 |
Over the years there have been many
criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical
reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence
from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is
a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and
cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from
extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven
innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in
doubt.
This standard is far
different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though
many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be
accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although
it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the
discoveries of archaeology since the mid 1800s have demonstrated the
reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative. Here are some
examples.

Clay tablet from Ebla
- The discovery of the Ebla archive in
northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings
concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay
tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place
names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name
"Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was
not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters
of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in
Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late
writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the
vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient
customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been
found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
- The Hittites were once thought to be
a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered
at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to
Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from
the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the
king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once
claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in
Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record.
Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very
event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on
the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing
the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was
Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of
Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were
found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as
coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel
"third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for
reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position.
Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical
record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of
archaeology.
Author: Bryant Wood of Associates
for Biblical Research
Copyright
© 1995, Associates for Biblical Research, All Rights Reserved -
except as noted on attached "Usage
and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users
generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal
witnessing, churches and schools.

|