Then in the eighth place, where historical
accounts of the Bible are called into question
on the basis of alleged disagreement with
the findings of archaeology or the testimony
of ancient non-Hebrew documents, we need to
remember that the Bible itself is an archaeological
document.
The typical liberal seems to feel that if
a thing is in the Bible it is automatically
suspect; it is probably wrong unless it can
be proven right from outside sources.
And we need to observe, as most informed archaeologists
must admit, that pagan kings of Babylon or
Moab, or Phoenicia or any of the Mesopotamian
countries, were in the habit of putting up
self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern
counterparts do.
And it’s incredibly naïve to suppose that,
simply because a statement was written in
a Syrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics,
it was more trustworthy and factual than the
record in the Hebrew Scripture.
No other ancient document in the BC period
affords so many clear proofs of accuracy and
integrity as the Old Testament does.
So it is a violation of the rules of evidence
to assume that the Bible statement is wrong
every time it disagrees with an inference
from a pagan document.
