|
[ o u t r e a c h ]
HOW CAN WE ACCEPT THE MYTHS
OF THE BIBLE?
How can anyone be expected to believe in the
myths and legends of the Bible? How can we take seriously a
religion which comes from such a book?
For thousands of people a great question
mark hangs over the Bible on account of its alleged fictions. But
where does the idea come from that the Bible is full of myths?
The answer is -- it comes from an
out-of-date smear campaign conducted by nineteenth-century
cynics. In those days a tidal wave of rationalism from certain
high-brow writers heaped enough scorn on the Bible to sink a
continent.
They ridiculed the historical narratives of
the Bible as a mixture of legend and invention, and they
denounced the great prophecies as forgeries written long after
the 'predicted' events take place.
The tragedy is that the success of this
smear campaign has survived to the present day, so that thousands
of intelligent and well-informed people have picked up these
jibes against the Bible without realising how hopelessly dated
they have become.
Digging up
proof
The truth is that those nineteenth-century
rationalists were leaping far ahead of their knowledge. And many
of them lived to see the start of an era of archaeological
discovery, when the sandy deserts of old Palestine began to yield
up their massive stores of solid evidence in favour of the Bible.
Today, most of the confident complaints
against the Bible have been turned into embarrassed mutters, as
myth after myth has proved to be true history. Numerous cities
have been found beneath the sand, together with countless
inscriptions, letters and other items, all proving conclusively
that the biblical narratives are an authentic record, and that
the great characters referred to truly existed at the times
stated.
For example, there is an amazing amount of
evidence showing how authentic the biblical account of Abraham
is. (Abraham lived around 2000BC.) In the nineteenth century it
became fashionable for those cynical writers to make Abraham
their 'number one' myth. They said the biblical description of
live in his day was full of mistakes.
They said there no signs of such
civilisations as the Bible implied, and that cites like Ur of
the Chaldees (where Abraham lived through childhood and early
manhood) and Sodom and Gomorrah (in the area he
later moved to) could not have existed.
In the case of Ur, some said the
whole area was uninhabitable desert. As late as 1880 a renowned
German scholar pronounced a verdict which was to be copied by
anti-religious writers for years. He said that from the biblical
record of Abraham it is 'impossible to obtain any historical
information'. According to this scholar, all we see is the
culture of a much later age when the stories were
'invented', 'projected back into hoary antiquity'.
But the archaeological digging found the
site of ancient Ur, and the experts began to expose the
most sophisticated of towns. Excavations at Ur reached
their climax during 1924-32, by which time the following facts
were thoroughly known.
Ur had been established long before
the time of Abraham and was a walled city built around a massive,
70-foot high artificial hill constructed of solid brick and
surrounded by ornate staircase systems. (This brick mound is now
exposed to view.)
The city boasted a harbour, for in those
days the great Euphrates River followed a different course and
ran through the region which, to nineteenth-century eyes, had
become a total desert.
The city also had shops, workshops, law
courts, a school, offices and, of course, many houses, decorated
with colour-washed plaster ceilings. Objects of art taken from Ur
and dating from 2000BC may be seen today in the British Museum -- all demonstrating the accuracy of the Bible.
The cities
were there
According to the Bible Abraham went to the
Jordan plain where cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah were
located. Did they really exist? Were the nineteenth-century
writers correct in saying that no civilisation ever existed in
those parts?
On the contrary, the evidence is now piled
high, proving that this area (at the southern end of the Dead
Sea) was then populated just as the Bible says. Even the natural
asphalt pits of the Jordan plain referred to in the Bible may be
verified, along with the heavy sulphur deposits.
The nineteenth-century critics were as
wrong as they could possibly have been. But their cynical errors
linger on.
During the centuries after Abraham, the
growing nation of Israel went into captivity in Egypt, and were
eventually led out by Moses. Then, Joshua succeeded Moses, they
entered into the land of Canaan and conquered it. This whole
episode of Bible history was torn to shreds by writers of the
last century. But once again, the evidence of archaeology has
completely silenced all such criticism.
The question is: do folk who go on
repeating the anti-Bible jibes of the last century know about the
many discoveries which confirm the conquest of Canaan by the
Israelites, and which may be viewed in the British Museum, as
well as other leading museums of the world?
Today we can see for ourselves numerous
pieces of pottery taken from ancient Canaanite cities, which tell
the story of these places at the time when the Israelites
(according to the Bible) marched into Canaan. We can see the
evidence of Canaanite culture suddenly succeeded by Israelite
culture at the very period during which great battles were taking
place (described in the Bible in the books of Joshua and Judges)
The city of Hazor, for example, is
mentioned in the Bible as having been conquered twice over by
Israelites. In 1955 Professor Yiguel Yadin began to dig up vital
evidence which proved beyond all doubt the takeover of the city
by the Israelites.
This very brief look at such a large
subject can only scratch the surface. There is now such a wealth
of archeological information to verify the narratives of the
bible that it is impossible to do justice to it here. However,
the following two great discoveries will give a hint of the
substantial nature of this 'evidence from the sands'.
Take the famous Black Obelisk of
Shalmanezer III, discovered as long ago as 1846 and now exhibited
in the British Museum. Over six feet tall, this black stone
monument was found in the remains of the Assyrian palace of
Shalmanezer III, who rules that great empire of the East in the
ninth century BC.
The evidence
mounts
It commemorates the triumphs of Shalmanezer
and includes a reference to Jehu (king of Judah from 841-814 BC).
It even includes a picture of Jehu and describes how he brought
considerable gifts of gold, silver and tin articles, as homage to
buy the goodwill of the mighty Assyrian emperor.
The obelisk solidly confirms both the
dating and historical accuracy of the Bible. Here is a portrait
of a Hebrew king whose reign is recorded at length in the Bible.
But it is only one of a very large number of steles, tombstones
and inscriptions which solidly authenticate the Bible in the same
way. When people speak of Hebrew myths, they are simply unaware
of the great mass of irrefutable support for the Bible from such
findings of archaeology.
For a final example of the kind of evidence
which has been provided by these excavations, we must glance at
the hundreds of square feet of royal 'wallpaper' retrieved from
the palace of Sennacherib, emperor of Assyria from 705-681 BC.
His palace was at Nineveh, first excavated in 1846, and the
'wallpaper' consists of enormous stone slabs with the most
intricate illustrations of Sennacherib's victories chiseled out
of them.
The great importance of these, together
with long narrative inscriptions and clay cylinders bearing
detailed accounts of all the emperor's campaigns, is that they
give us Sennacherib's own official version of his invasion of
Israel in 701 BC.
This is also described in detail in three
books of the Bible. As can be imagined, to bring together the
biblical account and the official record of the Assyrian emperor,
is of great significance.
The result is -- a total vindication of the
Bible as historical fact. The Bible says that while Hezekiah was
king in Jerusalem, Sennacherib proceeded to sack his minor walled
cities, and then besiege Hezekiah in Jerusalem. Sennacherib's
account says the same.
The Bible says that Hezekiah tried to
appease Sennacherib with homage. The latter says the same (except
that it exaggerates the amount of treasure which changed hands,
as the Assyrians tended to do).
The Bible says Sennacherib's troops had to
withdraw for a time. Sennacherib's records say the same. The
Bible says that in the meantime Hezekiah constructed a remarkable
water tunnel to supply the city from outside sources during the
siege, which would inevitably be resumed when the Assyrians
returned. That tunnel has been found and may be examined by
tourists today.
Critics now
silent
The Bible says Sennacherib returned, and
his forces were destroyed by divine act (possibly by plague).
Sennacherib's records go strangely silent about the final result.
He claims no victory, and it is a historical fact that the
Assyrians fought no more major battles for years!
At any time crowds of people may be seen
milling about the section of the British Museum which is devoted to Sennacherib's 'wallpaper'
sculptures of the siege of Lachish (the last walled city to fall
before Sennacherib surrounded Jerusalem in 701 BC). Usually, most
of the crowd gaze at these Assyrian records completely unaware
that they are viewing stunning, solid, irrefutable confirmation
of the authenticity of the Bible.
Today there is no basis at all for feeling
qualms about the integrity of the Bible. The nineteenth-century
rash of super-critics doubted everything -- particularly the
dates in the Bible. But now we know that Bible dates are right.
The emerging evidence has confirmed the Bible's places, events,
people and dates!
The pendulum has swung, and today there are
many, many books, both scholarly and popular, which are filled
with the avalanche of archaeological and other discoveries which
have shown the Bible to be unique for its historical accuracy.
 E-mail a friend about this page
 Printer friendly page
 Search the site
Top
|
