Archaeology confirms not disproves the Bible

Two recent articles caught me on this subject. First is recent discoveries about the location of Bethsaida.

Regarding the geographical setting of Bethsaida itself, one historical detail does come to mind that is underscored by its geographical setting, the area our team is exploring right now. When Jesus heard that John had been killed by Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14–29), he withdrew to the other side to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45).

This withdrawal to Bethsaida had geopolitical significance. Bethsaida was under the legal jurisdiction of Herod Philip not Antipas. Herod Antipas had just murdered John the Baptist. To remain in Galilee (Capernaum, Magdala, etc.) would have put Jesus and his disciples at risk. So, he instructed them to travel to the other side, to Bethsaida, which lay outside of Galilee and beyond the reach of Antipas.

Bethsaida was not a marginal location in the life of Jesus and his apostles. The more we can know about this city, the better we can understand its place in the gospel story.

Secondly evidence has been found of the sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

This evidence points to the historical conquest of the city by Babylon because the only major destruction we have in Jerusalem for this period is the conquest of 587/586 BCE,” he said.

It’s worth noting that not many are convinced that the Bible is true based on archaeology but that seems due more to the lack of evidence of things they hoped to find rather than any contradicting evidence of things that have actually been found not even things like camel bones.

Commenting on a recent similar discovery, G.B. Howell Jr., editor for Biblical Illustrator, said, “Those who study biblical archaeology are very careful not to say that a particular find proves the Bible. Amazingly, though, archaeological sites and artifacts consistently reinforce and support the accuracy and reliability of the biblical record.”

What archaeology is consistently doing is revealing more and more about the lives of the 99% and as the Bible is mostly stories of ordinary people this is really helpful.


Well, it confirms some, and disproves some. Exodus didnt happen, nor where there a flood to take a few. but in the same manner london is mentioned in the harry potter books, and can be confirmed so can certain places and historical figures in the bible. It would be very odd if they wherent.

Do you have evidence to suggest the Exodus didn’t happen? A million people moved west in 2015 & there will be no archaeological evidence for example. So what evidence should we expect to find?
As for the flood there is evidence of a catastrophic regional flood which created the black sea. I’ll try & find the link to that research.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: