Archaeological Discoveries — Full Article

Isn't the Bible just another mythical religious book?

NO! THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY REFUTES THIS CLAIM!

A serious anti-Bible campaign got off the ground in the 1800s. When Darwin postulated random evolution, many of his contemporaries, turned off by a hypocritical church, jumped onto the bandwagon, believing they had been given an 'out' from belief in a Creator. Predictably, it wasn't long before the Bible was placed under the microscope -- and found to be 'inaccurate', 'mythical' or 'allegorical'.

Some critics deemed the Bible writers totally uninformed, foolishly imagining things that did not exist. And so many, acting with woefully incomplete information, rushed into judgment. At that time, there was virtually no modern archaeology to "test" their assertions. What the critics did not expect was that hundreds of later historical claims would be substantiated by archaeological discoveries giving support to the Bible's astounding accuracy. And often in minute detail.

Now we have evidence that the people, places and events they wrote about were indeed real. And as a personal friend of mine, who was a very experienced and knowledgeable field archaeologist, leading and or participating over many years in hands-on expeditions, once said, "here is the bottom line, beyond reasonable doubt, the Bible is better informed than its critics." - Jonathan Gray -Archaeologist

The historical setting is true to fact and the events described did really happen. Nelson Glueck, one of the world's most eminent Middle Eastern archaeologists, would tell you much the same: It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. (Nelson 151 Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of Negev. Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, p.31)

Confronted with the evidence, the "myth" charge has failed. It seems we need to update our opinions. I submit to you that the authority of the Bible as literal history is substantiated not by academics in their ivory towers, but by hands-on archaeologists who follow the book's directions and find physical remains from mentioned events. Actionable proof in real life.

What about David Icke he seems to be an expert, or at least he appears to promote himself as such. He has made many claims against the veracity of the scriptures. Here's one for you to consider.

Did MOSES, SOLOMON and King DAVID exist? I would say categorically no. (David Icke, The Biggest Secret. Bridge of Love Publications USA, Wildwood, MO, USA, 2001, p. 82)

Well let's have a look and see if we can test this claim with facts. It is true that until fairly recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. But in 1993, a team of archaeologists in Israel led by Professor Avraham Biram, were excavating Tel Dan. This was a beautiful mound at the foot of Mount Hermon in northern Galilee, beside one of the headwaters of the Jordan River.

Anyway, on July 21 that year, they came upon a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 centimeters. Inscribed in Aramaic, it was eventually identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription on the stone dates to the 9th century BC. This was about a century after David was believed to have ruled Israel.

The inscription includes the words 'Beit David' (which means 'House' or 'Dynasty of David') and also refers to 'King of Israel'. So you see, the inscription refers not simply to a David, but to the House of David, the dynasty of the king. This reference to David does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the period that the Bible states. But that's not all. In the inscriptions on a stele known as the Moabite stone, another scholar found the name 'House of David'. This is similarly from around 900 BC, a hundred years after the alleged time of King David.

So I ask you, how did King David's name appear in historical records if he were no more than a later literary invention? A mere myth!

As time passes, more such evidence involving Bible names and places is being discovered. And, like it or not, the skeptics are constantly having to retreat. Very well, so King David is real history. But where's the evidence for King Solomon? Because I notice that our friend Icke, in his book, says, 'Solomon -- it's all invention.' " (Ibid., p. 87)

Pardon me if I now ask, who is really inventing tales? Because archaeologists have been stumbling upon evidence after evidence of King Solomon. Temple Hill tablet: Israeli geologists announced on January 12, 2003 that they had examined a stone tablet dating to 800 BC which detailed repair plans for the Jewish Temple of King Solomon. Tests confirmed this Temple Hill Tablet, as they named it, to be authentic. (See the report by Laurie Copans, The Associated Press, January 14, 2003)

Of course, some stone tablet 'finds' are later presumed to be forgeries. But not this one. We must be careful not to confuse the two. Phoenician treaty record: The Bible speaks of a treaty that Solomon made with Hiram, king of the Phoenician city of Tyre. (1 Kings 5: 1,12) The historian Josephus informs us that a thousand years later, independently kept copies of this Phoenician treaty with King Solomon could be read in the public archives of Tyre in Phoenicia. (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book VIII, Chapter II, Section 7)

Furthermore, an independent Ethiopian epic, the Kebra Nagast, written about 850 BC, tells the story of an Ethiopian queen's visit to King Solomon of Israel and of the enormous riches and gifts that he showered upon her. In addition to this there is a mountain in Srinagar, India, called Tahkti Suleiman ('Solomon's Mountain'). Very strange, don't you think, that a mountain in India's highlands should be named after a Hebrew king -- except that antiquity declares that King Solomon went there and arranged for the construction of the temple on the summit.

And further a Red Sea inscription, in 1984 a commemorative pillar was found on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba... close to chariot remains on the seabed. It bore an inscription in archaic Hebrew: "MIZRAIM (Egypt); SOLOMON; EDOM; DEATH; PHARAOH; MOSES; and YAHWEH". Was this not erected by Solomon to mark the Israelite crossing of the sea? Despite all this evidence refuting Ickes claims, I still respect the critic's right to say that Solomon never existed. After all we should all encourage freedom of thought and expression, As the Bible attests.

Indeed, Archaeology has furnished abundant evidence of biblical people, places and events As noted earlier, because so many names -- and events -- were known only from the Bible, these were blasted by critics as pure myth. But now archaeology has turned the whole situation around.

