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret” on the northwestern edge of the Sea of Galilee.
Events are related until
7:24 — “From there [Gennesaret] He arose and went [northwest] to the region of Tyre and [25 miles further north] Sidon.” on the Phoenician coast.
7:31 — “Again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon, [heading southeast] He came through the midst of the region of Decapolis [east of the Jordon then headed west back] to the Sea of Galilee.”

From the coastal region of Sidon, Jesus and his disciples head across country toward the headwaters of the Jordan River. They apparently ford the Jordan somewhere above the Sea of Galilee and enter the region of the Decapolis, east of the sea. The Decapolis was a league or confederation of ten cities (from Greek deka, meaning “ten,” and polis, “city”). The name also applied to the region in which most of these cities were centered.
Pliny the elder listed the following cities as among the original ten: Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo (Hippos), Dion, Pella, Galasa (Gerasa), and Canatha. (Natural History, V, XVI, 74)
I found a website that has pictures of present day Tyre and Sidon
Jesus' Life and Times - Ministry to the Gentiles-Tyre and Sidon

[falasha]

Falasha, regarding your thought,  "Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew."

Jesus believed it, because he referred to this as history and said: "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.” To emphasize his point he added,  “Remember Lot's wife! “—Luke 17:28-29, 32

Why remember her? Because, while fleeing from Sodom as fiery destruction rained down from heaven upon it, she looked back disobediently, slowed down in her flight and was encased in suffocating salt, to become a pillar of warning to all who choose to reject God’s instructions.
If this event hadn’t really happened it would be senseless of Jesus to use it as an example of what will happen to those who refuse to listen to God’s warnings.

“Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.  Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.  But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”—Genesis 19:24-26

Zephaniah said Gomorrah was a place of  “salt pits.” (Zephaniah 2:9) A fire storm would cause explosions and incredibly hot wind storms even as we see today in horrendous forest fires. And this was a miraculous fire storm.

Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” not in that her flesh, bones and blood became salt but that she was entombed in the downpour of salt as the result of rejecting the specific instructions of the angels, “Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain!”—Genesis 19:17

Peter also used the same history when he wrote that God “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.”—2Peter 2:6
Jude wrote likewise. “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”—Jude 7

Diane,
The problem I have with the verse taken literally is that people cannot turn into salt. That is biologically impossible. Since people of reason understand this basic concept they tend to disregard the entire scripture as a fairy story.

[Admin1]

I don't believe that's a matter that archaeology or science will ever resolve.  God can do anything He pleases.

The Universe itself is no different.

It's "physically impossible" for something to arise out of nothing...
(which is why I think scientists, especially physicists, who do not believe in Creation are being quite hypocritical.)

[RamboPreacher]

Subject:
Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

no, not really - before I get tarred and feathered, read on...

The digging by archaeologists in the remains of past civilizations increase our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. The archaeological record repeatedly backs up what was written in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

Thank you, I completely agree with this paradigm.

... example clipped...
I do get a kick out of findings that prove Bible people and places true, but I don't require them. Jesus relied on the historical records in the Bible and that is good enough for me.

exactly.  I think that the question in teh subject is a bit broad, though, and thus my initial response.

Let me explain a bit:
I believe that "the Bible" (what this is, is for another post,a dn off-topic here) is predominantly a theological reference.  It isn't a history book, but contains historical reference.  It isn't a book of genealogy, but contains genealogical reference, as example.

so to say that the (sciences of) archaeology supports "the Bible", is not quite right, in my opinion.  However, as you said, adn I wholeheartedly agree: "The digging by archaeologists in the remains of past civilizations increase our understanding of the way things were in ancient times."

and many of those ancient times are recorded in the Bible, so there is some vilification vindication, but only in reference to the historicity, and perhaps genealogical.  The important point to note, as you did, adn again, I completely agree: "I do get a kick out of findings that prove Bible people and places true, but I don't require them." (for my faith, and beliefs)
note my added parenthetical.  that may have been implied, but I wanted to be sure to add that to be clear.

In a recent 2-week "Exodus Tour" of Egypt, Jordan and Israel, I was taken aback somewhat at the way some of the sites and "holy places" were presented.  I didn't make a big deal about it then, because I kind of understood why they did it, but it was frustrating to me none the less.

Only at the Golgotha and garden site did they come out and say that this could be the location, and then say why.  Every other site proclaimed they were THE location for this or that.  In any case yes, it's a good thing to have some historical/genealogical support (from archaeology); but for me, it is more important that the information is presented as evidence of, not "proof" for...

hope that makes sense.

[notalent]

Diane,
The problem I have with the verse taken literally is that people cannot turn into salt. That is biologically impossible. Since people of reason understand this basic concept they tend to disregard the entire scripture as a fairy story.

There is a danger among us people of reason that we may at times be selective in our application of it. As mentioned in this post, there are inherent drawbacks to setting limits on what may be possible.  It's not just that at our beginning, we don't know anything. It's that we don't even suspect anything.  And though we can spend our lives trying to diminish these factors, we can never wholly eradicate them.  In that light it  may prove prudent and reasonable to remember the eleventh commandment, "Thou shalt not assume."

[RamboPreacher]

Diane,
The problem I have with the verse taken literally is that people cannot turn into salt. That is biologically impossible. Since people of reason understand this basic concept they tend to disregard the entire scripture as a fairy story.

There is a danger among us people of reason that we may at times be selective in our application of it. As mentioned in this post, there are inherent drawbacks to setting limits on what may be possible.  It's not just that at our beginning, we don't know anything. It's that we don't even suspect anything.  And though we can spend our lives trying to diminish these factors, we can never wholly eradicate them.  In that light it  may prove prudent and reasonable to remember the eleventh commandment, "Thou shalt not assume."