Archaeology in Support of Biblical Worldview

I was compelled to write this after viewing Randyvs thread Science fails to Exclude God

This thread only goes so far as to show that archaeology has done nothing to refute the existence of God. In fact, archaeology has brought to light many interesting finds that support the biblical view and account. This short list I have compiled is just a small amount of things I could mention, but is found to be compelling evidence nonetheless.



1. Enumah Elish – account of Genesis flood story en.wikipedia.org...
2. Gilgamesh Epic – account of Genesis flood story
a. Nearly 2 dozen flood stories worldwide and added note, myths generally get more distorted with time, not simpler, such as the Biblical account which adds to its credibility en.wikipedia.org...
3. Ipuwer Papyrus – account of exodus plagues
en.wikipedia.org...
4. Ketef hinnom silver scrolls – oldest surviving biblical passages in the world 600BC oldest reference to YHWH en.wikipedia.org...
5. Balaam inscription – verification of biblical figure Balaam Nm 22 en.wikipedia.org...
6. Merneptah Stele –earliest nonbiblical mention of Israel – validates Israel as a social entity within the promised land in the 13th century BC en.wikipedia.org...
7. House of David inscription – first nonbiblical reference to Davidic dynasty – establishes validity of biblical figures Ahab, Joram, Ahaz, Ben-hadad teldan.wordpress.com...
8. House of Yahweh Inscription – establishes validity of Solomon’s temple www.ancient-hebrew.org...
9. Tel Dan – several pagan altars verify Bethel and Dan as the center of pagan idolatry just like the biblical description 1Kg 12 www.thetrumpet.com...
10. King Hezekiah’s Seal – validates Hezekiah, other seals validate Baruch, King Ahaz, Jerahmeel, Gemariah, Jehucal, Gedaliah, Pedaiah, and Amariah fontes.lstc.edu...
11. Mesha Stele – validates biblical views of political/military climates in 9th century BC 2Kg 1-3 en.wikipedia.org...
12. Black obelisk of Shalmaneser III – validates tribute of gold and silver paid to Assyrian king 2KG 9 en.wikipedia.org...
13. Babylonian Chronicles – validates Nebuchadnezzar’s siege on Jerusalem 2KG 24,25 www.livius.org...
14. Ebla Tablets – references to biblical places Sodom, Zeboiim, Admah, Hazor, Megiddo, Canaan, Jerusalem; references to biblical figures Nahor, Israel, Eber, Michael, Ishmael; references to common biblical terms such as “tehom” en.wikipedia.org...
15. King Uzziah’s burial plaque – validates biblical description of King Uzziah cojs.org...
16. Hezekiah’s tunnel and siloam inscription – validates Hezekiah’s tunnel 2KG 20 2Ch 32 IS22 IS 36-39 en.wikipedia.org...'s_Tunnel
17. Silver bowl of Artaxerxes I – validates biblical descriptions of Artaxerxes I, Ahaseurus, Darius I, Haggai, Zechariah. Ez 4,7,8; Est 1; Hg 1-2; Zch 1,7 bibleandarchaeology.blogspot.com...
18. Dead Sea Scrolls – 1100 ancient Hebrew texts, validates accuracy of scribal process from DSS to Masoretic texts en.wikipedia.org...
19. Annals of Sennacherib – validates Assyria’s campaign against Israel 2KG 18, IS 36 en.wikipedia.org...
20. Cyrus Cylinder – validates prophecy IS 40-45, Dn 2,7,9 2CH 36 Ez 1,6 Jer 25 en.wikipedia.org...
21. Baruch Seal – validates Baruch son of Neriah, Jer 36en.wikipedia.org...
22. Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar II – Ishtar gate and several bricks bearing inscription validate Nebuchadnezzar II as described in biblical account DN 2,4
en.wikipedia.org...
23. Cylinder of Nabonidus – validates King Nabonidus and King Belshazzar DN 5en.wikipedia.org...
24. Herod the Great – burial ground dating consistent with biblical timeline and account of Jewish historian Josephus; validates biblical view of Herod and accuracy of Josephus’ accounten.wikipedia.org...
25. Arch of Titus – validates prophecy of Jewish temple destruction MT 24en.wikipedia.org...
26. Caesara Philippi – several small villages linked validates biblical description MK 8:27en.wikipedia.org...
27. Yohohanen ben Hagkol – validates manner of biblical crucifixion & burialen.wikipedia.org...
28. Caiaphas’ Ossuray – validates biblical figure Caiaphas MT 26 Lk 3 Jn 11, 18, 24, 28 ACTS 4
en.wikipedia.org...
29. Pool of Bethesda – validates biblical description Jn 5en.wikipedia.org...
30. Pool of Siloam – validates timeline of John 9
en.wikipedia.org...

