From the ICR’s URCall series of videos, hosted by Markus Lloyd. (link)
Did you know that cities in the bible, once thought to have been mythical have actually been discovered by archaeologists? Abraham’s home town of Ur, for example, was excavated by sir Leonard Woolley, beginning in the 1920’s. Ur, as well as Sodom and Gomorrah, and other biblical places, were also mentioned in the Sumerian tablets of Ebla, unearthed in Syria in the 1970’s. So, if these mythical places are real after all, isn’t it logical to reason that the bible is an accurate historical record?
Ur Kaśdim is mentioned in the bible, and this is probably the same place as the real historical city of Ur. But I don’t think Ur was ever truly lost – Pietro della Valle visited in the 17th century, for example, and it doesn’t seem like the locals were unaware as to what they were standing on. Woolley is but one of many figures in the history of archaeology at Ur, and not the first discoverer as you might have thought from the above. Perhaps somebody once thought that Ur never existed, but if so it probably didn’t go down like the ICR wants you to think.
Sodom and Gomorrah – which, curiously, are always treated in this video as if they were a single place with a compound name, like Rostov-on-Don, or Ankh-Morepork – are a less clear. Certainly, the likes of the ICR fervently want them to exist and to have already been found, but wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. Archaeological claims – such as that the Ebla tablets mention the cities – are at best controversial.
But this dances around the issue: the real point is that even if these and other places really do exist, it does not make it “logical to reason that the bible is an accurate historical record.” That’s a weaselly and nonsensical way of putting it anyway, but to make an analogy if a ghost story takes place in a cabin in the woods, and alter on a cabin is found in those woods, it doesn’t make all ghost stories true, or even that one specifically. The same goes for the bible.