Ken Ham: It’s Twue, It’s Twue!

We’ve said this before, but it needs repeating. Wikipedia has an article, Historicity of the Bible, which tells us that studies of bible history show it to be untrustworthy. For example:

The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.

Wikipedia also says: “None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories.” They have another article on The Exodus, which says:

The archaeological data does not accord with what could be expected from the Bible’s exodus story: there is no evidence that Israel ever lived in Egypt, the Sinai shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire second millennium, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.

[…]

According to Exodus 12:37–38, the Israelites numbered “about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children,” plus many non-Israelites and livestock. Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550 men aged 20 and up. The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the “mixed multitude” of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people. Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.

[…]

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit”.

None of that is surprising. The bible is a collection of mythology, folk-history, poetry, morality tales, rituals, and other things. But some of its historical references mention real places and people — Egypt existed, as did Babylon and other places, and some of the rulers mentioned in the bible actually existed. But that doesn’t mean the entire book is accurate. Gone with the Wind mentions Robert E. Lee and Abe Lincoln, who were real, and a place called Atlanta really was burned by the Yankees. But Gone with the Wind is far from true in every detail. Similarly, there’s no reason to think that everything in the Iliad is true, merely because there really was a place called Troy.

But that’s not how it is with the bible, according to Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His latest post is Recent Archaeological Dig Confirms Scripture. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A recent discovery in the city of Lachish, Israel, has brought attention to the specific details recorded in Scripture about the desecration of shrines to Baal. One king of Israel (Jehu) and one king of Judah (Hezekiah) are spoken of in 2 Kings in reference to destroying pagan shrines. [Scripture quotes.] Just reported on September 28, 2016, a team of archaeologists found evidence in Lachish of both types of desecration of Baal temples.

Hambo links to this article from which he got his information: Ancient City Gate and Shrine from Hebrew Bible Uncovered. We haven’t read it. He describes what was found at the site, and then says:

So this one archaeological dig, corroborating aspects of two historical accounts in Scripture, is just another example of how the history in the Bible is true and reliable.

Yes, some of it is, but as Wikipedia points out, there’s also archaeological evidence that contradicts the bible. Anyway, after that he tells us:

Over the years, many archaeologists have claimed there was no archaeological evidence for many of the events recorded in the Bible. But time and again, archaeology provides testimony to the absolute truthfulness of Scripture.

Huh? Archaeology “provides testimony to the absolute truthfulness” of the bible? Not quite. Also, astronomy, geology, and biology don’t support the bible either. Hambo ignores that and continues:

I’m often amazed that we continue to hear skeptics claim that the Bible is full of fairy tales, yet real observational science shows again and again the Bible’s history to be true in even the smallest detail.

Okay. That means Adam & Eve really were running around nude in the Garden of Eden, maybe frolicking with vegetarian dinosaurs, until the serpent deceived them. Let’s read on:

You see, it’s not a matter of evidence; it’s a matter of the heart. Thus, no matter how much evidence they see for the veracity of Scripture, some will reject it outright.

Hambo ends with a scripture quote, so this is where we leave him — totally convinced that the bible is true in every detail — or so he would have us believe.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Ken Ham: It’s Twue, It’s Twue!

  1. Besides its link to a minor biblical story, Ham probably loves it because the story is about a Jewish king destroying the shrines and temples of people who did not believe as he did. Of course, almost all of the old testament is about cruel deeds, so I suppose any archeological evidence would be of some atrocity or another.

  2. Why is archeology an observational science, but paleontology an historical one?

  3. I’m often amazed that we continue to hear skeptics claim that the Bible is full of fairy tales, yet real observational science shows again and again the Bible’s history to be true in even the smallest detail.

    Funny how archaeologists digging up relics which seem to support one Bible story is “real observational science,” when anthropologists digging up evidence which supports evolution is bogus “historical science.”

    Does the Hamster mean to suggest that those archaeologists were actually present when the shrines to Baal were destroyed, and saw it with their own eyes?

  4. But time and again, archaeology provides testimony to the absolute truthfulness of Scripture.

    And time and again, archaeology provides evidence to the contrary. Even I can provide some from my own research.

    In some 45 years of archaeology, excavations at maybe a hundred sites, and nearly 700 radiocarbon dates, I have found no evidence for a flood in the area in which I work.

    On the contrary, I find continuity for the last 9,000 or so years. Continuity of human populations, DNA, as well as sedimentation–none of these are what you would find if a massive flood had occurred.

    For example, we have from other researchers in this area mtDNA ranging through the last 10,000 years and right up to living populations. (The best I can do so far in my own research is 5,300 years.) Either way, this disproves the global flood at the time period claimed by biblical scholars of about 4,350 years ago. Tied in with this–there is no switch from early Native American mtDNA to Near Eastern mtDNA after 4,350 years ago, which would be necessary if local populations were wiped out by a flood and repopulation was from Noah’s kin.

    So archaeology, even some of my own work, provides examples where scripture is wrong.

  5. Hey ya’ll. “Galapgos” is on the Nat Geo channel tonight!!!!!
    Superb

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Look, we found planets and galaxies and microbes and dino fossils, further pricing the absolute foolishness of Hambone.

  7. @ Mark Germano

    It is only observational archaeology if it is done for the last 6000 years. Before that it becomes historical archaeology and cannot be reliable.

  8. A typical example of the creationist four step “methodology”.

  9. The historians’ view is that the biblical account becomes historical some time between Solomon (probably myth) and Omri (very real; if anything downplayed by the Judaeans who compiled the biblical account). So any archaeological corroboration of the Bible from that time on, such as that discussed here, fits the critical-historical view as well as it does the knownothing-literalist.