The Bible As a Research Document

Both archeology and archeoastronomy offer evidence that the Living God has been active in the lives of all men irrespective of when they had lived. However, each culture attempts to depict God through the lens of its own language and culture. Since both vary widely, the way He is depicted can also vary widely and that depiction is not always attributed to the God of heaven and earth.  If He looks different, surely He must be different. Nevertheless, He tells us that He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

It’s been known for decades that there are many similarities between findings at archeological sites throughout the ancient world. Some of them are continents apart from one another and attempting to explain the similarities has caused researchers to look into many different possibilities. While many have cautiously understood that, somehow, somewhere, there was a reason for the similarities, explanations for them have been elusive.

God is most notably active from within the invisible world. Never-the-less, virtually the entire search for Him has taken place within the visible world. While the evidence is found in the natural world, the connection may not be. I am about to suggest that there has been a supernatural component to the similarity that has existed between people worldwide and throughout time. Much of what people have left visibly behind in many places are their responses to what God has done in their lives. The evidence is clearly visible; the meaning is often clouded.

In my youth (before the introduction of writing) there had been two opposing views of human history. During the late 19th century Ales Herdlika, physical Anthropologist of the Smithsonian, was at the forefront of archeological thinking. He was a brilliant  no nonsense researcher, had a forceful personality, and his thinking held sway for many years.

Ales Herdlika

He had been an “independent inventionist”. He had believed that when similar artifacts were found in different places, particularly on continents  separated by an ocean, it was evidence of independent development of similar artifacts due to similar needs of different people.  In his mind, oceans had clearly been impossible to cross. With oceans being an insurmountable barrier, and an eye toward only the earthly, independent invention was the only possible explanation for the similarities. He saw  no connection whatsoever.

Not everyone agreed. “Diffusionists” took a different position. They felt that similarities were an indication of past cultural contact, ocean or no ocean. As Herdlikas’ eventual passing took place, huge numbers of similarities seen in  newly found artifacts continued to turn up world wide and researchers began looking into other possibilities. Diffusionists were about to have their day. Surely, a better explanation had to be out there somewhere. That being said, the diffusionists were also looking only for a horizontal, an earthly, explanation for the similarities.

In the nineteenth century, the ability of ancient people to cross oceans was not well accepted. Yet, similarities were often found on widely separated continents. As a result, many had begun to search for answers in non traditional ways. Many people have pointed to independent author and researcher Graham Hancock as the one who had started them searching in the unconventional direction they had taken.

Traditional archeology has been reluctant to make the leap into uncharted waters (hear oceans) and academics tend to cling to what they believe to have been safe interpretations.  Disagreements between researchers are normal but risky and a persons job, career, and even his reputation is often at stake when taking an unconventional position.

For many, the non academic Graham Hancock has seemed to lead the charge. His fact-filled bestselling book “Fingerprints of the Gods“ has given many people an alternative way to look for answers. Unafraid of opinions to the contrary, he has taken much heat and his observations have been at the forefront of new thinking. His work has gradually been changing much of our understanding; alternative history had begun gaining ground.

As new facts are slowly accepted by academia, alternative history will gradually be transformed into accepted history. It’s gaining momentum as we speak. Do not expect traditional historians to acknowledge that they have been mistaken. More than likely, they will take the position that what has been learned has been known all along. Alternative history buffs will have to accept that the contribution they will have made may go unrecognized.

When their objective  to see our true history has become known and accepted by all, alternative historians will have become insiders as opposed to the outsiders they have been for so long. Some may not be comfortable being insiders. To continue as outsiders they may have to change directions; they may have to join the search for “Bigfoot”.

I had been a college student in the early 1960s having attended Beloit College, in Wisconsin,  majoring in Anthropology. In that decade, the professors of Anthropology had not entirely graduated beyond the thinking of Herdlika. While the similarities noticed across the planet were readily acknowledged in the traditional classroom, reasons for them were not understood. There was a possibility that even alternative historians did not consider.

If that hadn’t been difficult enough, another major issue soon reared its ugly head. I recall my archaeology teacher telling our class that the New World had been first populated about 3,500 years before. Supporting his thinking,  was a younger professor listening in, sucking on his pipe, and nodding in agreement.