31. John Rylands Fragment P52 – earliest known NT fragment; validates accuracy of manuscript translationsen.wikipedia.org...
32. Pontius Pilate burial grounds– confirms Pilates existence, title, years of power, area of rule, validates accuracy of Josephus & Tacitus
en.wikipedia.org...
33. Sergius Paulus – inscriptions validate Sergius Paulus as biblical figure Ac 13:6-7; validates Paul’s visit to Cyprus in AD 40’sen.wikipedia.org...
34. Gallio Inscription – proclamation of Emperor Claudius validates Gallio’s existence as proconsul AC 18 ; validates Luke’s accuracy
www.kchanson.com...
35. Corinth – inscriptions validate Erastus as city treasurer Rm 16; stone platform validates term used by Pual – “bema” as timeline authenticen.wikipedia.org...
36. Artemis in Ephesus – discovery of Artemis statues validate biblical description AC 18-19; validates Paul’s message to Ephesians concerning spiritual warfare Eph 6
en.wikipedia.org...
37. Politarch Inscription – validates Luke’s accuracy for terms “politarch” “praetors” “areopagites” “neokoros” and “grammateus” AC 16,17,19www.holylandphotos.org...,4,13,31,283,285&img=GNMTTHCT22


In light of the evidence given, and the massive amount of evidence I have NOT given but can be easily attained, I am compelled to believe that science, atleast archaeology, supports the biblical worldview. Anyone who could manage to say otherwise in light of this evidence, I think, is simply choosing to remain ignorant of the facts.

A2D

So your saying that because real ancient place names and references to people that
lived in biblical times appear in scrolls/tablets outside of the bible, proves the bible to
be correct and that god exists?
Thats like saying trolls elves and orcs exist because tolkien used his knowledge of
saxon England and scandinavia to give lord of the rings a sense of authenticity, langauges,
some place names and culture ect...

reply to post by Atzil321


No. I'm saying the accuracy of the biblical account can't logically be doubted because everything we have found has confirmed that the biblical account is true and accurate.

I didn't say it proves God exists, but what we have found does build a strong support for faith in God.

A2D

Edit to add: We haven't found any evidence that the characters in Tolkien's story's are real characters. As for the bible, the people truly existed and were who the bible says they were.

I was thinking about that not to long ago. Due to the amount of "natural" disasters that are happening all over the world, whether its floods, earthquakes, droughts. If at around the same times, yet in different places, such as it happens today.

Wouldn't there be many accounts of the same events all over the world? If 1,000 yrs from now, there were different stories of either the same of similar events, could we assume that people might think this was happening all at once, and possibly due to the same thing?

When in fact we are aware today that even though it flooded in the Midwest and India at the same/similar time, they were not attributed to the same thing. Just an example. Oh yeah, yes both places were due to heavy rains, but it was not the same clouds and rain and events that caused both to happen at the same time....unless your thinking HAARP

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


However, I'd like to point out that sometimes these events ARE caused by the same thing. We know that things like the Fukishima meltdown don't just have a local impact, they do in fact cause a significant global impact.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I agree. What I am saying is, at the time people thought is was god, but we know its nature. We have Doppler radar, they had priests.

The events of today have different stories and consequences on people today. The events then, were all placed in certain books, but could have had no "one source", but many sources, as they do today.

Fukashima, will effect everyone, yes. If "his-story" decides to discuss the out come and not the man made mistake of it all. People could think that it was based solely on one source, and lose focus.

