The most powerful proof of the archaeological historicity of the Bible can be summed up in a single statement: Never, in the history of the field of archeology, have artifacts or evidence been discovered that would disprove the Bible. Instead, characters and events, which were once thought to be myths, are being authenticated with each new discovery. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, one of the foremost authorities on Jewish archeology, has said,
"It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries." 1
There are so many examples that I hardly know where to begin. One of my favorites, however, is the example of the Hittites. For many years critics maintained that the Hittite civilization did not exist because the only historic record of the people was in the Bible. As the result of archaeological discoveries, there are now hundreds of artifacts documenting the Hittite civilization, spanning more than 1,000 years.
This sort of skepticism continues to exist where evidence has yet to be discovered. There is an axiom, however, that applies here with regard to archaeology. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There have been hundreds of examples like the Hittites where skeptics had no evidence and assumed biblical inaccuracy. Then, at some later date, evidence was discovered. Conversely, as stated above by Dr. Glueck, evidence has never been discovered that contradicts the biblical record. At what point do we give the document the benefit of the doubt based on thousands of trials and a perfect track record?
Printer-friendly format: