Is the Bible Really True?

‘People back then in Bible times were ignorant and superstitious. They could not read or write. They just passed on history by word of mouth. So how can the Bible really be true?’ Have you ever felt that way about the Bible?

MANY sincere persons have. Others, of course, just use such reasoning as a means of evading responsibility. But is it true that society was so primitive and ignorant in Bible times?

In recent years excavations in Ebla, Syria, have uncovered a library of over 16,500 cuneiform tablets (wedge-shaped writing in clay) and fragments depicting many aspects of life in that area. What is the period they cover? The most recent estimates of the archaeologists indicate the third millennium before our Common Era (B.C.E.).

What do they tell us about that ancient human society? Was it primitive, ignorant and illiterate? Philologist Giovanni Pettinato states: “We can already deduce from the initial study of the material that Ebla was a highly industrialized state whose economy was not based on agriculture and sheep-rearing but rather on industrial products and international trade.”

What kind of information was stored in that extensive official library? Scholar Pettinato explains: “70 percent of the texts preserved are economic-administrative . . . Another 10 percent are historical and, containing important international treaties, were jealously to be guarded. A good 20 percent are literary.”

Whether this library at Ebla will cast light on Bible events and places remains to be seen. However, the point is made that life was not so primitive over four thousand years ago as some would have us believe.

Is There Proof of the Bible’s Accuracy?

Now the question is: Do any ancient cuneiform writings and inscriptions cast light on what the Bible presents as history? Let us examine a few brief examples from the Bible record. First, consider a case from the Israelite conquest of Canaan in the 14th century B.C.E.

1. “Joshua turned about at that time and captured Hazor . . . and he burned Hazor in the fire.”​—Joshua 11:10, 11.

In 1928 the late professor John Garstang identified Tell-el-Qedah, north of the Sea of Galilee, as the site of the Canaanite city of Hazor. During the period of 1955-58 a team of archaeologists excavated the site. A cuneiform tablet was found there that establishes its identification as Hazor. And “in the south-west corner of the lower City were found Canaanite houses . . . The city level of which these houses formed part . . . showed signs of violent destruction and abandonment. This now fits excellently with the tradition of its capture by Joshua after the Exodus.” (Illustrations of Old Testament History, R. D. Barnett) This clearly supports the Bible’s accuracy.

2. In the book of Ezra the Bible tells us that Cyrus, king of Persia and conqueror of Babylonia, issued an edict of religious freedom that allowed the Jewish exiles to return to their former lands and reestablish their form of worship. (Ezra 1:1-3) Is there any proof of this policy of religious tolerance that contrasts so vividly with that followed earlier by Babylon and Assyria?

In 1879 H. Rassam, excavating in Babylon on behalf of the British Museum, discovered what is known as the Cyrus Cylinder, inscribed in cuneiform writing. In 1970 an additional fragment was identified as belonging to that cylinder. Thus another part of the text was restored. What does the translation of the text’s conclusion indicate?

“As far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna . . . as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”

This cuneiform text is a remarkable confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy regarding Cyrus’ tolerant policy toward foreign religions.

3. The Bible states that “in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib the king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and proceeded to seize them.” In the face of this threat Hezekiah opted to pay a tribute to Sennacherib. “Accordingly the king of Assyria laid upon Hezekiah the king of Judah three hundred silver talents and thirty gold talents.”​—2 Kings 18:13-16.

Are these events confirmed by any other source? During 1847-51 the British archaeologist A. H. Layard discovered, in the ruins of Sennacherib’s palace, what is now known as King Sennacherib’s Prism or the Taylor Prism. In cuneiform writing it presents Sennacherib’s version of his exploits. Is Hezekiah mentioned? Does it say anything about the tribute? A translation reads:

“As for Hezekiah the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighbourhood, . . . I besieged and took.” The account continues, “Himself like a caged bird, I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city.” Please note that Sennacherib does not claim he conquered Jerusalem, which agrees with the Bible account. But what about the tribute? “I added to the former tribute, and laid upon him as their yearly payment, a tax . . . 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver . . . [and] all kinds of valuable treasures.” The Bible version clearly agrees with Sennacherib’s Prism except in the value of the tribute of silver. Should that make us doubt the Bible’s accuracy? Why should we believe Sennacherib’s boastful version rather than the low-key Bible account?

In Sennacherib’s Prism account he also claims that he took 200,150 prisoners from Judah, while the Bible record shows he himself suffered a terrible loss of 185,000 soldiers in one night. (2 Kings 18:13–19:36) How can we account for these differences?

