[squirt]

scientific evidence can also make important contributions to the question of whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus are accurate, the discipline of archaeology has great bearing on the reliability of the gospels, sometimes called the study of durable rubbish, archaeology involves the uncovering of artifacts, architecture, art, coins, monuments, documents, and other remains of ancient cultures, experts study these relics to learn what life was like in the days when Jesus walked the dusty roads of Palestine, hundreds of archaeological findings from the first century have been unearthed, do they undermine or undergird the eyewitness stories about Jesus? what can it NOT tell us about the reliability of the New Testament? even if archaeology can establish that the cities of Medina and Mecca existed in western Arabia during the 6th and 7th centuries, that doesn't prove that Muhammed lived there or that the Koran is true, archaeology has made some important contributions, but it certainly can't prove whether the New Testament is the word of God, if we dig in Israel and find ancient sites that are consistent with where the bible said we'd find them, that shows that it's history and geography are accurate, however, it doesn't confirm that what Jesus Christ said is right, spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries, Troy was found but that didn't prove that the Iliad was true