Category Archives: archaeology

Peter Enns & Genesis

You can read his full article at the following link. We are only going to address those statements that are interesting and need to be addressed.

I recently sat down with myself to ask myself some questions that keep coming up

I post anything on evolution.

It is these questions and some of his comments that we will look at here. Strange that he never comes to a different answer than that science trumps God.

#1. why do you think evolution is true?

I believe that evolution is one of the things that science has gotten right, along with many other things we take for granted every day, because this is the resounding conclusion of the scientific community, including Christians trained in the sciences.

We will have to ask a couple of questions that have not been answered by anyone. First, where in the Bible do both God and Jesus say to take science over their words?  They don’t but that doesn’t seem to stop some people from doing it anyways.

Second, who is the scientific community and what authority do they have that they can say God is wrong? Of course, most people siding with science try to make the Bible a human-authored book. This way, in their minds, they are not attacking God but subjective human thinking. Unfortunately for them The Bible is not a human authored work.

We disagree. Science has not got evolution correct. In fact, they change their minds so much about that theory that the theory is useless to anyone. The fact that evolution has never existed seems to escape the mind of Mr. Enns. Another fact that seems to escape Mr. Enns is that the scientific community is made up of unbelievers, the very people Jesus described as lost, blind and deceived. So how can they get our origins right when they do not have the truth or the SPirit of truth helping them

Without actually being trained in the sciences, it would be rather stupid and arrogant of me to feel I have something to say that would sweep all that away.

It is not arrogance to sweep away the lies produced by the scientific community with the truth of God.

#2.But what about the Bible? Doesn’t Genesis have something to say about all this?

Simply put, no—not in the sense that Genesis is a competing “data set” to scientific models of cosmic and human origins.

Uhm, Mr. Enns, the correct answer is — yes. Genesis has a lot to say about our origins. Especially since our origins was not done in a scientific manner. It is science that has no say about our origins. Creation was a one-time supernatural act that was conducted by a supernatural being with all supernatural power. Science cannot comprehend that fact. What science describes is an unverifiable and unprovable alternative created by people who do not believe God and want nothing to do with him or have him part of their scientific work. How can they know more than God?

The stories in Genesis were written somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, and clearly reflect cultural categories older still.

This is absolutely not true. The quoted idea comes from those scholars who do not believe the Bible or that anything prior to Omri actually took place. Usually these scholars are called Minimalists. They throw out most of the OT because they claim that there is no evidence. When shown evidence, they will close their eyes and state that the events did not happen or try to undermine the evidence in some way.

The Bible was not written as Mr. Enns claims. Most of the OT was written prior to the 5th to 7th centuries BC. Then the OT is not an adaption of other civilizations cultural works or beliefs. That would eliminate God, his supernatural status and power. It would also end salvation as we know it and have billions of people running around looking for God and his divine instructions.

Mr. Enns has no idea what his thoughts do or what problems they cause for himself and everyone.

I don’t expect Genesis or any other Bronze or Iron Age text to answer the kinds of questions we can answer today through calculus, optical and radio telescopes, genomics, biological and cultural anthropology.

Briefly, Mr. Enns does not realize it but those research fields, etc., do not answer any of our questions like Genesis does. They usually bring more questions.

#3. But aren’t you forgetting that the Bible is the very word of God? Why are you assuming that science trumps the Bible?

I’m neither forgetting nor assuming anything, nor am I unconsciously enslaved to some deeply held anti-God presupposition.

Rather, I have come to conclusions about these matters.

They are erroneous conclusions which he refuses to change when shown to be in error. We have tried before. Mr. Enns needs to answer the question, how does he think that fallible humans who use only partial evidence can come to the truth over the God who was there, did the did and has all the evidence?

The Bible speaks the “language” of ancient people grappling with things in ancient ways, and therefore what the Bible records about creation or the dawn of humanity needs to be understood against the cultural backdrop of the biblical writers, not the past 200 years of scientific investigation.

No the Bible is a divine revelation to man, who penned God’s words which contain the truth about our origins. There is no grappling being done in those pages of scripture and there is no ancient cultural spin put on God’s words. Science is not a light illuminating the truth to a dark world. Scripture is.

#4. But doesn’t Jesus trump all of this? I mean, he refers to Adam and seems to take Genesis quite literally. Don’t you think you need to obey Jesus rather than science?

The Bible says if you do not believe Moses how will you believe the words of Jesus (paraphrase John 5: 45ff). Obviously, Mr. Enns does not believe Moses and he does not believe the words of Jesus. He is not the person to go to find any answer.

As irreverent as that may seem, it is an implication of the incarnation. Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he therefore thought like one.

So to him Jesus was just an ordinary man who can be trumped by science. Yet does Mr. Enns hold to John 3:16? If so, how can that be if he does not believe Jesus’ words about creation, Adam and Eve and other OT events? Does he pick and choose which words of Jesus he will accept and which ones he will deny? How was Jesus qualified to be our savior if he was not whom he said he was and did not have the final word on everything?

How can we go to Jesus with our problems if he was like Mr. Enns said? Obviously, Mr. Enns demotes both God and Jesus to sub standard deities or humans while promoting science over them. That is heresy, blasphemous and more negatives.

#5. So, to sum up, and since you asked, to reject evolution on Christian grounds would be to claim some superhuman insight into scientific matters that can only be described as idiosyncratic bordering on delusional, to misunderstand the nature of Scripture they are trying to protect, and to sport a heretical Christology that doesn’t take seriously Jesus’s full humanity.

