Archaeological vs Biblical history, how to respond?

[tremple]

Hi,

I'm 56 and have been an evangelical christian since I was 20. I've recently read a number of books by several leading archaeologists, (Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, William Dever, Michael Coogan, Carol Redmount, etc).

There appears to be a growing consensus among archaeologists that most of the Old Testament (ie Genesis to 2Kings), was written in the seventh century BCE. Although Genesis to 2Kings presents itself as history, many of the stories from relating to earlier times (ie 25th to 8th century BCE), are inconsistent with actual history. For instance, these archaeologists would say Exodus as described in the Bible never happened.

I've come to the personal conclusion that these archaeologists are correct. However, I'm also convinced that for whatever reason, God still reveals himself in Genesis to 2Kings. But I must admit, I don't know why He would he would use non-historical stories to reveal himself.

My purpose in coming to this blog is not to argue whether or not these archaeologists are correct. Rather, its to seek out other people who agree with these archaeologists, love the Lord, and want to come up with a Christian response to this issue. Church should not be a place where people check their brains at the door.

Would anyone care to work with me on this?

Best regards,
Terry

[Danieltwotwenty]

Church should not be a place where people check their brains at the door.

Hi tremple, I find the above to be a little disturbing, from my own studies into Biblical archaeology I still believe that the events, places and approximate dates are factual.

I know you don't want to debate the issue but I feel like your insinuating that people who take the opposite view are "checking their brains at the door", which is hardly the case.

There are plenty of prominent archaeologists that would disagree with your list, to me the jury is still out.


Dan

[PaulSacramento]

There are a few views on this matter.
One is that the OT must have been written AFTER the events it describes because, will, those events would have to happen FIRST and then be written about.
Here is the thing, IF we believe in divine prophecy then that need not be the case.
Of course historians and archaeologists do NOT so...
Second, it is probably the case that many events were written down after the fact and most certainly copied after the fact and in doing so, it is quite natural to write in a way that makes the events being reported seem to be "after the fact".

Many things(biblical events) have been shown to be correct, even if perhaps "embellished" or "propagandized".
The only really issues I have seen is reconciling the LITERAL and CONCRETE of what is written with evidence that has been found that confirms/denies certian events ( dates, locations, quantities, etc...).

[tremple]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. I do apologize for the phrase about “checking my brains at the door”. What I really meant to say was that if a dedicated and sincere scientist came to church, the church would not promote as facts things that his area of study has shown to be untrue.

For instance, a pastor recently spoke about Cain and Abel as if the events described in Genesis 4 actually happened. However, most scientists would agree that the earliest humans lived at least 200,000 years ago. That means Adam and Eve would have had to live before that. However, the Neolithic age started around 10,000 BCE. This was when humans first domesticated crops and animals, and started cities. Since Cain started a city, and Cain and Abel were both farmers, they would have had to have lived after 10,000 BCE. Given the above, at least one of the following statements cannot be true:
- Adam and Eve were the first humans
- Cain started a city and Cain and Abel were farmers
- Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve

Ideally, the church could acknowledge the differences between Biblical and Archaeological history, and yet still show that its message of love and salvation did not depend upon the Bible being historically accurate.

This is the message that I’m looking for, and want to come to grips with. I’ve got some thoughts, but am looking for some like minded folks to work through it with, or perhaps learn from if they’ve already worked through it.

Thanks again,
Terry

[B. W.]

Hi,

I'm 56 and have been an evangelical christian since I was 20. I've recently read a number of books by several leading archaeologists, (Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, William Dever, Michael Coogan, Carol Redmount, etc).

There appears to be a growing consensus among archaeologists that most of the Old Testament (ie Genesis to 2Kings), was written in the seventh century BCE. Although Genesis to 2Kings presents itself as history, many of the stories from relating to earlier times (ie 25th to 8th century BCE), are inconsistent with actual history. For instance, these archaeologists would say Exodus as described in the Bible never happened.

I've come to the personal conclusion that these archaeologists are correct. However, I'm also convinced that for whatever reason, God still reveals himself in Genesis to 2Kings. But I must admit, I don't know why He would he would use non-historical stories to reveal himself.

My purpose in coming to this blog is not to argue whether or not these archaeologists are correct. Rather, its to seek out other people who agree with these archaeologists, love the Lord, and want to come up with a Christian response to this issue. Church should not be a place where people check their brains at the door.

Would anyone care to work with me on this?

Best regards,
Terry

We have documents stating that there was a Trojan war, yet these sources came hundreds of years after the event. The fact, remains that there was a war as the city was found.

How can these folks who wrote this assume that there was not ancient documents written before their assumptions and the current ones are copies of the originals, which would have eroded on the material used in those times?

As for Exodus - the real Mountain of God is in Saudi Arabia and not on the Sinai. Also, all the places mentioned in Exodus are found, even to this day, in Saudi Arabia. If I were to rely on the Sinai locations, alone, I would doubt too. Try to do research on this and find out how the Sinai locations were derived and by whom. The real issue for these folks is this: The Jewish people, and their faith remains intact, while all others have vanished away. These people came from somewhere. They have a history. Be wary of pro-Arab influence in archaeology as political tools to interpret archaeological finds. Also be wary of those with liberal progressive world views in archaeology too as that political/social/intolerant of biblical themes based ideology is prevalent in the world archaeology and theology.

Bible does mention a - falling away - coming first and these times in which we now live suggest it has begun...
-
-
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

For instance, a pastor recently spoke about Cain and Abel as if the events described in Genesis 4 actually happened. However, most scientists would agree that the earliest humans lived at least 200,000 years ago. That means Adam and Eve would have had to live before that. However, the Neolithic age started around 10,000 BCE. This was when humans first domesticated crops and animals, and started cities. Since Cain started a city, and Cain and Abel were both farmers, they would have had to have lived after 10,000 BCE. Given the above, at least one of the following statements cannot be true:
- Adam and Eve were the first humans
- Cain started a city and Cain and Abel were farmers
- Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first humans, they were the first hominids to be endowed with a spirit, making them into the likeness of God. Other hominids may have existed outside the garden and when God threw Adam and Eve out we know they exist because the Bible talks about them and who did Cain marry, so at some point God must have endowed them with his likeness also.

I don't believe the Bible gives us a time frame for Cain and Abel or for Adam and Eve, we presume the genealogies are complete but I don't think that is the case, Jewish genealogies from my understanding only list the important people and there could be many generations between the people listed. Cain and Abel may have existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, we just don't know and we can't say for certain the story is allegory.

Ideally, the church could acknowledge the differences between Biblical and Archaeological history, and yet still show that its message of love and salvation did not depend upon the Bible being historically accurate.

I agree. The Biblical narrative does not rely on real events or not, these are side issues that have no bearing on God's message to his people, but in saying that I don't think there is any reason to doubt the validity of the claims as there is no real evidence either way.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ~ William Lane Craig.

Edit. I think that the Bible is correct, I think it is man's interpretation/understanding that is incorrect.

Dan

[hughfarey]

"Although Genesis to 2Kings presents itself as history, many of the stories from relating to earlier times (ie 25th to 8th century BCE), are inconsistent with actual history. For instance, these archaeologists would say Exodus as described in the Bible never happened."

I think it's important to distinguish between the religious and the historical importance of these early books. Religiously, of course, they are the essence of the Abrahamic religions and nothing can detract from that. Historically however, they represent the internal record of a very small, localised group of people, whose activities, however important to themselves, made virtually no impact on the recorded history of major cultures such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is obvious that the Bibles descriptions of things like areas of land, population numbers and timescales are entirely relative to the environment in which its authors lived, and usually appear vastly exaggerated by global standards. With that in mind it may not be surprising that archaeological evidence for the Exodus is minimal. The escape, even the mass escape, of a single slave encampment out of dozens, and the wanderings of one group of nomads as opposed to any other, is, in the great scheme of things, trivial, and it is not surprising that nobody else noticed.

What is extraordinary is that among the plethora of wandering tribes that criss-crossed the Middle East in Biblical times, quite possibly each with its own oral history and culture, the circumstances arose among one of them that we have now such comprehensive documentation of it. That in itself might be enough to provide evidence for divine providence, if one were searching for it.

[B. W.]

"Although Genesis to 2Kings presents itself as history, many of the stories from relating to earlier times (ie 25th to 8th century BCE), are inconsistent with actual history. For instance, these archaeologists would say Exodus as described in the Bible never happened."

I think it's important to distinguish between the religious and the historical importance of these early books. Religiously, of course, they are the essence of the Abrahamic religions and nothing can detract from that. Historically however, they represent the internal record of a very small, localised group of people, whose activities, however important to themselves, made virtually no impact on the recorded history of major cultures such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is obvious that the Bibles descriptions of things like areas of land, population numbers and timescales are entirely relative to the environment in which its authors lived, and usually appear vastly exaggerated by global standards. With that in mind it may not be surprising that archaeological evidence for the Exodus is minimal. The escape, even the mass escape, of a single slave encampment out of dozens, and the wanderings of one group of nomads as opposed to any other, is, in the great scheme of things, trivial, and it is not surprising that nobody else noticed.

What is extraordinary is that among the plethora of wandering tribes that criss-crossed the Middle East in Biblical times, quite possibly each with its own oral history and culture, the circumstances arose among one of them that we have now such comprehensive documentation of it. That in itself might be enough to provide evidence for divine providence, if one were searching for it.

As for Exodus - please check the links below

mount sinai and the crossing - one

mount sinai and the crossing - two - basic info

The places mentioned are apparently very real and seem to suggest that is was not where tradition says it is. There is controversy about this as tradition dies hard and does what ever it takes to be right at all cost. These other mentioned locations line up with the biblical account very well.
-
-
-