Archaeology and the Bible

Some of the most prevalent criticisms leveled against the Bible are concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a supposed lack of evidence from non-biblical sources to confirm the Biblical record. Because the Bible is filled with supernatural claims and is inherently a religious book, many take the position that its record cannot be trusted as historical fact. Some stop there and say that the Bible is still a good book of moral lessons despite historical inaccuracy. Others go further and claim that it cannot be a standard of morality because of its historical errors. Either way, their claims spring from a “guilty until proven innocent” charge based on a lack of outside evidence. Nevertheless, the Bible’s “innocence”, and more specifically its reliability, has been evidenced time and again, particularly in the field of archaeology.

The following are only a few of the multitude of discoveries that have been made since the mid-1800s which demonstrate the reliability of the Bible record.

 

Who Says Jesus Existed?

One of the more popular accusations brought against Biblical Christianity is that there are no historical sources outside of the Bible that confirm the truth of the Biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth. Many people simply deny the accuracy of the New Testament in details of the life of Jesus, but appreciate the “main ideas.” Others boldly deny that He existed at all. But, is the Bible the only place we find the story of Jesus, or are there sources outside of the Bible to back up what the Bible says.

In other words, besides the Bible, who says Jesus existed?

All about Ardi

News Flash!!! The “Missing Link” has been found!…again!

OK. To be fair, it isn’t so much that the “Missing Link” has been found as it is that Ida has been replaced — replaced by Ardi.

Of all that’s being said about the newest addition to the evolutionary hall of fame, ”Ardi”, the simple fact is that all the facts are not in. Nevertheless, the people who are speaking the most matter-of-factly about  Ardi are not creationists, proclaiming that Ardi means nothing. The people who are most sure of themselves are the evolutionists, proclaiming that Ardi means everything.

I guess we’ll see if Ardi does “change everything” and proves to be the “evidence Darwin only dreamed of”, or if it will go the way of its predecessors. (You know the other “missing links” such as: Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis,  Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man.) While all of these are facinating finds, they have all fallen short of being the silver bullet for proving Darwinian evolution as fact.

Here’s what some experts say:

All about Ida

Who (or what) is Ida? And, what’s the big fuss?

The History Channel advertized a special about Ida running the punch line, “This changes everything.” That statement pretty much sums up the attitude behind all the hype. That’s how big they think this is.But, the thing is, if Ida ‘changes everything’ then what was Darwinian evolution before Ida? Evolutionists have treated their ideas as settled fact for decades. Ida should only confirm what they say has already been proven. But, the Darwiniam mainstream is acting as if now they’ve really got something. Now they really have it settled. Now they can relax.

This ought to show us something - how insecure Darwinianism really is despite being hailed as fact. And, because the theory is insecure, the theorists are insecure as well. The Christian, on the other hand, can rest assure that what’s found inside of a rock cannot destroy the Rock of our faith.

I, in no way, claim to have expertise in this field (or pretty much any other field for that matter). So, I defer to all the scientists who do have that expertise. Here are some of the many helpful articles I’ve found that are all about Ida.

Archaeology and the Bible

Today, some of the most popular criticisms against the Bible are concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a supposed lack of evidence from non-biblical sources to confirm the Biblical record. Because the Bible is filled with supernatural claims and is a religious book, many take the position that its record cannot be trusted as historical fact. Some stop there and say that the Bible is still a good book of moral lessons despite historical inaccuracy. Others go further and claim that it cannot be a standard of morality because of its historical errors. Either way, their claims spring from a “guilty until proven innocent” charge based on a lack of outside evidence. Nevertheless, the Bible’s “innocence”, and more specifically its reliability, has been evidenced time and again, particularly in the field of archaeology.

They Lived How Long!?!

Genesis 5

Difficulty:

As we read through the first few chapters of the Bible, we are presented with a world that is very unlike ours. One of the characteristics of the world described in Genesis is the incredibly long lives lived by the men listed in Genesis 5.

For example, Adam is said to have lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5), and his son Seth is said to have lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8). These alone make Enoch’s life of 365 years seem short (Genesis 5:23). Of course everyone knows the oldest of them all, Methuselah, lived to be a ripe old age of 969 years old (Genesis 5:27). The average age of these guys was pushing a millennium!

Seeing the long lives of these men, we have to ask two questions: 1) did these men really live to be that old and if so, 2)how?

Interview with Darrell Bock

Every time Darrell Bock opens his mouth something smart falls out.

Dr. Bock (for all the Trekkies out there) is the Research Professor of New Testament Studies and Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has more credentials than I have time to list.

Here are four videos from an interview in which Bock discusses a number of issues concerning the many misunderstandings about Christ and the Bible.

Absolutely Sure of Absolute Truth

Aw, do we have to?

Nearly every teenager in the world shapes their philosophy and defines their being by asking two age-old, monumental questions – “Do we really have to?” and “WHY!?!”

So, do we really have to do apologetics? If so, why? Well, I can think of a few reasons.

1. Because God told us to. You just can’t argue with verses like 1 Peter 3:15 and Jude 3.
2. Because God told us to. No, seriously, we shouldn’t need another reason! Nevertheless, I have a few more anyways.
   

You are an apologist…yeah, you!

In Matthew 5:13-16, the Lord Jesus calls Christians two things: salt and light. He doesn’t tell us that we could be salt and light, or even that we should be salt and light. He just tells that we are salt and light. The question is not if we are salt and light, but how good are we at being salt and light. If salt loses its flavor, it’s useless. If light is hidden, it’s pointless. It’s that simple.

Apologetics is very similar. The question is not if we could or should be apologists. We already are apologists. We became apologists when we became Christians. God has called us to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us what we believe and why we believe it (1 Peter 3:15).