First, the only one being heretical is Mr. Enns as he makes Jesus after his own image and does not grasp the full reality of who Jesus was. Second, Both God and Jesus said to believe them not science so we reject evolution on Christian grounds because it is not the truth. It is a man-made alternative to trick people into destroying themselves.

Third, those of us who know the truth know that the only delusional are those who opt for evolution over God’s word. We know that science is blind, deceived, lost and looking for answers in the wrong places by going down the wrong paths. Science is in need of a savior, it is not the savior.


Underwater Treasures

Over the years we have talked about and described why so many archaeologists cannot find more evidence to support the biblical record. To recap those points, it is pretty hard to dig under existing buildings. Many cities and villages have built over ancient remains and the construction work has ruined many good archaeological areas. This was before laws were put in place to stop construction when ancient sites were uncovered during the construction process.

Next, wars play a role in destroying any remains. ISIS is one example of what happens to ancient ruins when conquerors come to town. Natural disasters also destroy what the ancient world left behind. Earthquakes, erosion, tornadoes, and so on wreak havoc on the landscape. But there is one more enemy of archaeology that is not talked about enough- water.

Whether through floods or shipwrecks, water does remove evidence for the past including the biblical past. Because the oceans are dangerous, it is very difficult to retrieve those artifacts from beneath the surface. The following article tells of some archaeologists warning about the massive loss of ancient remains if Albania does not act quickly.

James Goold, chairman of the Florida-based RPM Nautical Foundation, said the objects — dating from the 8th century B.C. through to World War II — would be a great tourist attraction if properly displayed in a museum.

Goold’s RPM has mapped out the Ionian seabed from the Greek border all along to the Vlora Bay, finding at least 22 shipwrecks from the ancient times to World War II and hundreds of ancient amphorae. Those long, narrow terracotta vessels carried olive oil and wine along trade routes between North Africa and the Roman Empire, where Albania, then Illyria, was a crossroad.

Underwater archaeology requires special skill sets. An archaeologist needs to know how to dive, act under water and watch for currents and other dangers. It is not like excavating on land. It is also probably more expensive to do underwater archaeology than land-based excavating.

Albania is trying to protect and capitalize on its rich underwater heritage, long neglected by its former communist regime, but preservation still receives scarce funding from the government in one of Europe’s poorest nations…

…Now RPM believes it’s time for the not-for-profit Institute of Nautical Archaeology research organization, which is based in Texas, U.S., to explore the possibilities of excavating shipwrecks, a financially expensive and scientifically delicate process

What can be uncovered that willl bring even more support to the biblical record is unknown. But it would be good for believers to keep an eye on the unbelieving archaeologists to make sure any evidence, if found, is not lost again or misidentified. One thing is for sure, the underwater treasures would shed a lot of light on the trading practices of ancient kingdoms. This alone would support the biblical record when it talks about Israeli kings trading with its neighbor nations.

A second story just caught our eye and it contains some good news

he treasure trove of gold and silver artifacts, stolen between 2000 and 2001, was presented at Romania’s National History Museum. The items were found in Austria in 2015 and returned following a cross-border investigation.

The artifacts_473 coins and 18 bracelets— were taken from archaeological sites in the Orastie Mountains that had been inhabited by Dacians, who fought against the Romans in the early 2nd century. General Prosecutor Augustin Lazar said 21 people have been convicted in the thefts.

Museum curator Ernest Oberlander-Tarnoveanu said it was “one of the finest recoveries of Dacian treasure in last 200 years” and called their return “a moment of joy, hope and … pride.” He said the artifacts may have been an offering that a Dacian family made to the gods, which now was valued at “tens of millions of euros (dollars).”

It is nice to know that stolen treasure can be found and returned to its proper owners.



A ‘King’s Head’

You may have heard about this discovery. We have and have been too busy to post about it. We will link to a Christian Post article by Eric Metaxas and make a few comments. Not about Mr. Metaxas but the discovery of course.

If you are a regular BreakPoint listener, you won’t be surprised to learn that archaeologists have found the remains of Abel Beth Maacah. At this point, we shouldn’t be surprised when archaeology confirms that the biblical narratives weren’t simply making up places and people.

This goes hand in hand what Nelson Glueck said over 40 years ago. There has never been an archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible wrong. Since Mr. Glueck died in 1971, there still has been no archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible wrong. Archaeology is not the enemy of God or the Bible, just the unbelieving archaeologists and bible scholars are.

What is, if not surprising, then intriguing, is what the team of American and Israeli archaeologists found at the site: a tiny—about 2 inches by 2 inches—”intricately carved sculpture of what may be the head of a biblical king.”


The archaeologists are reasonably certain it depicts an important person, probably a king given that the figure “was crafted with artistic precision almost unheard of for that time and region.”

This is where we disagree with both the identification and the reasoning. Things do not last. Archaeology does not find everything. To conclude the head is a depiction of a king is to do so without real evidence. An ornament, no matter how intricate does not mean it was made for royalty, about royalty or even has any connection to royalty. The quality of artwork speaks only of the talent of the artist, not the identification of the subject.

Then the fact that it is not heard of does not speak to identification. It speaks to the limitations of both archaeology and archaeologists. And we are being very polite here.

