quote:
The Bible isn't a novel. It is history. Some challenge it. So every archaeological discovery adds to its truthfulness. Archaeology is evidence. You know they found Jericho and the evidence was that the walls came down like the Bible said.
what evidence are you using for your jericho information?
Kenyon demonstrated that the fall of jericho happened no later than 1300 bce, which was at least, and this is being generous, 70 to 100 years before the bible said it could have happened. her findings were based on evidence found at the site. if you are citing the reports on jericho from the 1930's and not paying attention to any subsequent discoveries, then i would say you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
what archeological evidence supports the OT conquest stories? or the exodus? or anything in the OT for that matter?
my point--the bible is not inerrant. science is also subjected to mistakes and outright hoaxes or biases. there is one big diference between the two--science is self-correcting.
sometimes objectively gathered evidence, or any scientific hypothesis or theory for that matter, can be subjected to bias based on the subjective ideas of archeologists or scientists or whomever. however, unlike your biblical inerrancy, science has peer review. if hoaxes, like piltdown man, or mistakes, like nebraska man, occur, review and experimentation by others will root these falsehoods out. science is inherently self correcting. these corrections might take some time, but they are found.
evolution is a good, no, incredibly robust theory for many reasons. one being that in the 150+ years since darwin published on the origin of species, no one has refuted the theory. it is not like anyone has not tried either. sure, mechanisms are continuously debated in scientific circles, but that is how science works. lively and ongoing peer review is a hallmark of science and not a sign of weakness. how many times do we have to erroneously hear that "many scientists cannot agree on evolution, so it must be wrong"? that is such BS!
the development of the theory of evolution has a great story. an incredibly arduous journey through all that is good and sometimes bad in the scientific community. it tells a story about the development of life on Earth and how we got here. there is a huge difference between the story of creation and the story of evolution, though. creationism doesn't change according to the evidence, it exists in spite of evidence. evolution grows and changes based on evidence. if the evidence doesn't support part of the story, it is changed. evolution doesn't exist b/c of some dogmatic impulse of the scientific community. it exists b/c it is backed by mountains of evidence that cannot be covered up by your fountains of the deep or your firmament