Quote:

Quote:

since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.




What evidence was this again?




Quote:

Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, William G. Dever writes:

Until about a generation ago Biblical achaeologists spoke confidently about William Foxwell Albright's "archaeological revolution". It would assuredly enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Bible and its timeless message-which was thought to be absolutely essential to our cherished Western culture condition. The Bible and the "Christian West," as formerly conceived, are fighting for their lives. Not only has modern archaeology not helped to confirm the earlier tradition, it appears to some to be part of the process to undermind it. This is a not-so-well kept secret among professional archaeologists.
The failure of the "archaeological revolution" means tryng to occupy the beleagured middle ground, neither extreme skeptics or naive credulists. The clock cannot be turned back to the time when archaeology allegedly "proved the Bible." Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There was no military conquest of Canaan, and many, if not most, of the Isrealites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists. Monotheism may have been an ideal of Bible writers. Archaeology cannot not decide what the supposed events described in the Bible mean. That decision is left up to each individual. Archaeology cannot decide this question; it can only sharpen our focus.[4](Dever, 2006)




You see, some tend to believe biblical archaeology proves certain historical aspects of the Bible, but all that it has been able to do is make certain controversial claims.

Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development. Most archaeology rather disproves the bible as being historical, but that's something most biblical archaeologists don't like to admit,

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software