But who? The most tantalizing possibilities are, as hinted earlier, three kings mentioned in the Bible whose reign coincided with the timing of the carving, sometime in the ninth century B.C., which also corresponds with the years of the city’s next biblical mention in 1 Kings 15. They are King Ahab, King Ethbaal of Tyre, the father of the notorious Queen Jezebel, and King Hazael of Damascus, who was anointed king by the prophet Elijah.

Archaeologists, bible scholars, and historians need to forget about speculation and continue to search for the truth. It would be highly lucky of any archaeologist to find anything that supports the identification of the head as a biblical king. Who knows, it is possible that the dating is off as well. Just because an artifact is found amongst 9th-century remains does not mean it is actually from the 9th century.

It can be but such conclusions can really be verified. To many pieces of information needed to identify the actual date are missing from the discovery.

As the archaeologists admit, they’re only guessing about who the carving represents. As one member of them put it, “It’s like a hello from the past, but we don’t know anything else about it.”

But it’s a “hello” from an actual, not mythical, past that we only know about because of the historical nature of the biblical accounts.

Maybe those archaeologists are being smarter than we give them credit. Mr. Metaxas is correct though. The Bible did not record myths, false stories, legends, or any other untrue account.  It recorded actual and true history. Because we find bits and pieces proving certain parts of the Bible true, we can know that the rest of the Bible is true as well, including Genesis 1, 6-9 and other accounts unbelievers dismiss so easily.


Robert Cargill & The Flood

We went to the Bible & Interpretation webpage to look for our next installment for the scholar’s series and we decided to address Robert Cargill’s view that the flood did not take place. Knowing we have addressed one of Dr. Cargill’s biblical fallacies and that we have addressed the flood topic before on numerous occasions, we decided to do it again as he raises some interesting ponts.

We are not going to go science expert v. science expert in this rendition of rebutting anti-flood thinking. That would be boring and a waste of time. But we will address his one or two uses of science as we go. You can read the whole article at:

#1. So, instead of addressing their spurious claims yet again, I thought I would approach the issue from a different angle: forget about Noah’s ark; there was no world-wide flood.

His post was written in 2010 and he was referring to the group called Noah’s Ark Ministries International. We are not worried about the 8 year time gap because what he says then is still being said today. For example, his claim that there was no world-wide flood. That is a spurious statement that is based more on unbelief than it is on science. There are a lot of people today who make that claim.

Such claims are made because people are unable to use faith to believe God. If we want to, we could pull out the Love chapter and quote that if people love God, they would believe him when he says there was a flood. Love believes all things. We would only use that to point out that Dr. Cargill does not love God and he has said that many times.

#2. The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives

He might have a case if the ancient world did not have multitude of flood stories in almost every civilization that was in existence after the flood. What Dr. Cargill does not realize is that for his theory to work, every member of Israel would have to be brain-dead and not once question the source of the stories. He does not seem to give the ancient people any credit for intelligence, curiosity, or desire to find the truth. He makes them all blindly accepting people who just pray, eat and  sleep the day away.

Since people questioned Moses and his leadership, we are sure that there would be some who would question the adoption of myths created outside of Israel. Someone would investigate to see if the stories in their religious and holy book were true. If they did and found that it was false, they would most certainly have those portions removed. They would not let them remain in their holy words. Since we have no record of anyone doing that, the onus is on Dr.Cargill t provide proof that the flood accounts were copied from secular societies.

#3. Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts.

Yes they do but they cannot provide one real piece of evidence that the Israelites copied from those unbelieving civilizations surrounding them. We have said this before, the Old Babylonians enjoyed a reputation for copying from other societies but there is not one hint that the Israelites did. Where do scholars  get the idea that the biblical writers copied? From the fact that certain secular works appeared before the OT did.

They base this thinking on the idea that the oldest discovered was the first one written. But that can’t be proven either since Moses wrote roughly around the 15th century BC. Plus, chronology tells us that the truth appeared first. Noah and his family told their descendants about the flood. As those descendants strayed from God so did their literature content.

It was not the biblical writers who copied or adopted but the authors who wrote the Gilgamesh Epic and other flood accounts.

#4.These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith

If Dr. Cargill’s theory was correct, then that may explain the Israelites including the account in the OT. It does not explain why those ancient societies far from and never hearing of the Babylonians and Assyrians would also include a flood myth in their ancient literature. Especially if they never experienced a flood. Where did those societies get their information and why would they include and adopt stories from a far-a-way kingdom in their religious writings? Dr.  Cargill cannot explain that phenomenon.

The story of Babel does explain why those far-a-way civilizations would have a flood account in their historical records. Their ancestors got it from Noah and his family. Then to make his thinking sound credible, Dr. Cargill has to change the date of the writing of the OT, especially the book of Genesis. He has no proof that the OT was written in the 5th-7th centuries BC but it is a widely held convenient theory among scholars. One that has been disproven countless times.

Two key words in that quote tell us that Dr. Cargill cannot prove his theory. Those words are ‘appear’ & ‘apparently’. He does not know yet he will go with that thinking over the truth. He also cannot prove it either. The thought that there are two flood stories melded into one is read into the contents of the Biblical account, not taken out of it. There is no ancient evidence that those early accounts were used to make one biblical flood story. That idea is based upon the misreading of the biblical texts by unbelieving scholars.

#5. The combined story preserves vestigial indicators that the account was originally two separate narratives.

