What archaeological evidence is there that proves the Bible to be true?

Question

I’ve read answers that say that there is archaeological evidence that proves that the bible is true, but the answers fail to provide the source. I’m wondering what the archaeological evidence is and where I can read more about it.

Answer 1

None.

We shouldn't use archeology to prove the Bible is true...you either believe in it or don't.

Answer 2

there is no evidence of Christ being the Savior that is for your belief based on stories of the Bible told by people that existed.  There are certain stories of the bible that were actual events and one being the 40 days and 40 nights.  That could have been exagerrated but if you read the "Epic of Gilgamesh" which was written in ancient Messupotamia which is the oldest written story we have ever discovered that story descirbes the same flood.

Answer 3

the old testament is often distorted and twisted by leftist facists the rains for forty days and forty nights couldve actually happened along with a great flood cause there is actual hard evidence that most dna only goes back like 7000 or 8000 years then to a select few people from diffrent ends of the earth which would explain a ton after the last ice age the caps melted and lot of the world got swallowed up and a few of the civilizations were rigth nexts to gulfs seas or oceans look it up its really cool ****

Answer 4

The bible is not a history book; neither is it reliable for historical events;

having said that, the bible is a most impressive human achievement in literature. I don't refer to the language, as in 17th century English, which can be very sweet sounding prose, but to the fact that our ancestors have seen fit to revise and doctor the conglomeration of various books as their society demanded and in doing so, gave the books a sort of dynamic life.

It does not speak well for our education level, here in the US, to see so many of our fellows, who profess religion, to fail to make the effort to understand something about the book.

So many of the, shall we call them the...uninformed as I often do, "true" believers seem to be satisfied with the claim of faith in place of understanding. IMO, this does no service to the book or the efforts of society to preserve this particular piece of literary effort.

I see, here in YA, supposedly ardent christians, rewrite the first few paragraphs of Genesis without the slightest hesitation. This penchant for revision demonstrates their own refutation of the claims in the bible while at the same time they lam-blast us non-believers for our heresy!

Typical, really, not to mention pathetic.

But as to archaeological evidence, there is a Jerusalem. We have founf Jerico and some call it the oldest ancient "city". There is evidence of King David although archaeologists have been digging up Jerusalem for over 100 years looking for evidence of his son, Solomon. So, far, nothing.

The Jews were taken into slavery many times through Mesopotamian history as were any other group large enough to be called a "tribe". They were actually released from bondage in Babylon after Cyrus the Great, a Persian educated by Greeks, overran Babylon and,  since the Jews were obviously not supporters of the Babylonian "government" were immediately considered no threat and allowed to go their own way. The claim by Hebrew historians that the hebrew god somehow sent Cyrus is obviously apocryphal. It is to the credit of the Hebrews that many remained under the protection of Cyrus and, as such, were exposed to intelligentsia, for the first time.

This experience, IMO, altered the Hebrew god concept in two very significant ways.

So, if we consider the bible as literature, we must respect it. If we consider it to be the..."inerrant word" of some actual deity, we demonstrate our own foolishness.

It is, after all, our choice whether to educate ourselves or to revel in and admire our own ignorance.

Answer 5

There is archaeological evidence of various places and people mentioned in the Bible, which is taken by some people as evidence that a book mentioning them is valid.  This tends to give credence to many known works of fiction also having to be true because place names and people mentioned in them also exist.

Answer 6

some events in the bible are actual events, like the bubonic plague, but i think alot of what is in the bible is exaggerated, like the story of Noah, it probably didn't really rain for 40 nights and 40 days and cover the world in water, but i think alot of what is in the bible was lost in translation through the Hebrew monks and all the times the bible has been rewritten.

Answer 7

There's a magazine published regularly, called "Bibical Anthrpology". It's very interesting. I'm sure you can find it online, or at the News-stand!

Answer 8

There is a branch of Archeology call Biblical Archeology.  Biblical Archeologists have found evidence supporting a number of the events related in the Bible.

If you read Biblical Archeology Review, you find a lot of controversy among the scholars, and usually two or three letters to the editor asking for their subscriptions to be canceled, because the archaeological conclusions are at odds with their interpretation of the Bible.

wl