Do you believe the Bible corresponds with archaeological findings?
I believe that all the events in the Bible took place in reality, but it's impossible for archaeology to prove this. For example,the most important event of all, the creation of the universe by God is partly proven simply by observation, namely, the world, as we know it exists, but nobody, not even archaeology can prove how it came into existence. Actually when you read the first verse of the Bible, "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" you are stating a belief about how it came into existence, you aren't stating a fact that can be proven. Another example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; you don't have to be an archaeologist to see the dismal environment of the Dead Sea area, yet archaeologists have found remains of a fertile land that once existed, deep at the bottom of the Dead Sea. This proves that an environmental change took place at some time in history, but scientists have discovered that the change took place millions of year ago. So archaeologists can't prove that the date of the event falls within the time framework of the Bible. Another example; Archaeologists have proven that Jerusalem had an underground water system, one can tour this today, but they can't prove that David's general Joab entered the city through it as the Bible tells us. Archaeologists found remains of a palace in Jerusalem dating from the middle iron age, about 1000 years BC, but they can't prove that it's David's palace. They can make assumptions on the basis of archaeological discoveries but proof, no way. In fact it's paradoxical that archaeological discoveries prove the existence of buildings and walls and dates etc but their discoveries don't prove the truth of any events in the Bible. Belief in the Bible must rest on one's own individual choice. If you try to reach belief through archaeology you would be lost.