ernestombayo

Many atheists have often claimed that the Bible has contradictions.Christian scholars have often disagreed,saying that these "contradictions" are due to wrong interpretations of the bible.Most biblical archaeologists say that they have yet to find an archaeological discovery that has openly refuted the bible.

A quick google shows how hard it is to find a site that claims to have archeological evidence that disproves the bible.A certain Biblical scholar said," of the thousands of the scrolls,manuscipts,discovered cities,potteries,coins,cave paintings etc,no single archeological discovery has contradicted the bible."

My question is,is there any archeological evidence that disproves the bible outrightly.EG a city discovered thousands of kilometers from the actual place mentioned in the bible.Just some concrete evidence that disproves the bible.coins,pottery,weapons.anything that does not have to do with subjective interpretations.

EG:

According to the book of Joshua, when Joshua came to Jericho it was a formidable city, enclosed by a large wall and inhabited by Canaanites. Through a miracle, part of the wall of the city collapsed, which allowed the Israelite army to rush in, kill the people, and set the city on fire. Later, Jericho was rebuilt and inhabited. If the Bible is accurate, archaeologists should be able to dig into the tel, the dirt mound, at the site of Old Testament Jericho and find a large collapsed wall associated with a burn layer. Sure enough, archaeologists do find a large wall at Jericho, which is partially collapsed and associated with a deep burn layer indicating great destruction, not just a small fire.

Tomb of Caiaphas

In November, 1990, a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem that contains an ossuary with the name of Caiaphas carved into it. The burial cave is located in the Peace Forest, south of the Gehenna Valley, near the Government House where the United Nations was located. The high priest before whom Jesus appeared just before his death was named Caiaphas (see Matthew 26:3,57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13,14,24,28). Later both Simon Peter and John appeared before him in Jerusalem (Acts 4:6). Archaeologists have identified the site as the burial cave of the family of Caiaphas.

etc


NOTE 1:Now thats the type of concrete examples i would give,not theories based on no available physical data.We are not discussing the religious or spiritual aspect.Just hard history.No matter what caused the walls to collapse we don't care,all we care is, are they the way way they were described in the bible,does the city exist.Are the dates correct.etc.

NOTE 2: Please avoid posts such as,"well the bible mentions such and such a king,town and there is no evidence of them,so they or it must have not existed.".I am looking for positive evidence against the bible,archaeologically.

Conclusion, does archeology disprove or prove the bible.and to what extent does it prove or disprove the bible?

Nauticus

A single find would not invalidate the whole Bible, but it does provide good reason for incredulity and works against the view of Biblical inerrancy.

If you want to take into account what every theologian and apologist has said about contradictions, there will be none left. I prefer common sense over their reasoning though.

dr lazer blast

Can you liste some of those findings that would provide good reason for incredulity?

makerowner

There's a common motto: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence". That's true, but I have a different formulation: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." If someone claims that a nuclear bomb was dropped on London in 1782, we would certainly be justified in asking why we have no evidence of it. We can't prove that no nuclear bomb was dropped, but we can suggest that it's highly unlikely. The same argument applies to various Bible stories:
1. The Flood in Genesis (not strictly archaeology, but same idea).
2. The table of Nations in Genesis
3. The Ten Plagues of Egypt aren't mentioned in any records (you'd think that if all their kids died, someone might mention it)
4. The Exodus (millions of people wandering through the deserts for decades without leaving a single trace of evidence)
5. The conquest of Canaan (cities supposedly destroyed during this period have a continuous settlement history)
6. The united kingdom (not mentioned in any contemporary sources; Judea unable to support a temple- and palace-building monarchy at that time)
And then there's various failed prophecies, such as Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy, his Egypt prophecy, Matthew's "this generation" prophecy, etc.

Civil1z@tion

How do you propose to find archeology that disproves the bible if you have just discounted all the times where archelologists didn't find something? For instance, how is one supposed to prove the exodus didn't happen besides by pointing out migrations leave evidence and there is no evidence of migration from Egypt to Canaan in the time frame the exodus supposedly happened in? Were the Egyptians supposed to bury signs that said "no Hebrew Exodus happened here"?

jules?

This is the nub of the issue that gets mixed up when it comes to the bible and archaeology. It is about starting points.

Investigating an historic site is a jigsaw puzzle that generates evidence such as zones of habitation and occupation. Investigation provides clues to the sites wealth and status. The use of several dating methods brings the site into a larger geographical context and so slowly a picture of life and human development is built.

Unfortunately when it comes to archaeology of the 'Bible Lands' it gets turned on its head. Rather than documented history aiding interpretation of archaeology the bible ends up dictating the meaning of the finds. It has a long history with archaeology being born in Egypt as expeditions were often funded by a Christian public looking to have the Israel in Egypt bit of the Bible exposed. Even now the archaeology of the Levant contradicts the bible yet the popular representation of archaeology overlooks the facts.

For instance [according to I Finklestein]A grand total of 544 archaeological surveys have been carried out in the area specifically around settlements mentioned in the bible in relation to Saul, David and Solomon and with the exception of just two sites all were completely devoid of any late Bronze-Age finds. Quite simply the area was void of any sizeable settlements prior to the Iron-Age i.e 1100 bce. Jerusalem did have a Caananite settlement in 1800bce which was quickly abadoned. It is called David's city even today although it is neither a city nor david's. It is only in 700 that a sizable settlement takes root and this is further attested by the Babylonian invasian in 580. Prior to then the Northern city of Megiddo that was the real centre of power and almost constantly occupied as a settlement from 5000 bce.

United kingdom? no, a great Empire? no, even the city of Jerusalem prior to 700-600 is non existant. A magnificant northern city of Megiddo, yes which is, I suppose evidence that the Bible is wrong.

ernestombayo

Jules, thank you for your contribution.

i stumbled upon this article which may strongly suggest that a United Kingdom existed.

Toto

That finding was discussed here when it was made in 2005: thread in BCH

thead in Ev/Cr

ernestombayo

thanks.i have read the thread but still no serious objection to the find.
Another article on the same topic


Here is another website with some Edomite pottery,seals excavated.

ANd the report on edom at the Science Daily website.

jules?

The full article is here here and in reality it does not suggest a united kingdom. It does demonstrate that a very productive copper mine and foundry that was protected by a small fortress existed in Edomite territory from the 11-10th century. it suggests that the down turn or dark age impacted on Cyprus as a centre of copper production and an old mine that was operational several centuries earlier was redeveloped. The finds, particularly the pottery show the occupants traded with local cultures although 'Judian' finds are non-existent.

It seems the authors are cashing in on the controversy surrounding 'biblical' archaeology as the study and dig would not get the same coverage if just the facts were presented.

The Bible mentions Edom, but also Babylon, Assyria, Philistines, Egypt, we know they existed but mentioning them does not make it true.