burning flames

Basically he says that archaeologists are often skeptical of the claims of the Old Testament but time and time again find new discoveries that corroborate it.
He claims (as of the year 2000 anyways when the book was published) that there have literally been "thousands" of finds that agree with the OT perspective.

As examples of some of the bigger finds he mentions the discoveries that confirmed the existence of King David http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%...29#Archaeology

He mentions that discoveries concerning the narratives of the patriarchs (Abraham, Issac, and Jacob) are corroborating the Biblical accounts (he doesn't specify how unfortunately... I should do a study on this)

On Sodom and Gomorrah he writes:

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was thought to be mythological until evidence was uncovered that all five of the cities mentioned in Genesis were, in fact, situated just as the Old Testament said. As far as their destruction goes, archaeologist Clifford Wilson said there is ‘permanent evidence of the great conflagration that took place in the long distant past.’

Here's a wiki link for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_a...ah#Historicity

He reveals that certain aspects of the Jewish captivity is being confirmed.
That all references to Assyrian kings have been right on.
That the word did probably have a single language at one time.
That Solomon's temple did exist.

Here's an interesting tid-bit:

Samuel says that after Saul’s death his armor was put in the temple of Ashtoroth…while Chronicles reports that his head was put in the temple of a Philistine corn god named Dagon. Now, archaeologists thought that must have been an error and therefore the Bible was unreliable. They didn’t think enemies would have had temples in the same place at the same time…. [Archaeologists] confirmed through excavations that there two temples at that, one each for Dagon and Ashtoroth…. As it turned out, the Philistines had apparently adopted Ashtoroth as one of their own goddesses. The Bible was right after all….

That Hittites did exist despite critical doubts on the matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites

He also quotes archaeologist William F. Abright who said:

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition.

And that's just the Old Testament.

Solitary Man

I'm afraid he's wrong. While yes, archaeological finds corroborate the story of the "Old Testament", it hasn't always. In fact, some archaeological evidence directly dispute certain parts of OT. In particular the Exodus (unless you go on the faulty notion that they were the Habiru, but then you're left with quite a different story then some would have you believe), and Joseph, whose name, even his "Egyptian" one, is not recorded in the lists of the Grand Viziers. In fact, the names of the viziers that were around the time period of Joseph were found, and nothing matches either his Hebrew name or his Egyptian one.

Each example has to be taken piece by piece:

You might want to actually read that article. It supports a skewed version of your view. And while BYTDWD may refer to the House of David, that no more proves David existed calling Romans Quirites confirms the existence of Quirinus the Roman deity who was on earth as the Romulus, the founder of Rome. Meanwhile, there's still no evidence for 10th century Jerusalem occupation. Dever, in my opinion, overestimates the literary and anthropological evidence. What the final evaluation is remains to be seen.

This is bunk. Find out what you can, but it's very much so bunk.

The Hittites in question are different than the Hittites in the Biblical narrative. The article you give underestimates the doubt of the identification.

Albright, not Abright, is old school. But alas, it's just an appeal to authority if there's no evidence to back it up.

Doug Shaver

Defenders of inerrantism have been saying that ever since archaeology was invented. With each passing decade, the more they make the argument, the more specious it gets. It increasingly depends on a gross filtering of the facts in evidence and highly selective appeals to carefully chosen authorities.

Doug Shaver

The book in which Albright wrote that was published more than 60 years ago. I do not know how many archaeologists would have agreed with him at that time, but practically everything they have learned since then has undermined his claim.

That apologists still parade this quotation shows that they don't give a damn about real scholarship. As far as they're concerned, an authority must be believed if, but only if, he supports their dogma.

Sheshonq

As a general rule, avoid any reference that uses Wikipedia. Avoid using it yourself, for that matter. Group blogs that get mobbed by fundamentalists are hardly a source.

Search for Geisler on this site. You'll find his arguments soundly thrashed.