Peace, NRE.

why didn’t you say so in the beginning, if you mean “the accuracy of the biblical account” and not the “Biblical Worldview”.

at first after reading your thread i was hugely tempted to ask you to define “biblical worldview” – then i decided to wait how things develop here.

....everything we have found has confirmed that the biblical account is true and accurate

but not everything written in the bible is confirmed and verified – nor is it verifiable. e.g. Jesus walking on water.......... I think in regards to archaeology you refer to the old testament.

i have not looked too deeply into these kind of debates. and honestly, until you guys can’t distinguish between God and a god, i never shall. and that is a shame in my oppinion.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I was compelled to write this after viewing Randyvs thread Science fails to Exclude God

This thread only goes so far as to show that archaeology has done nothing to refute the existence of God. In fact, archaeology has brought to light many interesting finds that support the biblical view and account. This short list I have compiled is just a small amount of things I could mention, but is found to be compelling evidence nonetheless.

The problem is that they're only convincing to you. You would have to find things that are convincing to others.

1. Enumah Elish – account of Genesis flood story en.wikipedia.org...
2. Gilgamesh Epic – account of Genesis flood story

Both of those are
- older than the bible
- from a civilization that enslaved the Hebrews.

Conquerers don't make slave legends part of their religion.

3. Ipuwer Papyrus – account of exodus plagues en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia says there's lots of interpretations and that the date range isn't known. Besides, Egypt had more than one plague.

4. Ketef hinnom silver scrolls – oldest surviving biblical passages in the world 600BC oldest reference to YHWH en.wikipedia.org...

600 BC? That's not very old. If it was supporting the Biblical worldview, wouldn't Ra or Ainu be the same thing as YHWH? Because the Bible says there aren't any deities created before YHWH and he's the only true one. If this was true, those older civilizations would have record.

5. Balaam inscription – verification of biblical figure Balaam Nm 22 en.wikipedia.org...

Are you sure? This talks about a guy with the name of Balaam who wakes up crying that a goddess will destroy the land. He's not cursing the Israelites and so forth.

6. Merneptah Stele –earliest nonbiblical mention of Israel – validates Israel as a social entity within the promised land in the 13th century BC en.wikipedia.org...
7. House of David inscription – first nonbiblical reference to Davidic dynasty – establishes validity of biblical figures Ahab, Joram, Ahaz, Ben-hadad teldan.wordpress.com...

Those are really a stretch. We know how old Israel is as a country. The inscription is from a place called "house of David" and is about a king who killed the king of Israel. None of those other figures are mentioned in the inscription.

9. Tel Dan – several pagan altars verify Bethel and Dan as the center of pagan idolatry just like the biblical description 1Kg 12 www.thetrumpet.com...

*wince*

They called EVERY OTHER RELIGION a "pagan idolatry." These weren't Hebrew/Israelite cities. They were foreign cities. They had their own deities until they were overrun. EVERY city in the area was a "center of pagan idolatry."

And so on and so forth. I winced again over the "Luke" reference -- the names and titles of officials of the Roman empire is common knowledge and was written everywhere. There isn't any doubt about that matter.

In light of the evidence given, and the massive amount of evidence I have NOT given but can be easily attained, I am compelled to believe that science, atleast archaeology, supports the biblical worldview.

It doesn't, and in fact, the Biblical Archaeology courses and sites struggle to find evidence that exactly matches anything in the Bible that isn't general history.

I do a lot of reading at the Biblical archaeology site and it's pretty clear that they don't have confirmation of the Bible as the complete and utter "last word" on everything.

And even this site talks about some problems with the King David site

reply to post by bestintentions


No, most certainly everything is not verified nor verifiable, but a large portion of it is. If the majority of it is verified, there is no real reason to doubt the rest.

That's kind of like having evidence for a murder, but not being sure of the motive. If we KNOW the guy killed his wife, what good does it do to doubt his motive(s)?

A2D

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

The problem is that they're only convincing to you. You would have to find things that are convincing to others.

I can't force you to accept something, but if you approach it with an open mind, remaining clear of all bias, you'd be able to accept that archaeological findings have reinforced the historical validity of the biblical account.

