History

The interpretation of archaeological finds is always controversial because so much is based on assumption and presupposition.  Secularists are often eager to disprove the Bible and Christians are convinced that archaeology and all science will confirm the Scriptures. Now, we find archaeology confirming this particular Bible story. There has never been an archaeological discovery that showed a Bible story to be in error. That is exactly what Christians would expect.

The archaeologists found the fallen walls of Jericho. They found the evidence of the burning of the city in thick layers of ash. All this is just what the Bible says they would find. They found evidence that a new culture had built on top of the old city of Jericho, and that is what the Bible says happened. The walls appear to have fallen outward by themselves—Kenyon assumed that it was by an earth quake. There is evidence that the city was then attacked and burned.

Between 1930 and 1936, Garstang, and Kenyon from 1952 to 1956 excavated the ruins of Jericho. These two didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Garstang felt that the invaders were the Jewish people, but Kenyon was convinced that they were not. Both saw that the previous culture was completely overtaken by the new culture and that the new culture was not skilled at building. The new culture left evidence that they had been desert nomads, living in tents. They were peaceful people, yet they wiped out all the existing inhabitants of the land. They were religious tribal people. They were a very advanced civilization. Jericho was rebuilt later, but remained uninhabited for a long time. All of this is what the Bible says, except that Kenyon was convinced that all this happened 600 years before the Jews came.

Actually, as a result of Kenyon's opinion and the opinion of some other archaeologists, stories have been run in newspapers stating that the Biblical account is false.  In fact, those opinions are not based in fact but in assumption and presupposition, so the newspaper's stories are radical and not good journalism.

The dating methods that are used to say when things have happened are, as it works out, very shaky. Much of what is called science is actually based on unsupported assumption and presupposition. Of course, experts must appear to be very sure of themselves, so they will argue over issues about which they know little or even nothing at all. There is much dispute regarding the dates and scholars do not agree. The reason that they can disagree is that their opinions are based on things that they simply make up. The dates that are most in question are the dates of Israel in Egyptian history, but it must be remembered that some of these scholars give a false impression that they are dealing with facts when they are dealing with opinions.

The facts fit the Biblical account perfectly. Some opinions also fit the Biblical account while the opinions of some other scholars (for whatever that might be worth) differ from the Biblical account.