This is proof for what we said immediately above the quote. Because Dr. Cargill does not understand the Bible and does not follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, he cannot know what the truth is. More detailed instruction is not evidence for the editing of two secular flood accounts. Dr. Cargill continues to demonstrate his ignorance of reading the biblical text when he states that the flood was recorded as lasting for to different lengths of time.

He misunderstands the Bible when it says

24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Gen. 7 NASB)

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days (Ibid)

The receding of the water added the extra time and he does not take into account context before making his claim:

For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; (Ibid)

Avoid context and you can get confused very easily. The term flood in verse 17 obviously refers to the rains God promised and the length of time he said it would rain. The word water in verse 24 is talking about how long the water remained on the earth. There is no contradiction here, water in a flood does not normally disappear overnight.

#6. Further evidence for the presence of two flood stories comes from the fact that in the narratives that speak about 40 days of flooding, god is referred to as the divine name YHWH, which supposedly was not revealed to readers until the episode of the burning bush in Exodus 3. However, in the portions of the flood texts that refer to 150 days of flooding, god is referred to as elohim…

This isn’t evidence. It is made evidence by unbelieving scholars but it is not evidence. It is evidence that unbelieving scholars are reading into the account what they want to see but it is not indication that 2 different accounts were used. It is evidence that Moses used two different names for God but that is about it. Dr. Cargill cannot produce any real evidence that two secular accounts of local floods were used to record the biblical story.

#7. But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood

This is where Dr.Cargill uses science to support his point and as accurate as people think science is about the past, it is not. No one knows how much moisture exists in the atmosphere and underground. They can speculate but no one can accurately measure it. Plus, measuring modern conditions does not mean that those conditions were exactly the same in ancient times.

Then when you look at the amount of water Dr. Cargill claims to be in existence today outside of the rivers and oceans, you begin to wonder about all those global warming scientists who warn of devastating floods to come once the earth warms up. Since underground water supplies are not affected by global warming… You  get the picture. Then, he says there is only enough water to raise the oceans by about 1 inch or a little more.

Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines.

Mor evidence against global warming threats and predictions.

Dr. Cargill has neither textual evidence nor scientific evidence to prove his thesis. His statement is still founded only in unbelief and not fact.

#8. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s land masses.

Considering that there has only been 1 world-wide flood in al of history it is a bit presumptuous and arrogant to make such a claim as Dr. Cargill does. He is ignoring the boatloads of evidence we do have for the flood. You can read a lot of it at the following link

But that is what unbelievers do. They distort and lie about the facts so they can continue blissfully in their ignorance and unbelief.

#9. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical.

NO… it is time for unbelievers to concede that their arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. For one thing if the biblical account of the flood was untrue, it would not have made it out of OT times. Someone or a group of someone would have proven the account false and a lot of protests would have been made. Then someone would have taken power who believed the protests and had the OT changed. No OT manuscript reflects this possibility. Plus, Dr. Cargill and other scholars do not produce credible, authentic, alternative OT manuscripts that state otherwise.

Producing those would be actual evidence. Making arguments about different names, different numbers is not evidence. From a textual point of view, all Dr. Cargill has is subjective unbelieving opinion. Opinions that do not accept rational and logical counter arguments.

#10. Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.”

We are not addressing his

It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period

because that whole idea is based on a myth about science and its supposed authority. Science has no authority and it is not the last word on anything.

What Dr.Cargill does not understand is that a factual error undermines the ethical truth. Simply because the supposed ethical truth allowed for lies to be told. That means that the ethical truth is not ethical or truth at all but will use whatever it can to make its point. Inspiration does equal inerrancy because if God allowed sin into his holy word then that means God promotes sin and contradicts his own word and being.

Then biblical does mean historical because God cannot lie. SInce Dr. Cargill and his fellow like-minded scholars cannot produce divinely inspired OT manuscripts that say something different from all our preserved and authentic OT manuscripts, then their arguments are not  based on fact but their unbelief. Their deceived minds have been taken on a fairy tale ride and led to believe they are following the truth. When in reality, they are doing what the ancient authors of the alternative flood accounts did- they stray from the truth because their unbelief and evil wont let them accept what ‘God did in man’s history.

It is time for the Christian to ignore secular scholars and uphold  the word of God as true, historical and inerrant.


Bad Archaeology & Archaeology

The first two terms are the name of a couple of websites owned and used by

The problem, of course, comes in when that person and his writing partner set themselves up as the final authority on the research field of archaeology. They aren’t but they like to see changes take place in the field of archaeology. We will look at some selected quotes taken from several different pages on that website.

#1. James and I are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops

They have good company. Eric Cline, Robert Cargill, Joe Zias and other archaeologists do not like this either. To a point we do not either. But the real problem  comes in when these archaeologists lump legitimate Christian and other researchers in with the likes of Ron Wyatt, S. Jacobovici and others who really do distort the field of archaeology with their weird views and conclusions.

We take issues with the authors of that website because they use their own standards to make the divide between real and bad archaeology. That is their first mistake. Their second mistake comes in when they declare that their accepted way to do archaeology is the only way to do it. Well archaeology is not like God’s plan of salvation which only has one way of being saved. There are many ways to dig into the past to get the information needed to decipher what actually took place.

Not all the paths are correct but there is more than one way to do archaeology. Oh and, once you get to the truth, no more corrections are needed.

