Archaeology disproves the Bible



    Despite all the fanciful claims made, archaeology not only fails to confirm many Biblical narratives, it sharply conflicts with these.
    One book that concentrates on the differences between archaeology and the Bible is:
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein, and Neil Asher Silberman (Free Press: 2002).

    A book which deals with archaeology in a detailed historical context is:
Israelite and Judaean History, edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller (London: SCM Press. 1984).
    This, a specialist book, is valuable as a sizeable part provides referenced information about those occasions when the Bible and archaeology agree - and disagree.

    Another publication, useful to the novice as an introduction to the subject, is:
It Ain't Necessarily So, by Matthew Sturgis (London: Headline, 2001).
    The following are remarks included in the book:

    'The expected discoveries of specific biblical artefacts and buildings, were simply not made, and certainly not at the rate that had once been hoped. Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever-increasing archaeological record became more noticeable and harder to ignore'. (p.28)

    'For Bill Denver...widely regarded as one of the leading figures in the field, Jericho still makes him shake his head...'I always say to people - 'if you want a miracle, here's your miracle - Joshua destroyed a city that didn't even exist'. The almost total absence of direct archaeological evidence for Joshua's battle is too suggestive to be passed over. And if direct evidence is lacking, so too is indirect corroboration'. (pp.46,47,52)

    [Regarding the exodus] 'after gaining control of Sinai from Egypt in the Six Day War of 1967, Israeli archaeologists could barely wait to explore the area. But despite intensive searches, no trace of the Israelites' presence [to which the bible refers] has ever been found'. (p.56).

    'The absence of any clear evidence for David's city has called into question the fact of its very existence. The few scattered objects and remains dating from the tenth century which have been recovered from the site appear to suggest, at least to some, that Jerusalem at this time can only have been a minor settlement and not a royal capital'. (p.115).

    'Some scholars have focused attention on the fact that the biblical story of Solomon is entirely uncorroborated by sources outside the Bible. He is presented as a king with widespread international contacts and influence. And yet not a single mention of his name occurs in any contemporary Near Eastern text...this silence is at the very least curious.' (p.143)

    'If the inscription from Tel Dan accurately reflects events, then the biblical record seems to be a tantalising mixture of historical fact, confused details, and deliberate distortion'. (p.158).