Both of those are
- older than the bible
- from a civilization that enslaved the Hebrews.

Conquerers don't make slave legends part of their religion.

My point exactly. The notion of a massive flood and the details that coincide is generally a worldwide "myth". That's not how "myths" work. In almost all circumstances, myths stay localized. Furthermore, the civilizations that enslaved the Hebrews had no reason to fabricate such a myth.

Wikipedia says there's lots of interpretations and that the date range isn't known. Besides, Egypt had more than one plague.

Correct but that doesn't MEAN anything. Egypt had more than one plague, true, but it is ONE singular event. The first plague leads to the second and so on and so forth.

600 BC? That's not very old. If it was supporting the Biblical worldview, wouldn't Ra or Ainu be the same thing as YHWH? Because the Bible says there aren't any deities created before YHWH and he's the only true one. If this was true, those older civilizations would have record.

Language barriers and so on and so forth. There are NO other Gods. There is only ONE God. There are false gods, there is one True God. Do I know the name of this God? Most certainly I do not, but I know His characteristics. This is enough to say whether Ra or Ainu is the same as YHWH. All one has to do is look at the characteristics and differences in the culture and language to come to a conclusion. There are numerous "solar deities" but none are called the same thing in all cultures.

Are you sure? This talks about a guy with the name of Balaam who wakes up crying that a goddess will destroy the land. He's not cursing the Israelites and so forth.

Yes, it validates the figure Balaam in correct area and timeframe of reference.

Those are really a stretch. We know how old Israel is as a country. The inscription is from a place called "house of David" and is about a king who killed the king of Israel. None of those other figures are mentioned in the inscription.

Like I said, it validates the Davidic dynasty. Prior to this there were no nonbiblical references to the Davidic dynasty.

They called EVERY OTHER RELIGION a "pagan idolatry." These weren't Hebrew/Israelite cities. They were foreign cities. They had their own deities until they were overrun. EVERY city in the area was a "center of pagan idolatry."

And so on and so forth. I winced again over the "Luke" reference -- the names and titles of officials of the Roman empire is common knowledge and was written everywhere. There isn't any doubt about that matter.

and the fact that we have found Artemis' temple, validates their reason for calling them a center for pagan worship. If there isn't any doubt about the names, titles, places, references, so and so forth, why do modern athiests question the reliability of the NT writters?

It doesn't, and in fact, the Biblical Archaeology courses and sites struggle to find evidence that exactly matches anything in the Bible that isn't general history.

So you're saying that it struggles to find evidence that matches the bible that ISN'T general history? Let me get this straight, you're saying....the bible is historically accurate?

In other words, you said : "The Bible contains general historical facts."


A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


sorry, i seem a bit snappy in my last post. i should not post while drinking my second cup of coffee!

i am surprised you compare the truth of the bible account with sumerian texts in your argument. yes, those text seem to be the source of the old testament. the bible though has left out so much of what is accounted for in those texts. are we aware of what is left out? can we tell why it is left out? was it deliberate or accidental? what about the consequences of that?

and if you can see the truth of sumerian accounts in an archaeological sense, why won't you credit to them that they also might be right in their accounts of what the gods have created?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I was compelled to write this after viewing Randyvs thread Science fails to Exclude God

This thread only goes so far as to show that archaeology has done nothing to refute the existence of God.

It has done nothing to prove God exists either. All it has done is say that some of the events described in the Bible were real.

Where is the evidence that Abraham existed?

The Exodus and Jews in Egypt?

Archaeology for Jesus' existance?

The story of Joshua isn't even entirely historical. There is a kernal of truth, but to what degree has never been found. No one is being ignorant of biblical evidence. Most of it just doesn't exist except on Christian websites that wish to believe they do.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


This is not only a welcome sister thread to, "Science fails to exclude God".
Even more so compelling is the evidence coming from a more appropriate field of Science. What one should
expect to find in the archeological record according to the Biblical account ? More often than not does show
concurence.

