[Glossary] The Bible and Historical Proof

1. (Clark 1965, 17): "It also returns us to the notion of proof or demonstration. If, while we are trying to win a man to Christ, he asks us to prove that the Bible is true, what sort of 'proof' does he have in mind? And what sort of 'proof' are we able to give?"

"Presumably it will not be geometrical demonstration. Nor can it be strictly historical. Consider. There may be, say, a thousand historical assertions in the Bible. Fortunately, many of these that the modernists said were false, are now known to be true. For example, the modernists asserted that the Hittite nation never existed. Today the museums have more Hittite books than they have time to translate. The modernists said that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because writing had not yet been invented in his day. Well, writing existed over a thousand years before the time of Moses. Still, the fact that the Bible is correct on these points does not 'prove' that it is without error. Obviously there are many historical assertions in the Bible that we cannot check and never will be able to check. Who could hope to corroborate the assertions that Eliezer asked Rebekah for a drink of water, and that Rebekah drew water for his camels also?"

"Nevertheless, to discomfit the critics, we may take full advantage of archaeology. It has been show clearly how very wrong the unbelievers have been."

Archaeology cannot prove all the historical claims of the Bible to be true because many historical assertions in the Bible cannot be check by archaeology.


Reference:

Clark, Gordon H. 1965. What Do Presbyterians Believe? The Westminster Confession: Yesterday and Today. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

End.