Dating Methods, Archaeology, and the Bible
Archaeology is a fascinating area of study when it is used properly. It is certainly something I would not want to do, what with carefully digging in specific areas and examining things in the rain, under the hot sun, and so on. Be careful, can't break something important! My back wouldn't tolerate that. (Even more challenging by my way for reckoning is underwater archaeology.) Originally, archaeologists knew that the Bible was accurate, but secularists would still try to find excuses to scoff at it.
One famous case was that of the Hittites. People would say something to the effect of, "Archaeology has never found the Hittites, therefore, the Bible is wrong." That is an inexcusably fallacious argument from silence. It ignores the antiquity of the regions, and the fact that some folks are so selfish, they actually build homes and cities where archaeologists want to excavate. The nerve of some people, living and stuff. By the way, the "no Hittites found" remark was made even more foolish by the discovery of those ancient Hittites.
There are archaeological digs in places that have comparatively recent history, and many are supplemented by eyewitness accounts. Obviously, the further back you go, the more uncertain the dating can be. Then archaeologists bring in uncertain dating methods. The results obtained often conflict with history, such as the Viking bones in England.
What about the dates in the Bible as opposed to carbon-14 dating? Since the Bible has many details about dates, we can get a pretty good idea of when certain things happened. Of course, some owlhoots will say, "The Chinese civilization is older than the fairytales about your God that were written down by illiterate goat herders!" Good going, Poindexter. You just negated all historical writing by indicating it had to be written by eyewitnesses. Worse, you presuppose that the Bible is wrong and that the carbon-14, dendrochronology, and other dating methods of secularists are always right. Instead of using the eyewitness accounts in the Bible, secular scientists prefer their erroneous dating methods. This is probably because their ways are "more scientific" because they help support deep time speculations. We presuppose the truth of the Bible, which is self-affirming.
 |
| Credit: US National Park Service |
There are archaeological digs in places that have comparatively recent history, and many are supplemented by eyewitness accounts. Obviously, the further back you go, the more uncertain the dating can be. Then archaeologists bring in uncertain dating methods. The results obtained often conflict with history, such as the Viking bones in England.
What about the dates in the Bible as opposed to carbon-14 dating? Since the Bible has many details about dates, we can get a pretty good idea of when certain things happened. Of course, some owlhoots will say, "The Chinese civilization is older than the fairytales about your God that were written down by illiterate goat herders!" Good going, Poindexter. You just negated all historical writing by indicating it had to be written by eyewitnesses. Worse, you presuppose that the Bible is wrong and that the carbon-14, dendrochronology, and other dating methods of secularists are always right. Instead of using the eyewitness accounts in the Bible, secular scientists prefer their erroneous dating methods. This is probably because their ways are "more scientific" because they help support deep time speculations. We presuppose the truth of the Bible, which is self-affirming.
But what of claims of civilisations that, according to the biblical timeline, would pre-date the Flood? Is it reasonable to accept that a wheel discovered in Slovenia is between 5,100 and 5,350 years old, or that agriculture flourished and building projects were undertaken 12,000 years ago? Are these dates still in the biblical ‘ball-park’? Where do we draw the line when archaeologists claim that the oldest pottery is 18,300 years old, or the remains of “Mungo Man”, (the first reported Australian human), are 62,000 years old? Are these more recent ‘dates’ derived by more reliable methods than the highly questionable radiometric dating techniques used to argue that rocks are millions of years old?To read the entire article, click on "How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible".