Friday, December 08, 2017

Archaeological Evidence for the Old Testament

I am completing a book that provides an introductory level analysis of the evidence for the Old Testament and New Testament from archaeology and history.  Lord willing, the book will be complete in a number of months.  Its intended uses include:

1.) Providing an overview of this important subject for lost people who have intellectual objections to the Bible.

2.) Strengthening the faith of believers through a presentation of the historical evidence for the Bible, that they might in a greater way love God with their minds.

3.) Equipping believers to be able to deal with objections to the historical accuracy for the Bible that they encounter in evangelism.

My intention is to get the book in print after it is completed.  At this time, however, I have posted online the section on the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible and archaeology.  I have sought to write at a level the average believer and the interested unconverted person can understand, and have included many interesting pictures of historical finds that validate the holy Scriptures.  If you want to know the answers to questions such as:

1.) Does archaeology support the Biblical record about the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)?

2.) Is there historical evidence for Israel's exodus from Egypt?

3.) What are the earliest references to Israel in the land of Canaan in extrabiblical documents?

4.) Are there references outside the Bible to figures such as King David by name?

5.) What evidence exists for the Biblical period of the divided monarchy and the exile?

6.) Do the accounts of the Biblical prophets, like Isaiah and Ezekiel, receive validation from archaeology and history?

7.) Does archaeology demonstrate that Biblical prophecies are genuine supernatural predictions, so that the Bible is necessarily true?

I would encourage you to check it out.  If you watched my debate with the Freedom From Religion Foundation President Dan Barker, "Archaeology and Prophecy Validate the Bible as the Word of God," I would also encourage you to check my new work out, as it covers a great deal more than what could be examined in the debate.

I have also included some very recent information that, as it receives continuing validation, could revolutionize debate on the historical character of the Old Testament, including the 15th century B. C. reference in early Hebrew or the proto-consonantal script to "Moses" by name.


Kent Brandenburg said...

Praise the Lord!

I really do appreciate you Thomas and your work. It's due acknowledgement. I hope it is widely read. We, of course, are big readers, and think that such work is important and necessary, so surely it will be.

KJB1611 said...

Thanks--I was able to refer to some of these things on Friday with a skeptic while evangelizing at our campus ministry. May it be used to convict the lost and strengthen the saints.

Jeff Voegtlin said...

Thomas, I've only read the first 25% of the portion you linked to, but I've learned many things already. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Are there not books written on the Archaeology of the Bible and proof of OT historical authority?

What do you offer in your book that other authors have not already published?


KJB1611 said...

Dear Bro Voegtlin,

Thanks, I'm glad it is a blessing. Perhaps once it is done the book could be something incorporated into a Fairhaven class or even used in Sunday School.

Dear George,

There are certainly books out there already on this topic, numbers of which are valuable.

I believe the distinctive contribution here includes the following:

1.) Separatist IFB perspective
2.) Perfect preservation of Scripture (in part not completed yet) and KJV as the only English version used (many places); no explanation of alleged Biblical problems as errors in textual transmission
3.) Latest finds included, including Dr. Petrovich's material on the protoconsonantal script being Hebrew and his translated references to Moses, Asenath, etc.
4.) Simple level accessible to believers in general and interested skeptics
5.) Lots of nice pictures of the finds
6.) Eusebian / classical dates for the Gospels (often totally ignored in even evangelical works today--in the part not published yet)
7.) Independence of the synoptic Gospels vs Q & Markan priority
8.) Bible-honoring "early" date for the Exodus (1446 BC) vs. the "late" 13th century dating system (cf. 1 Kings 6:1)
9.) Free access on the web to the work as a PDF file and, Lord willing, in the future inexpensive copies of the book in print

Thanks for the question.