A New Archaeological Discovery Appears to Support the Old Testament

From "Archaeologist unearths biblical controversy: Artifacts from Iron Age fortress confirm Old Testament dates of Edomite kingdom" by Michael Valpy:

Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament -- a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.

As an advocate of the high view of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible is true in all of its particulars and can be relied upon, stories such as this make me smile. After all, this is one of those "archaeological proofs" sometimes relied upon by skeptics to argue that the Bible is not good history.

The article continues:

What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.

It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute.

Again, I want to urge everyone to not jump on the bandwagon and announce this as now established proof of the validity of the Bible. But it certainly does appear that it will bolster the case for Biblical inerrancy.


biblemike said…
It is interesting that when there is a lack of evidence to support the historical statements in the Bible, opponents will say that proves the Bible is wrong. When evidence appears that might support something stated in the Bible it is insufficient. If the entire city of Edom were uncovered with scrolls corroborating the statements in the Bible, it would be declared a coincedence and not sufficient to point to any veacity of the Bible itself. When these things happen I am not surprised by the discovery nor by the response. Though I, too, often smile at the incongruities in the discussions.

Thanks for sharing this information. It's too bad that those who should care abot it won't and those who do care about it won't be changed by the information, because they already knew the Bible was correct about it.

Yours in Christ,


Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch