Another Brick in the Wall
The Bible is a pretty challenging book. It makes assertions about the origins and nature of our universe, as well as our proper place within it. These assertions are pretty mind-boggling in some ways, and many people do not accept them.
The Bible also purports to record the history of a critical part of our world. It describes one very large family and their wanderings and eventual development into an entire nation of people. This historical account sounds a great deal like other historical accounts. It includes place names, descriptions of areas and people, relates the outcome of specific events such as battles as well as transitions of power on a national level.
And it asserts the presence of a powerful nation known usually by the name Israel, that had as it's capital the city of Jerusalem. The Bible describes some fairly massive building projects around the 10th century CE (BC). Some scholars have been inclined to view these assertions of a powerful nation with a centralized government as purely mythical. As mythical as the God that the Bible reveals. As mythical as the divinity of a man named Jesus that the Bible describes.
More often than not, though, the evidence we keep uncovering points more and more to the accuracy of the Biblical historical witness. I wrote a few weeks ago about a discovery that apparently contradicts some scholars' claims that the Bible couldn't have been written until roughly 600 CE (BC) because the Hebrew script was not developed before then. The discovery of a small text fragment dates roughly 400 years earlier than this cut-off - to roughly the 10th century BC (CE). It makes it harder for scholars to deny that the prophecies of the Bible must be discounted on the basis of the Hebrew script not being available to write them down.
Now there are archaeological assertions that attempt to support the idea that not only did the Biblical Davidic dynasty exist, it was as powerful as the Bible describes. This would deprive some nay-sayers of one line of argument against the Biblical text, by supporting at least the possibility if not the probability that there existed a central government in Jerusalem strong enough to carry out large-scale building projects. Just like the Bible describes.
This isn't proof of the Bible's claims about God, but it does continue to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate in many ways as a historical document. Accurate history does not automatically correlate to theological accuracy. But it does demonstrate that the Bible isn't purely a contrived book of fairy tales.
The Bible also purports to record the history of a critical part of our world. It describes one very large family and their wanderings and eventual development into an entire nation of people. This historical account sounds a great deal like other historical accounts. It includes place names, descriptions of areas and people, relates the outcome of specific events such as battles as well as transitions of power on a national level.
And it asserts the presence of a powerful nation known usually by the name Israel, that had as it's capital the city of Jerusalem. The Bible describes some fairly massive building projects around the 10th century CE (BC). Some scholars have been inclined to view these assertions of a powerful nation with a centralized government as purely mythical. As mythical as the God that the Bible reveals. As mythical as the divinity of a man named Jesus that the Bible describes.
More often than not, though, the evidence we keep uncovering points more and more to the accuracy of the Biblical historical witness. I wrote a few weeks ago about a discovery that apparently contradicts some scholars' claims that the Bible couldn't have been written until roughly 600 CE (BC) because the Hebrew script was not developed before then. The discovery of a small text fragment dates roughly 400 years earlier than this cut-off - to roughly the 10th century BC (CE). It makes it harder for scholars to deny that the prophecies of the Bible must be discounted on the basis of the Hebrew script not being available to write them down.
Now there are archaeological assertions that attempt to support the idea that not only did the Biblical Davidic dynasty exist, it was as powerful as the Bible describes. This would deprive some nay-sayers of one line of argument against the Biblical text, by supporting at least the possibility if not the probability that there existed a central government in Jerusalem strong enough to carry out large-scale building projects. Just like the Bible describes.
This isn't proof of the Bible's claims about God, but it does continue to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate in many ways as a historical document. Accurate history does not automatically correlate to theological accuracy. But it does demonstrate that the Bible isn't purely a contrived book of fairy tales.
Comments