- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 55,511
- Reaction score
- 26,535
Saw an article about this ... it's a question I think many who are not devout followers have ... how much is factual - how much can be proven ... why so many years to document?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
Proving the Bible
NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.
The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.