This past week a story came over the newswires about an archaeological find that is of interest to Bible believers. Though the jury may still be out on the dating aspect, archaeologists on site of the discovery are confirming that these ancient Jerusalem walls date from the times of David and Solomon.

That's a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time. The modernists will claim that David’s monarchy was largely mythical and that Jerusalem did not have the walls nor did Israel have such a strong centralized government that the Bible says it did at the time of David. But speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find "the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel." She continued: "It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction," she said.

Of course there will be more study, debate and so forth concerning this. But it is interesting to me that this is the 2nd such news story that I have noticed in as many months. It has been just a few weeks since the discovery of the dwelling at Nazareth dating from the time of Christ. Some skeptics had denied that Nazareth was settled at all during the first century, but insist that it was established in the second century. They suggest that the writers from the second century, thinking Nazareth was older, used it has Jesus’ hometown. This is despite the fact that tombs have been found at the location from the lifetime of Jesus. Tombs were not enough for them, for some strange reason (where do they think that tombs come from?). But now, a 1st century dwelling has also been uncovered during the demolition of a more modern building.

And that brings us to a final point I wish to make about the basis of most of the skeptics’ objections that I have noticed. I am thinking that every single one of the supposed “contradictions” between the Bible’s account of history and archaeology discoveries are not based on what has been found, but rather on what has not been found. This has been going on for generations. Sargon II was once considered mythical because no trace of him had been found other than a Biblical reference in Isaiah. This is what was being suggested in the 19th century when his palace was found. The Hittites were a mythical people according to the skeptics at one time, before Hittite artifacts, too, were discovered. David was mythical until artifacts were found confirming his existence, so now he was real but just different from what the Bible says.

Interesting, isn’t it?

By Jon W. Quinn
The Final Page
From Expository Files 17.3;  March 2010

https://www.bible.ca/