Expert: Scott Talbot - 12/15/2006

Question
Can you help me resolve this issue?:

"The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the "promised land" of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.

The problem is that we don't really have any good archeaological evidence to support the Abraham story, and there is much archaeological evidence to contradict it. The land where Abraham supposedly settled, the southern highlands of Palestine (from Jerusalem south the the Valley of Beersheba) is very sparse in archaeological evidence from this period. It is clear from the archaeological record that its population was extremely sparse - no more than a few hundred people in the entire region, and the sole occupants of the area during this time were nomadic pastoralists, much like the Bedouin of the region today. We know from clear archaeological evidence that the peoples known as the Phillistines never even entered the region until the 12th century B.C.E., and the "city of Gerar" in which Isaac, the son of Abraham, had his encounter with Abimelech, the "king of the Phillistines" (in Genesis 26:1) was in fact a tiny, insignificant rural village up until the 8th century B.C.E. It couldn't have been the capital of the regional king of a people who didn't yet exist!

This isn't the only problem with the account of the Age of the Patriarchs, either. There's the problem of the camels. We know from archaeological evidence that camels weren't domesticated until about the late second millenium B.C.E., and that they weren't widely used as beasts of burden until about 1000 B.C.E. - long after the Age of the Patriarchs. And then there's the problem of the cargo carried by the camels - "gum, balm and myrrh," which were products of Arabia - and trade with Arabia didn't begin until the era of Assyrian hegemony in the region, beginning in the 8th century B.C.E.

Yet another problem is Jacob's marriage with Leah and Rachel, and his relationship with his uncle, Laban, all of whom are described as being Arameans. This ethnic group does not appear in the archeological record prior to 1100 B.C.E., and not a significant group until the 9th century B.C.E."

Thanks

Answer
Hi, Tom. Nice to hear from you.

If one starts with archaelogical evidence or the lack thereof to formulate theories about the validity of the Bible, he is making a mistake. Many have done so, only to later discover further evidence that proved the Bible to be correct and their theories to be erroneous or at least incomplete.

However, if we acknowledge God, and we believe that He is able to and desires to communicate Himself to us ... and that He has indeed done so through the Bible (in addition to other means), then we must accept the Bible as truth. God not only wanted to communicate to us, but He has through the Bible. And the revelation He gave through the Bible, He has preserved through the ages to maintain its accuracy and reliability.

We must start with the premise that the Bible is factual and reliable. What it says is true. If there appear to be discrepancies between what God says and what one sees in archaeology (or elsewhere), then it isn't God's Word that should be presumed in error. We're simply mis-interpreting the evidence before us, or the evidence is incomplete.

May I ask you a question? What is your attitude towards the God of the Bible? Have you embraced Him? Do you put your faith in Him and rely on Him? He longs to have a personal relationship with you. If you have not yet found that, I pray that you will.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Best wishes, my friend, for a happy and healthy Christmas! Please write back.

Scott