Well, we were just talking about the fact that the Bible proves or disproves modern science—and not vice versa (see "Noah's Ark: Finally Found?").

Now it just so happens that we have a followup report (not on the search for Noah's Ark, but on something else) that illustrates my point perfectly.

We reported some time ago on the controversial work of Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar in Jerusalem. 

For decades, there's been an insurmountable divide in the academic world between skeptical scholars who are largely motivated by a radical anti-Bible agenda and other scholar-scientists who are simply interested in doing their work and going wherever the evidence leads. Many skeptics, for instance, say that the biblical narrative about Kings David and Solomon—and the expansive kingdom over which this father and son reigned—is greatly exaggerated. Some of the more radical skeptics, in fact, say it's all fantasy—David and Solomon never existed, there was no kingdom, and the Temple never stood on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. According to them, the Bible is no more credible in its recounting of history than, say, Aesop's fables or an ancient version of Looney Tunes.

Not surprisingly, the Palestinian Authority has gleefully picked up on the work of the radicals. And no wonder! The notion that the ancient Temple is a figment of the collective Jewish imagination plays nicely into their anti-Israel agenda: click here

Dr. Mazar is a prominent Israeli archaeologist with a Ph.D. from Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Her father was also an archaeologist—and his father before him. She shook up the archaeological world in 2005 when she announced that she may have discovered the remains of King David's palace in Jerusalem's Old City.

How did she find it? Taking her cues from Bible passages about David, Dr. Mazar decided to start digging in what was believed to be the oldest part of the Old City. Since the Bible says King David conquered the original site of the Jebusite settlement there (which later became Jerusalem; Joshua 15:8), it made sense.

We say "may have discovered" because there's a degree of subjectivity in findings like this. Since no one seriously expects to find a Hebrew inscription saying "King David slept here" (David ha-melech yashan po), the evidence is largely circumstantial. But if the structure is situated where the Bible says it should be, it consists of the right materials, it's from the right time period, and it fits the other biblical criteria, then it could very well be what we think it is.

Like they say, "If it waddles like a duck, has feathers and a bill like a duck, and makes an irritating quacking sound—then you've probably got yourself a duck."

The liberal wing of the academic world was predictably indignant at Dr. Mazar's announcement. How dare she be so arrogant as to assume that she may have found proof that their anti-Davidic Dynasty theories were the real Looney Tunes—rather than the Bible?

In 1995, I made a note on my calendar to follow up in five years to see if there was any sort of consensus after her discovery had been subjected to peer review over a period of several years. That's why you're reading this now.

Not surprisingly, there is still no consensus. The anti-Bible radicals still don't like her work. Others, who are either pro-Bible or simply ambivalent, do. What's important, though, is that after five years of peer review, no one has been able to point out any demonstrable flaws or inconsistencies in her work. What they don't like are her conclusions.

You see, Dr. Mazar, unlike many of her academic peers, isn't afraid to march to a different drummer. She doesn't use archaeology to prove the Bible; on the contrary, she uses the Bible as a guide to archaeology. When she wondered where she might find evidence of David's palace, she went to the Bible for direction. She sifted through the books of Samuel and Kings, carefully analyzing the data. Then she started digging—and lo and behold, with the Bible as her guide, she uncovered a massive, sprawling stone structure unlike anything ever before discovered in Jerusalem from that period (c. 1000 BC). It argues persuasively for the existence of a strong, centralized Jerusalem-based government during that period—precisely as the Bible describes (radical theories to the contrary notwithstanding).

As far as I know, Dr. Mazar is not a believer in Yeshua.

But she believes the OT Scriptures—and I'd say that's a good start.

We wish this remarkable woman well in her endeavors.

Like I blogged last week in the "Noah's Ark" entry, we don't use archaeology (or any other field of academia) to prove the Bible. Rather, we use the Bible to prove archaeology, philosophy, history, and ... well, you get the idea.

NOTE: PBS, as part of its Nova series on "The Bible's Buried Secrets," interviewed Dr. Mazar in 2008: click here for a peek.