In light of the evidence given, and the massive amount of evidence I have NOT given but can be easily attained, I am compelled to believe that science, atleast archaeology, supports the biblical worldview. Anyone who could manage to say otherwise in light of this evidence, I think, is simply choosing to remain ignorant of the facts.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

The problem is that they're only convincing to you. You would have to find things that are convincing to others.

I can't force you to accept something, but if you approach it with an open mind, remaining clear of all bias, you'd be able to accept that archaeological findings have reinforced the historical validity of the biblical account.

Not necessarily.

I taught science. I believe in something if the historical evidence is there -- in other words, I believe that Charlemagne existed because of all the documents, tombs, and things written about him.

On the other hand, there are a lot of lovely old songs that are about people and places -- but I wouldn't base a chapter of history on a single song and the presence of "Loch Lomond" isn't proof of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Both of those are
- older than the bible
- from a civilization that enslaved the Hebrews.

Conquerers don't make slave legends part of their religion.

My point exactly. The notion of a massive flood and the details that coincide is generally a worldwide "myth". That's not how "myths" work. In almost all circumstances, myths stay localized. Furthermore, the civilizations that enslaved the Hebrews had no reason to fabricate such a myth.

Ah... you kind of got my point scrambled. The flood story was an old tale (told with several modifications) in the Babylonian and Sumerian cultures. Now -- what you may not know -- is that there is an ancient tradition of Rabbinical stories... rabbis will pick up stories and retell them, changing them so that they make a religious or moral point to give to the people. Storytellers of all stripes change the stories so that they refer to local events and places.

Look up the hundreds of variations on the "Cinderella" story sometime. Same basic plot, same wicked stepmother, same redemption by a prince, same duo of nasty sisters -- varies in chores, localities, names, and minor details.

In addition, the flood myths (pure ones) are pretty local in flavor (a god cut open a cocoanut and water flowed out and flooded the place and a man and a woman emerged -- gods fight and cut open the mother goddess and make the earth out of her body and the oceans out of her blood.) When they get a dominant culture in the area (Christianity) then the story gets changed by interaction with missionaries.

Wikipedia says there's lots of interpretations and that the date range isn't known. Besides, Egypt had more than one plague.

Correct but that doesn't MEAN anything. Egypt had more than one plague, true, but it is ONE singular event. The first plague leads to the second and so on and so forth.

Except (if i'm reading it correctly) the ten plagues are NOT mentioned there (some "plagues" are.) And they aren't unique events -- Egypt gets locust plagues frequently, they had several outbreaks of bubonic type plague throughout the 3,000 year history, the Nile does become red and undrinkable during some flood years, and there are years when the flies and mosquitoes are really bad. Your title there said that science and archaeology support this, but when I read about it, I find that the archaeologists do NOT support it: en.wikipedia.org...

600 BC? That's not very old. If it was supporting the Biblical worldview, wouldn't Ra or Ainu be the same thing as YHWH? Because the Bible says there aren't any deities created before YHWH and he's the only true one. If this was true, those older civilizations would have record.

Language barriers and so on and so forth. There are NO other Gods. There is only ONE God. There are false gods, there is one True God. Do I know the name of this God? Most certainly I do not, but I know His characteristics. This is enough to say whether Ra or Ainu is the same as YHWH. All one has to do is look at the characteristics and differences in the culture and language to come to a conclusion. There are numerous "solar deities" but none are called the same thing in all cultures.

I'm not being impolite, but if I understand it, your proof for their being one deity (and only one) is that his name is written in a holy book that was put together over a period of about 500 years (with ecuminical fights and a few murders and excommunications and wars) and then handed down as "this is proof."

Now... I have a MUCH older book that says there are many gods and it has a detailed theology (we don't know how it was put together) and it talks about life, laws, and resurrection into the afterlife. My book is 2,000 years older than yours (the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Coffin Texts) and was preserved intact with these same deities for 2,000 years before yours was written.

So what we've got is two books. My book is very different from yours. You are saying that my book (written first) is wrong and as proof you use your book. I'm saying my older one is right and as proof I'm using my book. Furthermore, my book gets the names of the historical characters both major and minor right (Coffin texts are religious texts and contain the name of the deceased in them. This name matches the name on the tomb and on the coffin.)

So my book has accurate information on festivals and dates that your book doesn't have, and my book is older. Copies of my book are found with kings of a dynasty far older than yours, when nothing like the deity of your book exists.


SOCRATIC QUESTION
How do you know my gods (which are older) are false and yours (only invented 3,000 years afterwards) is the one true god? As I understand it, your god is supposed to have been communicating with the first people... and humans came up out of Africa.

Like I said, it validates the Davidic dynasty. Prior to this there were no nonbiblical references to the Davidic dynasty.

It says there was a ruler of that name. It doesn't say a thing about the dynasty. Or even if it was the same David. Names in those times weren't unique, and this is something that students of deep history struggle with. "Is this Saul the same as that one over there? Is this Hiram the one from this region or that region?"

They called EVERY OTHER RELIGION a "pagan idolatry." These weren't Hebrew/Israelite cities. They were foreign cities. They had their own deities until they were overrun. EVERY city in the area was a "center of pagan idolatry."

And so on and so forth. I winced again over the "Luke" reference -- the names and titles of officials of the Roman empire is common knowledge and was written everywhere. There isn't any doubt about that matter.

and the fact that we have found Artemis' temple, validates their reason for calling them a center for pagan worship. If there isn't any doubt about the names, titles, places, references, so and so forth, why do modern athiests question the reliability of the NT writters?

I'm not an atheist.

Second, the temples were in EVERY city, as were temples to Isis and a hundred other deities. This was a time when all religions were welcomed and given respect. There were large centers for worship of these deities (generally in their home countries) but every single town that had a multicultural population had its own temples. Just as today, in Boston, you can find places to worship Buddha, Jesus, God (I consider Jesus-as-god different from YHWH-as-god-and-Jesus-as-son), the Voodoo loas, Nordic gods, Celtic gods, Hindu gods, Japanese gods, and the deities of a lot of other groups because Boston doesn't legislate the worship of a single deity.

The presence of a big temple there does not necessarily make it a center for worship of any other deities any more than the big synagogue in O rlando, Florida makes it a center for Jewish worship.

It doesn't, and in fact, the Biblical Archaeology courses and sites struggle to find evidence that exactly matches anything in the Bible that isn't general history.

So you're saying that it struggles to find evidence that matches the bible that ISN'T general history? Let me get this straight, you're saying....the bible is historically accurate?

In other words, you said : "The Bible contains general historical facts."

No, I'm not saying it's historically accurate. I'm saying that yes, it has some general historical facts -- like Israel did conquer parts of the Middle East under some of its kings and that Babylonians conquered Israel and that Rome did rule Israel and Palestine. A lot of the personal details (such as Pontius Pilate) are wrong or confused with several people (there were two rulers of that name.)

As far as accuracy, Herodotus' travels are more accurate as to dates and times (and yes, before you ask, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover many times and own six different copies and know how to use the Strong's Concordance... AND I have read Herodotus as well.)

So... to return to your argument... I think that if we matched events in Herodotus (which is older than your Bible by several hundred years) we'd find that Herodotus more accurately gave verifiable historical events and locations.[

Originally posted by Atzil321
So your saying that because real ancient place names and references to people that
lived in biblical times appear in scrolls/tablets outside of the bible, proves the bible to
be correct and that god exists?
Thats like saying trolls elves and orcs exist because tolkien used his knowledge of
saxon England and scandinavia to give lord of the rings a sense of authenticity, langauges,
some place names and culture ect...

Don't mess with the Elves..

www.theregister.co.uk...

I think that archeology supports rough biblical history.

That's it though. The illiad seems to support the idea of Troy as well.
We didn't come from nowhere. The interpretation of events though - I think that was all man.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I was compelled to write this after viewing Randyvs thread Science fails to Exclude God

This thread only goes so far as to show that archaeology has done nothing to refute the existence of God.

Which god? And why would it?

The fact that archaeology shows that some stories told in various worldwide religious tracts may have been based on real events has as much bearing on the actual existance of whichever god (or gods) you believe in as the fact there is clover growing in my garden.

Think about it