#2. A quick look through the comments that have been made on various pages will throw up some interesting views. In particular, you will find that our critics accuse us of arrogance, bullying, closed-mindedness, even being in the pay of governments to suppress The Truth™. We are none of these. If you return to the site time and again, you will find that we update our pages when new information comes along, correcting errors that we have made. This is something that Bad Archaeologists never do.

You may say this is a good thing as science says it is self-correcting. But the problem is that who is to say that the corrections are correct? Because secular science and archaeology are deceived fields of research and do not have the Spirit of Truth guiding them, there is no guarantee that these men got it right with the second, third or even fourth correction. It is also wrong and irresponsible to develop theories based on limited information.

Another problem is that these men are not going for the truth. If they were, they would realize that the truth is not always found in their accepted ways of doing archaeological research. Sometimes the fringe people stumble onto the truth and do not know how they got there. For the believer, archaeology is all about getting to the truth not the best explanation or the best description of a given excavation site. We are not to lie or sin in our historical work. We are also not to mislead either.

#3. Bad Archaeology is all around us. Many of its ideas are pervasive in popular culture. Its publications sell more than publications dealing with real archaeology. Its web presence is much stronger than that of real archaeology. This is especially true of internet forums, where the most bizarre of conspiracy-oriented ideas are given free rein. With this site we are trying to show that most Bad Archaeology is completely vacuous and valueless. In doing so, I hope that we can also provide a reference point for Good (or at least, Better) Archaeology.

Again the issue is that the term Bad Archaeology is far too broad and generic. It is also very subjective and can contain anything the authors of that website do not like. That means they will include many good archaeologists and the information they uncover. We read several of their articles, the one we thought was the most honest and factual was the one on the Peri Reis map. They made some good points that bear analyzing and reconsidering. We like Dr.Hapgood and read his 3 books which are filled with a lot of useful information. We are prepared to take Matthews’ analysis if it bears out to be correct.

But with that said, real biblical archaeologists have debated this point and those arguments are featured over at Bible and Interp website. There are many problems with communication by real archaeologists which make this situation true. It is too long to go into here, but suffice it to say that sensationalism sells. It sells better than religion sells the ancient past.

We will agree that there are a lot of bad archaeologists out there and most of them try to convince everyone that aliens did it. The other problem we find with this category is that the authors of that website think they get to pick and choose who is a bad archaeologist and who isn’t. There is a lot of bias at play here and that is unfair to those archaeologists who do not meet the approval of the establishment. There is a lot of bias in the field of archaeology. But this does not make the searchers for Noah’s ark credible. Many of those would fit into the category of bad archaeology.

#4. By and large, Bad Archaeologists do not cite excavation reports, catalogues of artefact types, studies of monument classes or the sites and monuments records of places. Perhaps they find the amount of detail overwhelming. Perhaps they do not understand the technical jargon used by their authors. Perhaps they believe that the answers to the questions they pose are not to be found in these minutiae because their questions are too big.

We do not cite excavation reports catalogs, studies, etc., very often. This does not make us bad archaeologists. It makes us discerning because those reports are more subjective than factual. One example is Stephen Collins. He states in almost every report that Tall el-Hamman is likely Sodom. That is a biased opinion not a conclusion based on fact.

We also do not quote from many of the studies on monuments because again, those are subjective and a lot of reading into those monuments take place. Archaeologists tend to think they can read long dead minds and know the motivation behind why something was carved or placed where it was found. They can’t and sometimes, those monuments, if portable enough, could have been moved several times, for different reasons, over the millennia.

To say that good archaeologists must quote from these works is unrealistic and limits the work of archaeologist. We could say that non-Christian archaeologists’ work should be ignored because it is bad archaeology. Their work doesn’t fit with the Bible. We do apply that rule to their conclusions, assumptions, speculations and so on but it does not apply to their work.

Why is this so? Because Christians are not part of every dig. Non-Christian archaeologists do uncover information that no believer has first-hand access to. They cannot get it till the excavation report or book is published. We encourage believers to read non-Christian archaeologists not for their deceived opinions and conclusions but for the information they cannot get anywhere else. To cast them off would be a disservice to believers.

Same with this bad archaeology mentality used by Matthews and his writing partner. They are closing off sources of information needed to learn about the past. Bad archaeologists do dig up information that is sometimes useful. Not everything they do is bad. Of course, not everything established archaeologists do is good. Their work is filled with their perspective and their unbelief.

#5. Many Bad Archaeologists make extensive use of ‘out-of-place artefacts’ or ‘archaeological erratics’. The purpose of drawing these artefacts to their readers’ attention is to cast doubt on the orthodox interpretations of the past that have been developed by archaeologists, usually by questioning what they wrongly perceive to be a linear view of cultural evolution or by trying to undermine conventional chronologies. Occasionally, they are used to cast doubt on models of human evolution (either to demonstrate the creationist claim that humans were created a little over six thousand years ago on the sixth day of Genesis or to demonstrate that humans have been around for billions of years or originally came from elsewhere). More frequently, they are used to cast doubt on the origins of technological civilisation and to show that phenomena such as electricity were known and exploited in the distant past. A few have used them as evidence for time travel or clairvoyance.

The bias of Matthews and his writing partner are exposed. They do not like anything Christian which tells you that their whole definition of bad archaeology is based on their personal bias and nothing objective or superior to them. Those writers are also of the mindset that ony an archaeologist can determine what took place in the past. They are mistaken as archaeology is far too limited for them to ascertain much about past activities.

