Historical Accuracy of the Bible part 2

Again, taken from http://www.xenos.org/teachings/topical/objections/accurate.htm

Does the Bible speak accurately in the areas in which it can be tested?

WHY IMPORTANT: Many of the central issues of spiritual truth lie beyond direct verification (NATURE OF GOD; AFTERLIFE; WAY OF SALVATION). This is why it is so important that these truth claims be connected to something which can be tested (JESUS "SIGNS").

MISCONCEPTION: The spiritual truth claims of the Bible are unreliable because it has been proven to be full of historical inaccuracies.

RESPONSE: Many of the best minds of history, recognizing the Bible's vulnerability at this point have attempted to destroy its credibility by demonstrating its historical inaccuracy. Although it was once confidently assumed that archeology would prove the historical inaccuracy of the Bible, this is far from the case. While we cannot say that archeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements.

OLD TESTAMENT

Scholars considered the Genesis account of Abraham (including Sodom and Gemorrah) to be mythological or ahistorical. Ur was excavated and shown to be a flourishing city around 2000 BC. The Ebla Tablets include some of the kings mentioned in Gen. 14. Tell Mardikh tablets mention Sodom and Gemorrah.

Scholars said Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because the art of writing was virtually unknown in Israel prior to David's time (1000 BC). The Ras Shamra Tablets date from 1400 BC. Ebla takes this back to Abraham's time (2100 BC). Both show that writing was well-advanced by this time.

Scholars said the Law of Moses could not have been developed earlier than 5th century BC. But Hittite Suzerainty treaties (15th century BC) bear remarkable similarity to the form of Mosaic Covenant. Also, Hammurabi (1700 BC), Lipit-Ishtar (1860 BC), Eshnunna (1950 BC) refute this claim.[7]

Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archeologist: "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical passage."[8]

NEW TESTAMENT

Most of the geographical details associated with the life of Jesus have been substantiated. This includes places such as the Pool of Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda, Jacob's Well, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Cana, Chorazin, the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, and the "Pavement" (gabbatha) of Jn. 19:13.[9]

19th century critics claimed that Luke was a terrible historian. They scoffed at his references to Lysanius as tetrarch of Abilene (Lk. 3:1) and Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:7). But excavations have proven both of these claims to be true. Sir William Ramsay, who began his excavations to prove Luke to be untrustworthy, concluded after years of study that "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness . . ."[10] and "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."[11]

John W. Montgomery: “Careful comparison of the New Testament with inscriptions & other early independent evidence has confirmed their primary claims . . . Competent historical scholarship must regard the New Testament documents as coming from the first century & as reflecting primary-source testimony about the person & claims of Jesus.”[12]