Does Archeology Support The Bible Record?

An article published in Biblical Archaeology Review stated that the existence of “at least 50” individuals mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures can now be confirmed by the findings of archaeologists. Among these are 14 kings of Judah and Israel, including such well-known figures as David and Hezekiah, and the lesser-known Menahem and Pekah. The list also includes 5 Pharaohs and 19 kings of Assyria, Babylonia, Moab, Persia, and Syria. Monarchs are not the only ones to appear in both the Biblical and archaeological record, however. So do lesser figures, such as high priests, a scribe, and other officials.

 

Does archaeology support the bible record?

Don't know, is it on compact disc? Is sound fidelity better on vinyl? I think archaeology supports the scientific view.

 

possibly some things recorded in the bible can be shown to be plausible by archaelogical evidence but there are also things that the evidence shows a different story.

as far as the sound fidelity ... which one sounds better is subjective. but Im pretty sure that the CD is more "accurate". this is also the case with methods of obtaining evidence, some tools and methods can be proven more accurate than others whether you like what you see or not.

 

Archeology does not support the Bible, nor does it support evolution, as there is constantly evidence being dug up showing that humans are far older than previously suggested.

 

It reaffirms that those people really existed, but it doesn't support other things written in the bible with certainty of course.

 

some of it does and some of it doesn't..

 

The naming of actual historical figures in any fiction does not mean the fiction has any basis in truth, otherwise one could claim the same about Dr Who.

 

Biblical Archaeology Review? forget archeology, just look at the name!

 

Nor should we expect archaeology to support evolution because archaeology is the study of human activity in the past and has nothing to do with the origin of species or genetic changes over time. Also, demonstrating that an organism is older than previously thought would not be evidence against evolution, it would only mean that particular evolutionary relationships need to be re-examined. Evolution is demonstrated to be true by paleontology, geology, chemistry, biology, embryology, and genetics.

As for archaeological support for the Bible... No, as others have pointed out, finding that certain people actually existed does nothing to support the fundamental tenets of Christianity or its allegedly devine basis.

 

i think evolution has the framework right, but if you take a second to consider the actual tangible evidence that paleontologists are working with its extremely old deteriorating bones. keeping that in mind, theres going to be a margin of error and scientists will always be fine tuning evolutionary paths and timelines.

if humans are far older than previously suggested, why would that not support evolution?

 

What these findings show is the bible was accurate when it named these persons. Which means it stands also as a history book. Which to me is pretty outstanding considering these writings are 2000-3000 years old.

 

It also states that Noah lived for 950 years. And that his son only lived about 600... Does that sound like a believable history book to you?

 

Although we don't see it happening around us today, that doesn't mean that under different circumstances it couldn't happen.

 

You might want to inform yourself before being dismissive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

 

I'm going to say that this is probably my favorite post of the day.

 

LOL, Riiiight. not to fuck with your faith but science doesn't bear that out, dude.
Bones are easy to carbon date, and we have plenty of human bones that predate the bible. There's no evidence that points to anything of the sort.

 

It is a historical book which contains lots of facts. In that regard it is quite amazing and insightful. But it's not a history book in the literal sense and neither as reliable. So if one is going to use it to gain insight in history (which can be done, it is just strongly recommended to not limit one self to it) they need to use their critical thinking skills.

 

It's more like "historical fiction" where it fits a basic historical timeline, but many of the facts, figures and events are fictionalized for the entertainment of the reader.

 

I think you're being too generous there. The timeline may be sort of ok after a certain date, but the early stuff is myth pure and simple.

 

True dat!