![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
Archaeologist confirms Creation and the Bible (R)
Readers’ comments
Peter N., Australia, 26 April 2012
I fully support Nigel C's assessment, above, of "New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis". That was first published in 1936 (not 1948). A second study called "Creation Revealed in Six Days" was published In 1946 or 1948 (both dates are cited). In 1977 the two were combined as Parts I & II of "Clues to Creation in Genesis".
Part I, New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis, is a well argued case that Moses faithfully passed on creation documents received from his ancestors. This not only refutes the Documentary Hypothesis but is also evidence that Genesis is reliable history of a recent creation.
Part II, the 1946/48 "Creation Revealed in Six Days", is a capitulation to the prevailing dogma that the earth is millions of years old. Wiseman tries to explain away a plain reading of Moses' writing; he argues that God spent the six days telling man about the creation.
I find his argument here convoluted and even disingenuous. E.g. Part II concludes (p203): "Consequently there was one thing our Lord was not doing on those six days, he was not creating the heavens and the earth and all life on it." Then (p204) "Nowhere in the Bible, not even in the fourth commandment, does it say that God created [created in italics] the heavens and earth in six days." But he does not reference or discuss Exodus 20:11.
Neither does Appendix I, a list of "Scripture References to Creation", list Exodus 20:11. Considering his explicit reference to the fourth commandment, this is a very strange, even disingenuous omission - obscuring the fact that he is splitting semantic hairs to make a distinction between 'created' and 'made'.
Andy S., Canada, 26 April 2012
If I wrote a fictional novel and set it in Paris around some historic monuments, would archaeologists decide my story was factual and historically accurate, simply because they dug up the monuments mentioned in my text? If I threw in some philosophical discussion would they also then claim my theories were true, because they'd found the monuments? Useing archaeology to claim truth in the Bible is no more more than this, and demands more rigorous support than saying, "hey they Bible mentions it, and here it is under my spade!"
The Dan Brown phenomenon (fiction in an historical setting) is a recent invention. I think it was CS Lewis, the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, who pointed out that historical fiction is a modern phenomenon unknown in earlier times. There is not a shred of evidence that your completely hypothetical suggestion applies to the Bible’s record.
The context seems clear: archaeology confirms a biblical claim about the particular issue at hand, often one which had been disputed by skeptics, like the destruction of Jericho or the early cultural aspects of Genesis paralleled in the Ebla tablets, or that Jeremiah was ‘made up’. It also lends credibility to the authors: if they were accurate about the history and geography that we can check, it makes it more likely they were accurate about other things they reported, especially if they were prepared to die for them. Here is a response to something similar: http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally-countering-critic.
Much of the Bible was clearly written by eyewitnesses who recorded the people involved, the time frame, the places and what they did. It is these things that are consistently corroborated by archaeological discoveries. Indeed, Hebrew, the language of nearly all the Old Testament, has special grammatical form for recording history. Poetry (e.g. the Psalms) does not use this special structure but an entirely different one; there is no confusion. However, there is not even any evidence that the poetic passages were in any sense fictional, although they could use figures of speech such as simile and metaphor, etc.
Any good historian asks “How did the writers intend the reader to understand the writings.” It is clear the biblical writers intended that their historical narrative writings be understood as history. The Oxford Hebraist, Professor James Barr, made this point about Genesis 1-11.
In standing by their testimony, many of them were willing to pay for their stand with their lives. If they invented these things they would hardly be willing to die for it.
Also, in the article you refer to, the archaeologists who initially did not regard the Bible as historically reliable did not expect to find archaeological corroboration for it. When they consistently found archaeological evidence that backed the Bible’s account, they changed their attitude to the Bible. Clearly these experts in the literature and archaeology of the times had no concept of what you suggest of a work of fiction set in an historical context. It’s quite a bizarre suggestion.
The archaeological discoveries do underline the historicity of the writings. That’s the point. But it is not just archaeology that backs the Bible; see Should we trust the Bible?
Henry S., United States, 3 May 2012
Thanks for writing this article in memory of Clifford Wilson. Dr. Wilson has an strong and decades-long connection with the Associates for Biblical Research ministry. Our Director of Research, Dr. Bryant Wood, has written a dedication to his life and ministry on the ABR website. Thanks again for your remembering the work of our brother and friend. Sincerely, Henry B. Smith Jr
Nancy T., United States, 30 December 2012
"the god of the earth, the god of the sky, and the god of the waters".
So God's three persons were known separately at the time of the flood perhaps? Or perhaps after the flood, people did not want the God of waters to be the same as the God of the sky who sent the rainbow of promise.
In the baptism of Jesus, all 3 elements seem to show up again- the God of waters thundering, the God of the sky alighting in the form of a dove and the God of earth, Jesus. Interesting.
Three gods is not the Triune-God of the Bible, but it could be a corruption of the concept, as pagan religious ideas often are; shadows of the reality.
Nigel C., United Kingdom, 25 April 2012
I read Wiseman's book "New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis" some years ago, and it transformed the way I saw Genesis. Before this, I has no idea how Moses knew what to write regarding the creation, life before and during the flood. Then I discovered that the accounts were eye-witness material. Why was the account of the flood so repetitive? Because three accounts had been combined into one - and the authors' names were still attached! How do we know the account of the Garden of Eden is accurate? Because the author of that chronicle was there, and his name still exists at the end of the narrative!
This interpretation was confirmed to me by Romans 4 vs 23 + 24 which states that Abraham's imputed righteousness was written for us to read, and also for HIM to read! Now, that must have been written in Abraham's lifetime, long before Moses was even born; so he could read in God's Word that God counted him righteous.
There are many interesting points this interpretation throws up. For instance, there was never a time when God's word didn't exist for man to read. The first section was most likely written for Adam when he was newly created as an explanation by God regarding our most important questions in life: where did we come from? Is there a God? etc. Also Noah ends his account with his greatest discovery: 'Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.' and the next section begins with Noah's sons' appraisal of their father: 'Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.'
Genesis is absolutely trustworthy from the first verse.