Because they do not accept the discoveries does not mean they did not take place when they are dated. Their skepticism is not the deciding factor on what did or did not take place. While we will agree that the use of time travel and clairvoyance is wrong, neither are of God, we do not agree with their bias about bad archaeology. Non-believers and bad archaeologists will get some things correct.

Archaeology does not help the theory of evolution at all. Archaeology is a study of ancient societies and civilizations not a study of supposed life development. Archaeology has yet to prove evolution correct and in all cases has shown it to be wrong.

But bias plays a role in what information does or does not get out to the public. What we see in Matthews and his writing partner is the same attitude we see in Jim West, Eric Cline,Robert Cargill  and other biblical archaeologists. They think only they can determine what took place in the past and that the Bible can only be understood and expounded upon by scientific experts.  Those are very elitist attitudes and very wrong.

It tells us that they want to close the field of archaeology to only those who meet their demands and criteria, for the sole reason they do not want to be embarrassed. They know as well as we do that the majority of major archaeological discoveries have come from amateurs or non-archaeologists. Their jealousy plays a role in their division of the field.

Just think, if archaeological excavation was limited to professional archaeologists we would not have the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Computer and much more. Professional archaeologists do not always dig in the right places and there are far more sites waiting to be excavated than there are professional archaeologists.

You need to remember that dating is very subjective and fallible. The dating systems were created by sinful, fallible imperfect people. Do not expect perfection from imperfect people.

#6. Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.

We know that the establishment has done just that. They did it with Woolley and they do it with anyone who disagrees with their accepted conclusions. This is a fact of life in the field of archaeology. Egyptologists do it to those who disagree with their theories about the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Now not all those people who disagree with the establishment is correct, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis and not lumped into one category based on secular human bias.

One of the most successful fringe writers of recent years, Graham Hancock is a leading light of a group of people who like to call themselves the ‘New Egyptologists’ to give a spurious sense of academic credibility. Others include his contemporary David Rohl, who has proposed a radical new chronology of Egyptian history to align it with the chronology of the Old Testament by reducing the dates of Egyptian kings. Hancock also tries to establish an alternative chronology, but it is one that pushes back some of Egypt’s most familiar monuments into a very distant past

We like Hancock because he does a lot of our legwork for us. His books are filled with information that is very useful in understanding the past and the Bible. We do not agree with his conclusions but that does not make him a bad archaeologist. It makes him misguided and wandering down the wrong path. It also shows us that evil will let people discover some truths while deceiving them to go into the wrong direction when talking about the past.

We do agree that the Egyptian chronology is off. By how much, we are not sure. The main source for the Egyptian chronology comes from a couple of sources. One source is Manetho. An Egyptian priest writing not from the beginning but somewhere in the middle or later stages of the Egyptian empire. We do not have one original or copy of his complete work. In fact, his work survives be mere quotes from other ancient authors. A couple of those authors also do not agree with each other on what Manetho said. This is not enough to build a whole history on but archaeologists and Egyptologists do it.

There are more details about this but again that would be a topic for another day.

While we like some of the information we can glean from the Bad Archaeology website, we do not like or agree with their elitist attitude. We also do not like their bias, their hatred for the truth and so on. People like this are not trying to get the truth exposed, they are trying to keep it under wraps. Their generic category hides so much information while letting false teaching get to the public. They are not doing anyone a great service.

We could say that they were doing a lot of self-serving work but we cannot read their minds. Their real reasons are their own. But one thing is for sure, they are not working with God to get the right information to the people. Believers need to work with the Spirit of Truth if they want the right information and to have the truth.



A Rebuttal to

4 Reasons Archaeology Cannot Prove the Bible-


We have probably talked about this issue before as well. To narrow down the argument, and to provide a little understanding to the topic, Believers who write these type of articles are probably trying to temper the excitement of new and old believers and calm the zealots before they come to the conclusion that archaeology is a miracle cure for the problems of the Christian faith.
We would agree with that purpose if it were actually the case. Christianity is a belief whose main ingredient is faith, not evidence.We cannot lose sight of that fact. Without faith we cannot please God. Much of the Bible must be taken by faith for there will never be any physical evidence for its content. But that does not mean that we will not get physical evidence to shore up our faith.
Sometimes, though, we think that some believing scholars go a little overboard in their resisting the idea that archaeology can prove the bible true. This is the case with the article titled above. You can read it all at the following link:

#1. The goal of biblical archaeology is not to prove the Bible

That idea was once the goal of archaeology for some people. Not everyone but as time went on and more unbelievers took over the field, that goal was changed.

The danger of saying some archaeological discoveries prove the Bible is that the language is polarizing. Some discoveries seem to prove it; others seem to disprove it. Consequently, archaeologists fall into two camps: those desiring to prove the Bible and those desiring to disprove it.

It is good he used the word ‘seem’ because it takes a lot of research to make sure a discovery says what it says. Often, as in the case of the Noah’s ark expeditions and Minimalist conclusions, ideas and identifications are read into the discovery before any real research can properly identify the site and the discoveries.

Too often people jump the gun for whatever reason they may have and say something about the discovery before a clear identification can be made. For example, Noah’s ark. No one has a clue what gopher wood is. To say that an unidentified piece of wood is gopher wood is wrong and misleading because no one can be sure if the unidentified wood is gopher wood or not. It may be some other species of wood no one knew about.

