Two hundred years ago skeptics of the truthfulness of the Bible used to argue that the holy Scriptures shouldn’t be taken seriously because so many of its historical references couldn’t be validated by any sources outside of the Bible. For example, up until the mid-1800’s skeptics argued that the biblical city of Nineveh didn’t exist because, except for its mention in the Bible, history was silent on its existence.
This absence of evidence argument was often used to chide Christians for being gullible in believing such unsubstantiated biblical claims. However, in 1847 Henry Layard, the famed archeologist, discovered 25,000 clay tablets that finally brought to light the existence of the great city of Nineveh. Since this time so many other archaeological discoveries have proven the Bible to be an amazingly accurate book of history that the absence of evidence argument can no longer be used to refute the Bible as a first-class book of history.
Archaeologist John Elder shared the following observation: “It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archaeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper place in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists …. The overall result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history.”1
Apologist Paul Copan also adds insight here when he states: “Skeptics may mention biblical cities that haven’t been discovered–though lots have been!–and conclude that Scripture is unreliable. But in the past “absence of evidence” arguments were used to deny the factuality of Abraham’s camels, the Hittite people, and the Davidic dynasty. But with new discoveries in archaeology, the skeptics were proven wrong and Scripture was confirmed.”2
To deny that the Bible is history when the scientific field of archaeology has proven over and over again that what the Bible says is history is no longer a debatable issue. I like what Professor and biblical scholar Millar Burrows said in reference to archaeology and the Bible: “Archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.”3
In my opinion to deny that the Bible is not historically accurate is to deny the reliability of science. Yet many scientists today want us to deny the reliability of the Bible. These scientists can’t have it both ways. The better option is clearly to trust in both science and the Bible – where both confirm one another. Contrary to what many scientists tell us today the Bible and science have long been companions is the quest for truth!
1 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 32.
2 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 30.
3 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 16.