Archeology proves the Bible?????

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

I have seen a post recently on archeology proving the Bible.  I
don't think that this is an argument for inerrancy and here is why.

Let's suppose that we have a major nuclear war and much of our 
present culture gets distroyed.  Out of the ashes arises a cult
that claims that the writings of Jim Jones is divinely inspired
and infallible.  After a thousand years or so, when the radiation
clears, archeologists are excited about trying to find archeological
evidence of Jim Jones.  They dig around and get very lucky indeed!
They find actual news reels on video tape actually showing Jim Jones
and his followers.  They are also able to verify that Jim Jones
was persecuted by finding evidence that public opinion was negative
about him.  Not only this, but many people who Jim Jones talked about 
who's existence was doubted (such as Nixon) is in fact also verified.

But would this constitute proof that the writings of Jim Jones are
inspired?  I somehow think not, and I don't even think that Christians
would buy the above argument.  They only buy it if it proves 
Christianity.

To put it another way, it would make sense that the writers of
the NT would talk about people or events that were happening at
the time they were writing.  Even today we talk about what Bill
Clinton did, or what the president of GE did, ect.  So it should
not surprise us that the NT authors would write about King Herod
taking a census.  And it shouldn't even surprise us that we find
archeological evidence that Herod took a census.  If archeologist
in my above future scenerio were to dig around, they would also
probably find archeological evidence of Bill Clinton or the fact
that we attack Iraq or whatever.  But I don't think that this
PROVES Bible inerrancy.  The only thing it does PROVE is that the
people of the NT were interested in what was going on around them.
But this is not an amazing discovery of any kind.

Another way to rephrase the argument would be to say that if you
were to write a book today that you wanted people to take seriously
(and a book by God seems like it would fall into this category).
Would you put something in the book like, "Well after President Bush
steped down from his four years of serving the white house, President 
Carter was sworn in saying, "I vow that as your new president I will
not create any new taxes.  In fact, read my lips, "No new taxes""??

So it shouldn't surprise us that the Bible is even to a certain
degree, accurate about the history it describes.  But even this does
not (in my opinion) prove infallibility.  The only thing it proves 
is that writers of something serious, would not put obvious historical
blunders in their work if they want to be taken seriously.  But again
this also is not such an amazing insight.  The only amazing thing
about it is how Christians try to say that it proves anything more
than that.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Previous message: Was Jesus Schizophrenic?
• Next message: For Helen Willis , part 1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]