In his book Light From the Ancient Past Professor Jack Finegan speaks of the “general note of boasting which pervades the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings.” Professor Olmstead, in Assyrian Historiography, offers the opinion: “When Sennacherib tells us that he took from . . . Judah no less than 200,150 prisoners, and that in spite of the fact that Jerusalem itself was not captured, we may deduct the 200,000 as a product of the exuberant fancy of the Assyrian scribe and accept the 150 as somewhere near the actual number captured.”

Evidently exaggerated war reports are not something peculiar to the 20th century! And the failure to recognize a crushing defeat in an official annal is nothing new. But the point is that the inscription on the Taylor Prism points to the Bible’s accuracy!

4. Let us take one more example of Bible history confirmed. When the Israelites occupied the Promised Land over 3,400 years ago, the tribe of Dan took over territory to the north of Galilee. The Bible’s record says:

“And the sons of Dan proceeded to go up and war against [the Canaanite city of] Leshem [Laish] and to capture it . . . and they began to call Leshem Dan, according to the name of Dan their forefather.”​—Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29.

Did such a city ever exist? Was it ever called Dan? At Tell el-Qadi, in 1976, archaeologist Avraham Biran discovered a limestone slab with an inscription in Greek and Aramaic. The Greek text refers to a person named Zoilos who made a vow to the “god who is in Dan.” Thus archaeologists know they are working on the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan, formerly known as Laish or Leshem. Once again the Bible is shown to be accurate. This could be further illustrated with many more examples from archaeological findings if space permitted.

Is the Bible a Reliable Basis?

In fact, time and again the Bible has been used by archaeologists to establish the geographical location of many ancient sites. The value of the Bible in this respect is highlighted by archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni, who wrote: “The Bible still remains the main source for historical geography of Palestine during the Israelite period. Its narratives and descriptions reflect their geographical environment as well as the historical events that took place. It contains references to some 475 local geographical names, many of them in contexts which supply pertinent details about the nature, location and history of the place.” This is true in spite of the fact that “the Bible is neither a textbook on geography nor an encyclopedia.”

The more one delves into the facts and artifacts related to the Bible the deeper becomes one’s appreciation of its accuracy. But facts and artifacts are one thing. Interpretation, theory and speculation are another. Are the archaeologists always united in their interpretations? Are they always completely objective? Are their theories to be preferred over the Bible’s historical account?

[Pictures on page 4]

The Cyrus Cylinder confirms Cyrus’ religious tolerance

The Taylor Prism parallels the Bible account of tribute paid to Sennacherib

Should Archaeology Make You Doubt the Bible?

WHY is archaeology of interest today? Because it is a valuable tool in the investigation of man’s past. For example, through it the geography and history of the Bible lands and their peoples are clarified. It relies heavily on the exact sciences and aims to achieve their standard of accuracy. But there is one principal factor working against such achievement​—the human factor. Every archaeologist has beliefs, whether he or she be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew or Muslim. To what extent will those beliefs or preconceived ideas influence his or her interpretations? Could this hinder their arriving at accurate conclusions?

Archaeological research is a form of detective work. Circumstantial evidence, in the form of artifacts and remains (pottery, fragments, ruins, debris from previous civilizations, skeletons and the like), is dug up. Then the deduction phase begins: What was the original from which the fragment came? Into which time period could its shape, color and composition be fitted? What was its use? What was its place of origin​—the location where it was discovered or somewhere else? Did it originate in the soil stratum in which it was found or has it sunk into a lower level with the passing of time due to local conditions? These and many other factors can influence an interpretation. The conclusions are therefore based on circumstantial evidence and a mixture of objective and subjective interpretation.

How right the Hebrew archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni was when he wrote: “When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses [tentative assumptions] to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture.”

What are some of the pitfalls that can exist when evaluating the finds from excavations? Professor Aharoni answers: “The excavator must distinguish carefully between the various strata of his tell [a mound covering the ancient ruins of a city] . . . This is usually not an easy task, because the actual levels in a particular tell are not uniformly laid one above the other. . . . Usually inscriptions only furnish a terminus a quo [starting point] for their own stratum because the possibility always exists that the inscribed objects saw a long period of use, or even re-use, after being discarded by the original owners. . . . Comparison with other countries is also sometimes dangerous, for one may fall into a vicious circle where the objects in the other culture may have been dated by their relationship to the Palestinian, without sufficient regard for the circumstances of discovery and the relative chronologies involved. It goes without saying that historical considerations are especially risky, since they always involve certain presuppositions and subjective attitudes. We must always remember, therefore, that not all dates are absolute and are in varying degrees suspect.”​—Italics ours.

How Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea?

The foregoing warnings are very appropriate today when so many archaeologists are coming out in print with their conflicting findings, theories and chronologies. Let us take as an example the Israelite exodus from Egypt and escape through the Red Sea. The Bible record clearly indicates that the Egyptian chariots and cavalry pursued Israel and got close to them as they reached the Red Sea. How could the Israelites escape with the sea blocking their path? The Bible account answers:

“Moses now stretched his hand out over the sea; and Jehovah began making the sea go back [how?] by a strong east wind all night long and converting the sea basin into dry ground, and the waters were being split apart. At length the sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on dry land, while the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.”​—Exodus 14:21, 22.

Please note the specific details of this account. It speaks not just of a strong wind but of a “strong east wind.” The waters were split apart, converting the sea basin into dry ground. This attention to detail bespeaks an eyewitness account, even as does the poetic version of the event in the song of Moses, related in Exodus chapter 15. As Pharaoh’s chariots and military forces rushed into the same gap in pursuit of the Israelites, “the surging waters proceeded to cover them; down they went into the depths like a stone.”​—Exodus 15:5.

The method of parting the waters is confirmed in the song: “And by a breath from your nostrils waters were heaped up; they stood still like a dam of floods; the surging waters were congealed in the heart of the sea.”​—Exodus 15:8.

What Do the Scholars Say?

Several experts have come up with varied theories to rationalize this miraculous event. They do not necessarily attempt to say that the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea but try to explain away the divine intervention. For example, the Hebrew words for Red Sea are yam suph, “sea of rushes or reeds.” Thus some say that the Israelites only crossed a swampy region. But a swampy region would hardly allow for a wall of water to the right and to the left as the account says. The waters of a swamp certainly would not ‘cover the war chariots and the cavalrymen’ of Egypt’s military force.​—Exodus 14:28.

Another theory was recently proposed by Hans Goedicke, an Egyptologist. His explanation of the Exodus account is that in 1477 B.C.E. there was a tremendous volcanic eruption on the island of Thera, some 500 miles (800 km) to the northwest of the supposed Israelite crossing point. It created a tsunami, or huge sea wave, that could have swept over the southeast Mediterranean and rolled into the Nile delta to the edge of the desert plateau. This, theoretically, would have drowned the Egyptians on low ground, leaving safe the Israelites who supposedly were on higher ground.

It is self-evident that this theory pays scant attention to the facts as presented in the Bible. But what have other scholars thought of Dr. Goedicke’s theory? Charles Krahmalkov of the University of Michigan rejected it, partly because “in none of the Biblical descriptions of the Exodus is there anything remotely suggesting a huge wave.” He then went on to offer an alternative theory to the effect that the Israelites took to sea by boat and that the Egyptians followed them and were drowned by gale-force winds that sank their barges! He then added: “Needless to say, the reconstruction is pure conjecture. But it is far better grounded in the Biblical text than is Professor Goedicke’s version.” That surely is a matter of opinion.

A third scholar, Eliezer D. Oren of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, argued strongly against the theory of a tsunami and suggested yet another that he considered even more realistic. However, he added the following significant statement: “We ought not to forget that [it] . . . can in no way be substantiated by archaeological evidence. Personally, I strongly believe that the Miracle of the Sea​—a masterpiece of literary composition —​has very little to do with history or . . . ‘factual experience.’”

Who Is Right?

Dr. Oren’s remark brings us to the crux of the matter. Are Christians to believe that major portions of the Bible are just ‘literary masterpieces’ with no relationship to “factual experience”? Or can they rely on the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Should we be swayed by the conflicting theories of archaeologists and scholars? Or should we accept as reliable the testimony of the Bible writers and Jesus Christ himself?

The apostle Paul wrote to his fellow Christian Timothy: “From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial . . . for setting things straight.” Earlier, to the believers in Rome, he stated: “What, then, is the case? If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.”​—2 Timothy 3:15, 16; Romans 3:3, 4.

Why, then, do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible to be inspired? Does their faith depend on archaeological findings? Briefly, the proof for inspiration is found in the Bible itself, not in archaeology. It is one thing to write accurate history; it is another to write accurate history in advance. That is prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies attesting to its divine authorship. For example, it has been estimated that 332 distinct prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus Christ alone.

