It has often been asserted in Christian apologetics that the discoveries of archeology ‘prove the reliability of the Bible as an historical document.' However at the same time this argument fails to address the problems inherent in the Biblical manuscripts themselves so this line of reasoning is faulty. The reliability of the Bible as history is not something that can be proven by an archeological discovery independant of an analysis of the manuscripts themselves. The first proof of the Bible as an historical document must come from the Bible proving itself as a consistent document. Let us suppose that we found in the Bible two mutually exclusive descriptions of an historical event. Let us further suggest that both events are set in a city named ‘Lor' and involve a person whose name is ‘Jack.' If we were to dig up an ancient stone with an engraving referring to the city of Lor, or an ancient document which mentions the name ‘Jack' (and for the purposes of our argument we will assume that the ‘Jack' being referred to in our Bible and the extra biblical source are one and the same person) it does not then follow that ‘the Bible is a reliable historical document.' All archeology has demonstrated is that two sources exist which refer to ‘Lor and Jack'. This discovery is of no use to us whatsoever in trying to sort out what so often proves to be the convoluted and contradictory history presented in the Bible. The Bible is a religious document, not a purely historical document, and many of the conflicts on its pages are political and polemical in nature, thus accounting for the inconsistencies. And an ancient dig is of no use in settling polemical disputes. It is of no use to us in trying to determine which of our two contradictory Bible stories is ‘true' and which is to be excluded. And if our archeological source brings to light a third variant version of events we are in a worse muddle than we were before. For a good example of this sort of thing consider the page on the famous story of David and Goliath. Let us then suppose that someone made an archeological discovery proving the existence of King David (or even of someone named Goliath for that matter). How would archeology help to prove the historical accuracy of the Biblical narrative in this case?Can Archeology ever prove the reliability
of Biblical historical accounts?
Unreliable History on the pages of the Bible
The conflicting history of Kings and Chronicles
The Golden Calf and the two stories of the Ten Commandments. History as polemic in the Bible
The Bible as history. More political polemic in Biblical portrayls of history.
PREVIOUS PAGE: The Christ Myth
INDEX...(text) HOME
NEXT PAGE - The Hosea Method of Bible criticism
EMAIL
A Unified Field Theory
![]()
The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip
Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