The following is a sampling from the almost countless examples:

• Pharaoh Shishak's Palestinian campaign in the fifth year of King Rehoboam: a fragment of his victory monument found at Megiddo, confirms the biblical account. (1 Kings 14:25,26)

• Many fragments of beautifully carved ivory plaques from Ahab's palace, described in the Bible as an ivory palace. (1 Kings 29:39)

• Assyrian inscriptions of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC, against Hezekiah again confirm the Bible record. (2 Kings 18:13 to 19:36)

• Assyrian inscriptions mentioning the biblical kings Joash, Azariah and Manasseh, Ahab, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah and Hoshea.

• Babylonian receipts confirming the exile and food rations of Judah's king Jehoiachin. (2 Kings 24:8-15; Jeremiah 52:30-34)

• Excavations at Susa in Iran, show the layout of the Persian palace in such perfect agreement with the biblical description of it in the Book of Esther that scholars have been led to admit that only someone well acquainted with the palace, its environs, its divisions, and its court ceremonial could have written it.

• Almost every Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian ruler mentioned in the Bible has been rediscovered in contemporary documents -- Shalmaneser, Tilgath-pileser, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Darius the Great, Xerxes, Sargon, and many others.

• Even officials whose names are in the Bible, such as Nebuzar adan (2 Kings 25:8) or Nergal-sharezer (Jeremiah 39:3) are met with in the official documents of their time.

What about Babylon's fiery furnace

The Bible reveals three young Hebrew men being thrown into a fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel ch. 3) ...and others "whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire" (Jeremiah 29:22)

Excavators in the ruins of Babylon City uncovered a peculiar cone-shaped structure that appeared to be a firing-kiln for the production of brick or pottery. But when the cuneiform figures were deciphered, linguists were astonished to find this inscription: This is the place of burning where men who blasphemed the gods of Chaldea died by fire.

That the incidents recorded in the Bible concerning punishment in a fiery furnace were in keeping with the times is also shown by an inscription of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal:

Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life. Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, in one of his royal inscriptions, claims to have "burned to death adversaries and disobedient ones." Evidence that the Bible record is real history.

Daniel in the lion's den

The biblical book of Daniel also records that the Hebrew captive Daniel was tossed into a den of lions. (Daniel chapter 6) That such 'lion's den' punishment was in keeping with the times is now proven by the discovery of that same inscription of Ashurbanipal that we just mentioned. It continues thus: The rest of the people who had rebelled they threw alive among bulls and lions, as Sennacherib my grandfather used to do.

Lo, again following his footsteps, those men I threw into the midst of them. On one occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy was digging amid the ruins of Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like an ancient well. After being rescued by his companions, he proceeded with the work of identification. How astonished was he to find that the pit had been used as a cage for wild animals! And upon the curb was this inscription: The Place of Execution, where men who angered the king died torn by wild animals.

The book of Daniel identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the builder of mighty Babylon. (Daniel 4:30) An inscription by Nebuchadnezzar found among Babylon's ruins and now in the Berlin Museum states: I have made Babylon, the holy city, the glory of the great gods, more prominent than ever before, and have promoted its rebuilding. In fact, numerous bricks have been found in the ruins of Babylon, stamped with Nebuchadnezzar's name.

According to the Bible, the last king of the Chaldeans was Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:2,30,31) This name was unknown outside the Bible (or works based on it). So, for centuries, scholars hotly denied Belshazzar ever existed. All secular histories dealing with that period listed the last king as Nabonidus.

Therefore, the book of Daniel was said to be a forgery, written not when claimed, but by some later ignorant writer. It was not until the 20th century that contemporary records bearing the name Belshazzar surfaced for the first time in archaeological digs. In 1924, Sidney Smith discovered a tablet in the British Museum which showed that Belshazzar was the eldest son of Nabonidus and that in 'the third year' Nabonidus 'entrusted the kingship' to his eldest son (as coregent) and also placed the army of Babylon under his command. This was a severe blow to critics who claimed the biblical book of Daniel to be a product of the 2nd century BC, and not a 6th century eyewitness report. (Babylonian Historical Texts. London, 1924, p. 88; Latest trans. By Oppenheim in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. By Pritchard. Princeton, 1950, p. 313)

According to Cuneiform sources, Nabonidus was absent from Babylon at the time of its capture. A prayer tablet of Nabonidus says: "As for Belshazzar, the first born son, proceeding from my loins, place in his heart fear of thy divinity; let him not turn to sinning; let him be satisfied with the fullness of life." Evidently the old king was quite worried over his wayward son. That Belshazzar was merely a co-ruler in Babylon is also indicated by the fact that in the Bible (Daniel 5:29)

Daniel is referred to as third ruler in the kingdom. So two other rulers are implied. Who were the other two? Nabonidus and Belshazzar! Intricate detail puzzles skeptics Professor R.H. Pfeiffer was typical of those who did not accept the book of Daniel as genuinely written in the 6th century BC, but claimed it to be a 2nd century BC forgery. However, his skepticism raised a problem for which he could find no answer.

The mystery facing him was how on earth could accurate information about Belshazzar have been put into the book of Daniel at a time when this king had been so completely forgotten in the ancient world that not one of the Greek authors mentions him? Therefore he wrote: We shall presumably never know how our author learned... that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Baruch 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538. (R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: 1941, pp. 758,759)

If one accepts the book of Daniel as genuine -- that it was written when it says it was -- the problem disappears. On the other hand, if a scholar does not want to give up his critical attitude, he finds himself in a serious dilemma. He cannot understand how a man of the Maccabean age (2nd century BC) could be so accurately informed about the historical events that took place 300 years earlier, when no reliable source material of that period existed any more.

And so this is a serious dilemma for the skeptic but it is not a problem for the serious bible student.

FORBIDDEN SECRET -- button for the book this links to shop page

← Back to summary