- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« In Kind Contribution | Main | When Bah Humbug Turns to Ho Hum »

November 30, 2007

Another Archeological Find Supporting Biblical Account

It appears that Nehemiah's famous wall has been discovered.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Archeological Find Supporting Biblical Account:



It's a pattern:
1. Some portion of the Bible is found to be testable by science.
2. Scholars express doubt that the Bible is correct.
3. Evidence is found that overwhelmingly confirms the Bible.

I remember skeptics expressing doubt that anyone was ever crucified, because all we had were written accounts. Then in the 1960s archaeologists found a skeleton whose heel bone had the nail still in it, and whose leg bones were broken. I still have a copy of that article in the Israeli Archaeological Journal.

And there are similar stories around whether or not Moses could have written anything (as shown in Cecil B. DeMille's "Ten Commandments"), Hezekiah's tunnel, the Old Testament (before the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery), the walls of Jericho, and on and on and on.

Sometimes I wonder if God sees these scholars bloviate, and chuckles and says to Himself, "Wait until they see THIS discovery that's about to be made."

Regis Nicoll

Another pattern I've noticed is that finds like this are lucky to get page two coverage, whereas the "Jesus Tomb" and the "missing gospel of the month" not only get headlines, but their own NOVA special.

jason taylor

Oh well, Christian's got thrown to the lions and Caesar continued to be worshipped.
There has been SOME improvement...


Not to nitpick Lee, but If I'm not mistaken the walls of Jericho were discovered to be from a different time period than the time of the events described in the Bible.

I don't remember the publication I read it in but Wikipedia links to some actual sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Walls_of_Jericho


Brian wrote: "Not to nitpick Lee, but If I'm not mistaken the walls of Jericho were discovered to be from a different time period than the time of the events described in the Bible."

And this is exactly my point, Brian: every time someone thinks they have conclusive evidence to prove that the Bible is wrong, someone else makes a discovery that proves the Bible's right. The wikipedia article is actually far more positive than what I've read previously; originally there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT JERICHO'S WALLS HAD FALLEN and then oops, there was - complete with burned spots WHICH CONTRADICTED THE BIBLE but then oops, there were multiple examples of Jericho being besieged and some didn't include burning, etc., etc. This was the first I'd read about an alternative Egyptian chronology; that was previously a showstopper for the Exodus because the pharaohs were all wrong.

So every time the scholars say "We've got those Bible-believers now!", I just sit back and wait.

Jason Taylor

Not to nitpick Lee, but If I'm not mistaken the walls of Jericho were discovered to be from a different time period than the time of the events described in the Bible.
Not, not to nitpick but the walls of Constantinople lasted about a thousand years. Such things are not conclusive in fixing times.
It is probable there were some walls at the time in any case, whether or not archeologists discovered them. Being plundered by bedouin is such a bother, don't you know(just joshing you a little with my snobby Oxbridge accent, Brian).
But that does not mean they will be found. Later generations tend to pick up rubble and put it in their own houses.

Michael Snow

I hate it when these links take one away from the Point instead of opening in a new window

Gina Dalfonzo

I'm sorry it's an inconvenience for you, Michael. But I've learned from several sources that it's no longer considered proper "netiquette" to set links to open in a new window.

Tim Miller

I think any person's response to any evidence for scriptural events, regardless of it's credibility,
is going to come out of the predisposition of his/her heart. I have spent years satisfying my own need for evidence. I am satisfied. When I present reasonable, credible evidence in a kind manner it is usually not effective in convincing skeptics of the existence of God or His love. The only things that I have ever witnessed that soften a skeptics heart are The Holy Spirit, and the likeness of Christ in a living person. i.e. simple kindness, unreasonable, relentless, kindness.

Steve (SBK)

As an aside to Michael, a tip I learnt just the other week:
If you have a middle/scroll button on your mouse, click that instead of left/right buttons, which will open the link in another tab (and perhaps window - in older browsers).

Alternatively, you can hold the Ctrl button (or...um... corresponding Mac button) while left clicking a link for the same behavior.

It's great - especially for the daily roundup - and, you'll probably like it so much you'll be trained in under 5 clicks.


Tim, I think you hit the nail on the head:

Archaeological evidence is unlikely to "win" anyone for the Lord. It happened so long ago, the way "history" was "recorded" differs tremendously from the way it is now, and as Jason Taylor pointed out, people tended to reuse old rubble.

The story of Jericho is important whether we have a mountain of evidence (or rubble) for its historicity or not even a shred.

I'm not convinced that those walls came from the same time period as described in the Bible, but does it make the Bible any less important? Nope.

And also Ctrl/[Apple] + Click = greatest invention ever.

The comments to this entry are closed.