Another powerful support of the Bible’s authenticity is that its testimony is based on accounts supplied by actual eyewitnesses of the events, often the writer himself. This is the case with the Exodus account written by Moses. Do we have any reason to doubt his honesty as a witness? No, not when we also acknowledge that he was divinely inspired to write. (2 Timothy 3:16) His self-critical candor is also a fine testimony to his reliability. He does not hide the fact that he killed an Egyptian in defense of a fellow Israelite. Nor does he gloss over his lack of humility and his punishment when he called water from the rock. (Exodus 2:11, 12; Numbers 20:9-13; compare the case of David in 2 Samuel 11; Psalm 51.) For more detailed proof, please read Is the Bible Really the Word of God? published by the Watchtower Society.

Should Theories Shake Your Faith?

Christians are encouraged by the positive evidence unearthed by patient and skilled archaeologists, evidence that often confirms and elucidates the Bible’s contents. Facts and artifacts can tell us a lot about the way of life in ancient times. Inscriptions can bring to bear valuable information. Of course, since very few people ever write an unfavorable autobiography, inscriptions have to be analyzed with great care.

However, when experts begin to offer their interpretations and conjectures and theories about the meaning of an archaeological discovery or the dating of an artifact, then the Christian is wise to proceed with caution. Jehovah inspired faithful men to write his Word but not to mislead us with literary fancies. Yohanan Aharoni was correct in stating: “Various passages [of the Bible] are considered by different scholars to be purely utopian or literary creations having no political, geographical or practical basis whatsoever. We seriously question the validity of this opinion; it appears that most of the geographical texts are taken from life situations, while only our faulty understanding and insufficient information prevent us from establishing their historical content.”​—Italics ours.

Present-day Biblical archaeology is apparently divided into two loosely defined camps. On the one hand we have the pious and patriotic investigators who seek support for the Bible record and their own national or ethnic claims. And on the other hand there is the camp of those who, in the words of Professor J. E. Barrett, are inclined “to debunk the piety, patriotism, or accepted wisdom of (usually older) colleagues.” This same professor of archaeology adds: “There is a strange kind of self-righteousness (not to mention sadistic glee) among those who assure us they are not pious. . . . The student of modern archaeology should be aware of these professional, in-house games of one-upmanship.”

We must remember that archaeologists are only human and, therefore, beset with all the foibles of imperfect human nature. Ambition, desire for glory, a competitive spirit, deep subjective involvement​—these and other factors can influence an expert’s opinion or interpretation.

To illustrate this point, a prominent 19th-century archaeologist seriously overstated his case with regard to ancient jewelry he had discovered at Troy and golden face masks found at Mycenae. Regarding this overstatement a modern archaeology professor offered the following pointed comment: “These two instances illustrate the influence that a romantic interest in the ancient world can have on the judgment of an archaeologist​—the temptation to identify what we find with what we want to find. Perhaps the problem is intensified for the Biblical archaeologist, whose piety and patriotism often nurture and renew the romantic interest which first moved him or her to become an archaeologist.” (Italics ours.) And of course the same problem can also affect the agnostic or the atheist archaeologist, no matter how sincere he or she may be.

Should Christian faith waver, then, because of the theories presented by many scholars and archaeologists? Remember, they are only theories and human opinions, subject to change and the vagaries of time and scholarship. The human element, including its pride and ambition, is also very evident. What Professor Barrett wrote in Biblical Archaeology Review (January/​February 1981) is true: “Piety, patriotism, ideology, training, and the opposite expressions of these, influence the archaeologist’s judgment, just as they do the historian’s. In candid moments, every professional archaeologist knows this​—the best scholars know it about themselves; others only know it about their colleagues.”​—Italics ours.

Therefore, the reasonable Christian will not expect absolute proof from archaeology for everything stated in the Bible, especially in this imperfect system of things. Nevertheless, he knows the time will soon come when it will be possible to check out perfectly so many of the persons and events related in the Bible. How so? “Because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his [Jesus Christ’s] voice and come out.” (John 5:28, 29) Yes, in the resurrection it will be possible to question those who actually lived Bible history. How fascinating it will be to hear them fill out the details of so many accounts that intrigue us today! It will no longer be a matter of resorting to human theories and speculation for those details. The very eyewitnesses of the events will present the facts! Will you be there to hear them?

[Blurb on page 7]

Are Christians to believe that the Bible is just a ‘literary masterpiece’ with no relationship to factual experience?

[Blurb on page 10]

It has been estimated that 332 distinct prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus Christ alone

[Blurb on page 11]

“Piety, patriotism, ideology, training, and the opposite expressions of these, influence the archaeologist’s judgment, just as they do the historian’s”

[Picture on page 9]

How did the Israelites really cross the Red Sea?