THIS will prove the Bible is true!

First a piece of true cross, now this… Seems they are trying awfully hard to “prove” stuff from the Bible. Does this stuff ever get published in actual journals? It goes straight to the press from what I’ve seen.

3000-year-old inscription “proves Bible’s history is true” – Yahoo! News UK.

A clay fragment unearthed in Jerusalem may be the oldest Hebrew inscription ever discovered in the city – and could prove that accounts of the reigns of King David and Solomon are historical fact.

Working near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Hebrew University of Jerusalem archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar unearthed a fragment of a ceramic jar, with the earliest alphabetical written text ever uncovered in the city.

A new translation of the text suggests it may actually be in Hebrew – and could “prove” events in the Bible are true.

Mazar claims the inscription is in a “proto-Canaanite” script, and written by one of the non-Israeli residents of Jerusalem, perhaps Jebusites, who were part of the population in the time of Kings David and Solomon. Mazar says the meaning is unknown.

Another biblical expert, Douglas Petrovitch of the University of Toronto, claims the inscription is in fact in Hebrew.

Petrovitch claims that the discovery proves that Hebrew was being used as a written language in the 10th Century – and that the Bible could be a historical account written as events happened, rather than having been written hundreds of years later.

Notice the quotations marks around the word prove in the article. Even though it might prove some of the things described in the Bible is true, doesn’t mean EVERYTHING in the Bible would be true, as the Bible is a collection of many books written by many different authors and then “edited” by the early church. How can one inscription justify the entire Bible. Something reeks in this story. I’m getting a bit tired of one blockbuster biblical find after another. I don’t see the buzz last very long. Is it just me?

  24 comments for “THIS will prove the Bible is true!

  1. August 2, 2013 at 3:54 AM

    As reports of what happened ten years ago are disputed, no written ‘history’ can be described as being ‘true’. Prove is a stupid word in any context.

  2. August 2, 2013 at 6:51 AM

    Not *any* context. Only the more subjective ones.

  3. Simon Walmsley
    August 2, 2013 at 7:47 AM

    I have spaghetti in my kitchen cupboard therefore I have “proof” that the flying spaghetti monster exists!

  4. Brian
    August 2, 2013 at 8:20 AM

    The church is hurting for members, plain and simple. Why else do you think all these stories and such are popping up as of late?

  5. August 2, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    I will still stick with ‘any’, @ Rich.

  6. August 2, 2013 at 9:03 AM

    @Michael

    So you think absolutely nothing whatsoever, in any context, is provable?

    • August 2, 2013 at 9:43 AM

      @ Rich, If we are talking about science, philosophy or history yes. Here I would prefer to use the word likely. I am quite happy to use the word ‘prove’ for inconsequential matters of day to day speech.

  7. August 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    Eilat Mazar is a recognized scholar. I have no doubt that his claim it’s in some non-Hebrew, but somewhat similar, Canaanitic language is correct. And, of course, even if it is Hebrew, it’s a fragment too short to connect to anything, let alone anything biblical. All it would prove is that Hebrew was a written language for at least a few people, distinct from other languages in Canaan at the time.

    And, although an academic, Mr. Petrovitch seems to be driven by conservative Christian desires to “prove the bible.” http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/06/07/Evidence-for-the-Exodus-from-Egypt.aspx

    Please pray for this article and subsequent book to successfully equip the church to defend the historicity of the Exodus and to demonstrate, once again, that critics of the Bible are grossly in error.

    Yours for the King,

    Douglas Petrovich, PhD Candidate, ThM, MDiv, MA

  8. george seifert
    August 2, 2013 at 10:50 AM

    So how do they know it’s 3000 years old? Wouldn’t that mean they’d have to be in carbon dating? Wouldn’t belief in carbon dating throw a major wrench in their other beliefs?

  9. Chris Howard
    August 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    It’s like reading a spy novel, and assuming that because the cities, and agencies named in the book actually exist then the fictional character must, also, have, or does actually exist.

  10. spookyparadigm
    August 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    George, most archaeological dating is done the old-fashioned way, through seriation and artifact sequences. Radiometric and other forms of chemical or physical dating are used to calibrate such sequences. But most day-to-day archaeological dating is done by looking at the style and other characteristics of objects (think of how you can instantly identify a photograph from the past to the rough decade based on clothing, shape of cars, etc.) found in a deposit. Carbon dating and other techniques will be employed for various reasons, but they aren’t the most common part of archaeology.

    Here are some examples of seriation. The first image explains the basic concept. The second is a nicely displayed ceramic sequence based on the work of Flinders Petrie, who invented the concept over a century ago.

    http://people.wku.edu/darlene.applegate/introtoarch/lab2/seriation_bottles.gif

    http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p147/mariasekmet/mariasekmet/egipto/Vasijasvariasepocassecuenciadas.jpg

  11. August 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

    George, also, writing is dated to within a certain time frame by characteristics of the writing, such as styles on particular letters. And in longer texts, if there’s a very rare word, lexicography knows when the first (and last, if not current) usage of said word was.

  12. m goldstein
    August 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

    Numbers are the Supreme Court of science. However Godel proved that we may not prove everything. Science needs numbers. There must be Science and Physics Foibles!!

  13. Pete Attkins
    August 3, 2013 at 10:47 PM

    @Michael Greening: You are welcome to your opinions regarding the meaning of the word proof if they help you to sell your book in the realm of marketing. However, the autonomous Mars rover is providing compelling evidence for your incompetence to understand the meaning of this word in the realms of science, engineering, and critical thinking — i.e. the real world.

  14. August 4, 2013 at 3:15 AM

    @ Pete, many if not most things that have been ‘proven’ in the history of science, have been modified by subsequent understanding. We still have no final answers to the basic questions, how the sub-atomic world operates and is there such a thing as original chance? One day perhaps we will have proofs, but I don’t think we have got there yet.

  15. August 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM

    @Michael (and @Pete)

    What about sharks? I think I could prove sharks exist. And if that sounds absurd, you did specifically exclude ‘science’ from the realms of the provable and restrict it purely to the ‘inconsequential matters of day to day speech.’

    I’m with Pete. I don’t see why you’d want to make such a grand and absolute statement.

  16. August 4, 2013 at 11:13 AM

    @ Rich. Everything, in the end, comes down to words and their meaning so it is easy to misunderstand each other. All I am trying to say is that it is unwise to be dogmatic about the reason for anything. I accept that the word prove can be used in other contexts, when it has a slightly different meaning. It is certainly fine to use it in mathematics for example.

  17. Pete Attkins
    August 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    @ Michael. Wearing my philosophy hat, I agree with you. Wearing my science hat, I disagree with you. Despite the fact that I tend to speak out against some of your comments I really enjoy reading them because you help me to better understand what drives my chosen pathway through life.

    I know far more than enough philosophy to enable me to teach a parrot how to debunk the whole of science and human knowledge using just one easy-to-learn sentence. I’m not claiming to be clever, indeed, if I was clever I’d have been able to figure out by now whether you are writing here for the purpose of boosting your sales or you are adding something of value to the skeptic community. My tolerance for each activity is strongly polarized.

  18. August 5, 2013 at 3:28 AM

    @ Pete.
    I enjoy your comments and any others that make me question if my understanding of life has flaws. I find many of the debates on this blog interesting although I may not be a true sceptic, yet I know there are some well known sceptics who also accept that choice cannot exist. Your suggestion about marketing does contain some truth, but this is in my search to find others who have reached the same conclusions as myself.

  19. Pete Attkins
    August 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    @ Michael, Thank you very much for your reply and I apologise for having doubted your motives. I would’ve sent you a personal email months ago, but I’m unable to view your website in my browser because I have Flash disabled for security. If you would be interested in having a personal chat then please point me towards your email address. If you want to keep your email address private then send Sharon an email — she knows who I am.

    Kindest regards,
    Pete

    • August 6, 2013 at 2:14 AM

      Thanks, @ Pete. I’ve asked the editor to let you have my email address.

      • August 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

        Feel free to exchange addresses. I have no idea what your emails are. Not a post office here…

  20. Pete Attkins
    August 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    Oops, I’m sorry for my imposition.

    @ Michael, give me a day or two to think of a Plan B…

  21. MadSat
    August 7, 2013 at 12:44 AM

    No, it’s not just you.

Comments are closed.