It is impossible to disprove the Bible even if some unbelieving archaeologist claims he has made a discovery doing just that. Nelson Glueck said that no archaeological discovery has disproven the Bible before he died in the very early 70s. Since that time, we will add that no archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false. That is approx. another 50 years of archaeological work.

What tries to claim that the Bible is wrong are the conclusions, assumptions, leaps to conclusions, speculations and conjectures offered by any given archaeologist. We have seen a lot of that taking place over the years. See our example in our previous post about camels.

The main goal of archaeology of today may not be to prove the Bible true, but that does not mean that archaeology cannot prove the Bible true. It just has to stop following the secular world and start following God’s instructions. So that author is a little misleading with that point.

#2.The Bible presents an enormous historical and geographical portrait of the ancient world

The period of history reflected in Scripture is around 2,000 years, and includes locations spanning from the banks of the Euphrates in present-day Iraq to the Nile River delta in Egypt. Yet even though the world of the Bible is expansive, archaeology’s tools have become increasingly narrow.

Well he is wrong with that figure. The Bible covers around 6 to 10,000 years of history, not 2 thousand. He is also wrong with the geographical scope as well. Paul’s travels took him through Asia Minor and to Rome. Then he is wrong about archaeological tools. There are more tools available today for the archaeologist to use than there ever was when archaeology first began to be pursued. Even Kenyon and Wheeler invented one for excavation style. We disagree with the use of the Kenyon Wheeler invention but it is used extensively throughout archaeology.

Say archaeologists find something remarkable, like a series of proto-Hebrew inscriptions addressed to King David. This would not “prove the Bible is true.” It would simply prove that one aspect of Scripture seems to correspond to the extrabiblical witness about the existence of a ruler in Israel named David.

He does not have a good track record. He is wrong here as well. It does prove the Bible true in one aspect. It used the term King David in the right time period. We are ignoring his use of the term ‘proto-Hebrew’ because it is nonsensical and inaccurate. This example would show that the extra-biblical discovery agrees with the Bible. It also shows, like the Dan stele and others like it, that King David did exist. So the Bible is proven true about the existence of King David.

#3. Archaeology is unable to address the Bible’s theological claims

Biblical archaeology is capable of providing data that helps recreate the ancient Israelites’ world. But it is unable to address the Bible’s theological claims. For example, recent publications of cuneiform texts from “Judah town” in Babylon point toward the presence of a Judean community residing around Babylon during the sixth century B.C. This does seem to correspond to the witness prophetic books like Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Yet these texts make no mention of why the people were in Babylon, or how their residence there ties to rampant idolatry and covenant disobedience, as the biblical writers depict. The documents corroborate the biblical narrative, but they do not speak to the theological realities of Israel’s exile.

He is going out on a limb here to make his title’s point true and accurate. It would be unrealistic to think or expect that the Babylonian records would mirror the biblical text. God’s reason for the Babylonian captivity may not have been revealed to the Babylonians. They may simply look at it as a conquest to have power and control over another people.

The fact that the Babylonians mention that they took Hebrews prisoner helps prove the biblical record true.That verification then lends its reputation to the credibility of the theological issues. If God was accurate in the captivity then he would be accurate in the theology as well. We do not look to secular works to judge God and his words.

#4.Archaeological discoveries can confirm but cannot prove the Bible

So how should we discuss biblical archaeological discoveries? They can confirm and support the Bible’s historical portrait, but they cannot inductively “prove” the Bible’s truthfulness.

That author does not seem to understand the definition of the word confirm’. If you confirm something, you have proven it true.

to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify

So if archaeology is confirming any biblical event, then it is proving the Bible true.

Even though archaeology does do what that author says it cannot do, we still cannot blindly accept everything coming out of the world of archaeology. As in the many cases of searching for Noah’s ark, even supposed believers make claims they cannot show as accurate or true. We still have to be discerning as archaeology is a very vulnerable discipline and easy to manipulate. The opinions and conclusions given by archaeologist are almost always subjective.

This is why we tell people to not follow the rules of secular science, even when doing archaeology. it is secular science that is deceived and blind, not the Bible or God’s instructions.


What Is Biblical Archaeology

We have talked about archaeology and biblical archaeology over the years. But as we think about our posts it is possible that we never defined what the term meant. Of course, we are not going to go back over 7 years worth of posts to find out if we did or not. We will just do it again here so that you do not have to do any searching for the definition.

There are several different views about the definition of biblical archaeology and we will put a few up on the board here to get the discussion going. We will make coments on different points these definitions make.

#1. Biblical archaeology is a branch of archaeology dealing with the archaeology of Biblical lands that informs our understanding of the Bible and/or the historicity of Biblical events.

This is a very straightforward and simple explanation of the term. We like this because it does not put any unrealistic restrictions on the field and does not limit the dates of the Bible to any limited era. Biblical archaeology can address creation if it so chooses.

#2. Biblical archaeology encompasses archaeological investigations of cultures and peoples described in Jewish and Christian religious texts (including the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testaments) from roughly 3200 BC to the first century AD. It combines archaeological investigations with textual analysis to aid in understanding everyday life and events from the time. A famous example of historical analysis combining biblical texts with archaeology is the inclusion of domestic camels in the biblical depictions of Abraham. Discrepancies between the date when camels first appear at archaeological sites and the supposed dates of Abraham’s life have led to debates about when the stories were first recorded and the degree of later editing that may have occurred since they were originally composed, either in written or oral form.

This definition starts off well but the first sentence then ruins everyting by placing a limitation on the era. 3200 BC to 100 AD leaves out some vital information like the flood, the preflood civilization and so on. The second sentence is okay as that is part of doing biblical archaeology but how those aspects are handled is another story.

We will use their example to show how improper their use of those aspects are. According to that example, the mainstream archaeologist or like-minded historian etc., will say that the Bible is wrong because the domesticated camel only appears in the archaeological record long after the life of Abraham. But there is a problem with that conclusion. Those researchers who agree and adopt that conclusion forget many details from other disciplines.

One discipline, fossilization, tells us that it is rare for life forms to become fossilized. This would be one explanation for why there is a supposed discrepancy. Another discpline, related biological studies, tells us that bones and soft tissues do not last forever. They disappear over time. It is quite possible that the camels used in Abraham’s time did not survive the ravages of time.

Another discipine, zoology, tells us that wild animals get hungry and that they love to chew on bones. Have you ever seen a hungry dog chew on a bone? There is nothing left of the bone. A fourth discipline, business, tells us that every product for sale or used does not originated in every country. Some items are imported, marketed and the market has to have a beginning. It is highly possible that Abraham brought the camels with him from Mesopotamia and influenced other livestock business people to think about using camels. Or he made his fortune selling and trading camels.

We could go on and on with the disciplines to demonstrate that there is no real discrepancy. But we will limit ourselves to one more. Archaeology is a limited field and it is not a given that the archaeologist has uncovered the very first use of domesticated camels. In other words, the archaeological record is not chronological and does not uncover the real order of things. Plus, dating is left up to the archaeologist looking at evidence surrounding the discovery. Unfortunately for the archaeologist, that evidence may not have been placed at the site at the same time as the camel bones.

So to say that the archaeological record is more correct than the Bible, is wrong. The archaeologist does not uncover any written explanations for the remains they discover. That is an important factor when looking at their conclusions. The archaeologist cannot claim there has been editing done by biblical writers simply because they are not drawing that conclusions based on irrefutable fact. The archaeological record is not infallible and cannot guarantee when camels were actually domesticated in biblical lands.

#3. Biblical archaeology, “is a branch of biblical studies, an interdisciplinary pursuit that seeks to utilize the pertinent results of archaeological research to elucidate the historical and cultural setting of the Bible” (W.G. Dever “Biblical Archaeology”, in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Ancient Near East, vol 1, p. 318). Biblical archaeology must carry out scientific archaeology according to international standards of best practice, but its research questions will be derived from the study of the biblical text. At the same time, professional scholarship and a nuanced academic approach to the biblical text must inform biblical archaeological research.

A lot has transpired at the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology since Dr. Glueck died. So do not take the present attitude of the school as a reflection on Dr. Glueck and his thinking. After all, he was the one who said that there has been no archaeological discovery that disproved the Bible. Since his death, there still has been no archaeological discovery that has disproven the Bible. You can see from our analysis of one example above to see the reason why that is so.

Dr. Dever makes the definition there, but over the decades, Dr. Dever has changed his mind and wants to change the title of Biblical Archaeology to something like Palestine Archaeology. He wants to ‘open’ up the discipline to broaden it to cover more information. You do not need to change the name to accomplish that objective.

What bothers us in that definition are the following words:

Biblical archaeology must carry out scientific archaeology according to international standards of best practice, but its research questions will be derived from the study of the biblical text

We disagree. Biblical archaeology and any field of research, business, enterprise and so on, must follow God’s rules. Scientific rules are not written by true believing Christians and does not seek answers or the truth.While there are certain rules and regulations that should be followed to make any research or investigation credible and get all the information possible, the believer must follow God’s rules and instructions over that of science.

We do not read into any discovery nor make very bad theories. We follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, accept and announce the truth. Science is not the authority any believer is to follow.

We encourage you to read the rest of the information found at the reference for #3. It is all interesting. One note, though, we should address one item

often called “processual” archaeology)

This is a very polite way to say the term Minimalist. You may be more familiar with this term than the one quoted above. Minimalists do not believe or accept most of the OT. Partially because they subscribe to the thinking attached to the example we disagree with. They go with the archaeological record instead of following the Holy Spirit to the truth. They think that the archaeological record states emphatically real history in its right chronological order.

That is why so many of them will say that the OT has been edited. Basically, they are applying  the unbelieving archaeological double standard. They will not change their mind until they see a discovery predating the camel bones to Abraham’s time. Of course, they may not accept that discovery, which I. Finkelstein has shown on many occasions concerning King David and 10 century BC discoveries.

Having an archaeological discovery prove the Bible true and accurate is no guarantee that it will be accepted. This is why we do not care if Noah’s Ark is discovered. It is also why we do not go searching or support searches for the ark. We do not need it and it is highy unlikely it will be accepted even if the ark is uncovered. The ark’ discovery may change a few minds but only a minority of them.

Biblical Archaeology may have many definitions but one thing that is constant is that it is like the rest of archaeology. it is very easily manipulated and falls under the old saying- history is in the eyes of the historian. Most archaeologists do not paint an accurate or correct picture of the past.They paint it to be what they want it to be and join with each other to sustain certain theories and conclusions.

If you want the truth, you will find that the past is not much different from the present.

%d bloggers like this: