Does Archaeology prove or disprove the accuracy of the Bible?

1. 71

   True Truthseekerposted 15 years ago

   Does Archaeology prove or disprove the accuracy of the Bible?
   
   
   ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND    SIGNIFICANCE
   Mari Tablets    Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to Abraham's time period, explain many of the patriarchal traditions of Genesis.
   Ebla Tablets    Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the Deuteronomy law code. The previously thought fictitious five cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
   Nuzi Tablets    They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to the patriarchal accounts such as maids producing children for barren

   replyreport
2. 61

   Merlin Fraserposted 15 years ago

   For the most part archaeology and a few other sciences tend to challenge the accuracy of the Bible.
   However that is not surprising given the time period when the Biblical stories were originally told.
   Today it is unfortunate and perhaps a little sad that some people can not or will not accept the Biblical account of history is far from accurate by any standard and was written as much for political reasons as  much of todays literature is written.
   For instance we now know for certain that Moses could not have written the first 5 books of the Bible.
   In fact there is no archaeological evidence to prove Moses ever existed as a person nor evidence that an Exodus took place which kind of makes a nonesense of the rest of the book..

   replyreport
3. 71

   True Truthseekerposted 15 years ago

   PAST CHARGES BY CRITICS    ANSWERED BY ARCHAEOLOGY
   Moses could not have written Pentateuch because he lived before the invention of writing.    Writing existed many centuries before Moses.
   Abraham's home city of Ur does not exist.    Ur was discovered. One of the columns had the inscription "Abram."
   The city built of solid rock called "Petra" does not exist.    Petra was discovered.
   The story of the fall of Jericho is myth. The city never existed.    The city was found and excavated. It was found that the walls tumbled in the exact manner described by the biblical narrative.
   The "Hittites" did not exist.    Hundreds of references to the amazing Hittite civilization have been found. One can even get a doctorate in Hittite studies at the University of Chicago.
   Belshazzar was not a real king of Babylon; he is not found in the records.    Tablets of Babylonia describe the reign of this coregent and son of Nabonidus.

   replyreport
4. 0

   ShotgunChelleposted 14 years ago

   every culture has its tales of morality; we tell these to our children to teach them the difference between right and wrong. we teach by example, and since none of us are perfect, we must make take our examples from characters, real or not. nobody agrees exactly on what is right and what is wrong, so it is natural to believe that some stories throughout history have been changed to tell a different truth, perhaps a truth more relevant to the storyteller's point. i'm not referring only to the bible here, it is true with any branch of mythology.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Hubdooblrposted 12 years ago

   It depends on your perspective. If you're talking about the Bible from a standpoint of historical fact, or from a theological stand point; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

   replyreport