The Bible, just PARTof why I believe… ( Archived) (545)

As we have noted, biblical critics have pointed to all kinds of people, places, and things in the Bible that no archaeological evidence could confirm. Skeptics rashly heralded such lack of confirmation as proof of "biblical errors." Consider one more example:

It has become almost a dogma of critical scholarship to insist that Genesis 14, which recounts the battle between Abraham and his allies and the four kings of the East, is unhistorical precisely because the five cities mentioned in the story are never referred to in any ancient literature apart from the Old Testament. The assumption is that unless a person, place or event in early Israel’s history can be validated by extrabiblical documentation it must be unhistorical. The fallacy in that method ought to be obvious, for if this principle were applied to all of ancient (and even modern) history virtually nothing could be recovered from the past in the name of history.14

In fact, until scholars can manage to keep their biases against the biblical text in check and treat it as they do other ancient documents, probably no amount of extrabiblical supporting evidence will convince them otherwise. And until this occurs, conservatives will be correct in referencing such work more as propaganda than good scholarship.15 Further, archaeologists sometimes admit that their chronology has been wrong and that this is why there has been a lack of supporting evidence for the Scriptures. As noted scholar Dr. John Warwick Montgomery points out,

[American Institute of Holy Land Studies] researcher Thomas Drobena cautioned that where archaeology and the Bible seemed to be in tension, the issue is almost always dating, the most shaky area in current archaeology and the one at which scientistic a priori and circular reasoning often replace solid empirical analysis.16

There is ongoing debate among scholars as to dates, and even as to the nature of such buildings as the stables or store houses dated now to Ahab’s time instead of to Solomon’s.

[David Noel] Freedman, for example, says that "the reason that the story [of Abraham] has never been located historically is that scholars, all of us, have been looking in the wrong millennium. Briefly put, the account in Genesis 14, and also in chapters 18-19, does not belong to the second millennium B.C., still less to the first millennium b.c., but rather to the third millennium b-c."17

Most conservative scholars, however, have always placed Abraham close to the third millennium b.c., about 1900 b.c.

Nevertheless, as archaeological excavations continued in Israel, time and again what was once an "error" was subsequently confirmed as fact. Whether it was the fact of a branch of the Hittites mentioned some 50 times in the Bible (as early as Genesis 10:15), King Sargon (Isaiah 20:1), Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:1),18 or many others, biblical history was repeatedly upheld:

Archaeological research has established the identity of literally hundreds of places—in Mesopotamia, Persia, ancient Canaan, and Egypt—that are mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, the discovery of thousands of historical texts in Egypt and Mesopotamia has enabled scholars to work out the historical chronology of the ancient world in considerable detail. Historical synchronisms have been established for dating the accession of Solomon (ca. 961 b.c.), the accession of Jehu, the Israelite king (842/1 B.C.), the fall of Samaria (722/1 B.C.), and the first capture of Jerusalem (March 15/16, 579 b.c.).19

(to be continued)

Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/Copy/Paste/

Sheeple!

Did you have to bump this thread blog? All Mike has to do is provide a link and maybe a sneak peak of the content he wants to present. Also maybe some insight to promote discussion. I really get annoyed by extremely long posts...post after post....page after page. I'm sure I'm not the only one...lol

I have seen the Teapot!