Biblical Archaeology Truth

Sunday, December 10, 2023

From Adam To Messiah The Prince by Arthur Chrysler | Jan 1, 2023
Perfect Paperback
$9.95 - www.amazon.com/dp/1961110059/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=9781961110052&linkCode=qs&qid=1697552504&s=books&sr=1-1

Things that were true in the past remain true today, making archaeology the enemy of deception and a threat to those who would rewrite history. The Bible is also an enemy of deception; overflowing with, what may be inconvenient for many, the truth!
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16)

Archaeologists of the lands of the Bible have overlooked some of the most spectacular discoveries of our time. It seems that they cannot see the forest for the trees in their attempt to highlight the significance of discoveries being uncovered. Some of the most spectacular finds are set aside or go unnoticed for years before their true significance is revealed. King Hezekiah's seal impression, found in Jerusalem, is one such example:
"In the 2009 Ophel excavations, one of the greatest single artifacts ever discovered in Israel was uncovered. Yet, for five years it was boxed away, waiting to be understood. As other incredible discoveries came to light from Dr. Eilat Mazar’s Ophel excavations over the intervening years, little did anyone realize that one discovery far more significant had already been found. Finally, five years later, epigraphist Ruth Ben-Aryeh opened up the little box and examined the object more closely. To her surprise, she noticed a subtle part of the ancient script that had been overlooked by the initial reading—a mere dot, a punctuation mark, which separated two words that had originally been presumed as one. All of a sudden, the real meaning of the script jumped out. It read:
"BELONGING TO HEZEKIAH, [SON OF] AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH" (Watch Jerusalem 2015).

Hezekiah's seal impression found in Jerusalem

II Kings 18:1-3
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did.

Copyright: Courtesy of Dr. Eilat Mazar; Photo by Ouria Tadmor

The Prophet Isiah's seal impression found in Jerusalem (see II Chronicles 29:1-2; 32:20; II Kings 19:6, 20; 20:1-11).

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21).

   “For several centuries scholars have used the Bible as a primary historical source for understanding both the material and spiritual biblical worlds. Of course, their assumptions, goals and methods have varied and developed over the years. Early critical analysis of the Bible during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries focused on the task of determining whether certain narratives in the Bible were factual or not. This focus led, by the end of the nineteenth century, to an optimism that, through critical analysis of the texts, “factual” questions could be resolved that would illuminate the way in which the biblical narratives must be understood. For much of the twentieth century this optimism grew into a positive attitude among scholars who believed that, by critically examining the Bible in light of historical texts, considered together with new discoveries being uncovered by archaeology in biblical lands, it would be possible to write a secular history of the Bible. Consequently, funding for large-scale excavations in biblical lands     reached an apex during the second half of the twentieth century, especially between the two world wars. After World War II, renewed excavations in the 1950s through the mid-1970s reflected the optimism and promise of a “biblical archaeology” and the close cooperation between researchers, theologians, philanthropists, private and government funding agencies, and broad-based interest on the part of the general public.”
    “This situation changed dramatically, however, during the last three decades of the twentieth century. Scholars trained specifically as archaeologists dominated archaeological fieldwork in the modern nation-states of the ancient biblical world, and many of their discoveries, the result of a more systematic approach to archaeological fieldwork, raised difficult questions regarding the historicity of biblical texts. At times the results seemed to contradict events described in the Bible. Whereas the early generation saw some hope in finding an “essential continuity” between the events that were deemed factual and the biblical narratives, the results of recent research have tended to conclude that such continuity is unlikely to emerge.”
    “The rise of a more specialized discipline (dubbed Syro-Palestinian archaeology) during the later 1970s and 1980s coincided with new methodological and science-based approaches to archaeology, sometimes referred to as “new archaeology” or “processual archaeology.” The rise of processual archaeology intensified the split between biblical studies and field archaeology that had begun even before the 1970s, with the separation becoming greater still as new scientific investigations failed to “prove” biblical events. …The optimistic days when scholars such as William F. Albright and G. Ernest Wright could proclaim that archaeology would resolve many biblical debates were over.”
    “As we assess the situation at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we recognize that archaeologists of the lands of the Bible and biblical scholars have long since departed from a common path of shared goals. …Field archaeologists by necessity concentrate more on anthropological and archaeological theory or material culture studies than on the literary history of the Bible. Likewise, biblical scholars today tend to focus their research within the subfields of theology, biblical history, philology, form criticism, literary analysis, and comparative religions; they have little time to work in any depth in areas closely related to their specialty and at best only “dabble” in archaeology. Many biblical scholars seem to think that participation in a few field excavations is enough to make one a proficient archaeologist, while many field archaeologists believe that knowledge of Hebrew is enough to master the biblical texts or to reconstruct a history of the biblical world. In reality, however, both disciplines require years of intensive study to attain a fluency of the languages of material culture or the related subspecialties of biblical studies. The result is that archaeologists and biblical scholars spend less and less time communicating with each other, which fosters the perception that the related fields of material culture and text have very little to contribute to each other. Even when the conversations take place, the two groups often find themselves speaking different languages” (Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann Killebrew, Jerusalem In Bible And Archaeology, 2003, p. 1-3).

"We propose to reverse the usual scientific procedure in Biblical Archaeology. The research agenda should be archaeological/anthropological, relying on patterns identified in the archaeological record. Explanation of these patterns, however, should include all lines of evidence, with an important place reserved for the biblical texts. From a cultural perspective, the Bible as an ‘unconscious revelation’ is invaluable." (2010, S. Bunimovitz and A. Faust).

Reconstructing Biblical Archaeology - https://www.academia.edu/5571197/Bunimovitz_S._and_Faust_A._2010_Reconstructing_Biblical_Archaeology_Toward_an_Integration_of_Archaeology_and_the_Bible_in_Levy_T.E._ed._Historical_Biblical_Archaeology_and_the_Future_-_The_New_Pragmatism_London_Equinox_pp._43-54