I had difficulty with that thinking when he said it and I struggled with it for years. Who was I to question my teacher. I was nineteen years old and knew nothing (That might still be a possibility), while my teacher had a Phd, from Harvard no less. Blockaded by an obstacle as great as that had been, my questions continued to fester beneath the surface.

The similarities that were being noticed sometimes existed between cultures from different time periods as well as from different continents. Questions about similarities began to include not only the great distances between them, but also when they had taken place. Hancock and others were telling us that many things were much older than had previously been thought. The problem was becoming  more complex. All-the-while, researchers continued to look only into the physical world for answers.

Any answer proposed was all about the physical, the earthly. Little understanding of what things meant, the heavenly, was attempted. It was mostly guesswork. (Academia would probably not admit to guessing. They would prefer to speculate.)

As great as the contribution Hancock continues to make has been, he was not the first.  I discovered a book entitled “Fair Gods and Stone Faces” by Constance Irwin published in 1963, just as I was about to graduate. Her early thinking was very similar to that later advanced by the more widely read Hancock. It was eye opener for me and I found myself involved in alternative history without ever having heard the term.

My college education, even in 1963, had cost thousands. “Fair Gods and Stone Faces”, a hard bound book, had cost $7.50. It forced me to attempt what I was very reluctant to undertake. I was forced to think. Sixty years later, I still have my copy (and am still thinking).

When Beloit had been founded in 1848, there was initially no Department of Anthropology. That was added fifty years later, in about 1898 and, at that time, had been divided into four areas of study: Physical Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, Archeology and Linguistics. One hundred and twenty five years later the anthropology department has added a fifth, Archeoastronomy. That which in my day  had  been a complete unknown, has been added during the last sixty years. Before then, no site had been excavated with an eye toward the heavens.

Things are very different today. Nearly every site has an archeoastronomer crawling all over it and they are  nearly always finding solar alignments that had been totally overlooked by previous generations of researchers. At this point in time, the archeoastronomer is often someone other than the field archeologist. The senior archaeologist, the older person, has likely never been trained in archeoastronomy and may not only disregard it but may openly dispute its merit. They are not believers. While the research into solar alignments has begun somewhat recently, the alignments have existed from ancient times. Progress inches along.

Klaus Schmidt

A good example is German archeologist, the late Klaus Schmidt. By its very definition, all archeology is groundbreaking. However, Schmidt’s work at Gobeckli Tepi, a neolithic site in eastern Turkey is especially so. It has opened many windows, if not doors, for us.

However, the relation of the earthly with the heavenly has not been one of them (Schmidt was not a Christian researcher). He did not believe that Archeoastronomy had anything to offer. Fortunately, the work of many others (hear younger people) has revealed the very evident connection between heaven and earth.

Archeology is a destructive process. Many sites have multiple occupation levels and the highest, the most recent, must be completely removed to expose and study the deeper levels. When a higher level is removed, it is gone forever. Any evidence that had initially been overlooked can no longer be recovered.

Many of the most significant sites, especially Old World sites, are multi level sites and all early excavations had been carried out with no look toward the heavens.  Any solar alignments that may have originally been present are long gone and can no longer be examined.

Think about Troy for a moment. It had been excavated by Henrich Schliemann  in the 1860s. He is often referred to as an “amateur archeologist”. What else was there at that time? During his lifetime, few had been trained archeologists.

While my college, Beloit had been established in 1848, the Department of Anthropology was not added until the tail end of the nineteenth century, well  after Schliemans’ respected work, and  Archeoastronomy has been added since the 1960s. (The ivy league schools were chartered  earlier.)  Schliemann   would  never   have   even  known that  there could be such a thing as archeoastronomy and he would have no thought of a connection between the earthly and the heavenly.

If my aging memory is in tact, Troy was some twenty levels deep and the trojan horse with Agamemnon and Helen of Troy was found at about level twelve. In order to excavate any lower level, the higher level must be completely removed. Once the top level is removed, whatever information connecting heaven and earth that may have originally been there is  forever lost. We cannot go back and redig the site and have only one shot at getting it right. What might seem to have been the most significant sites were normally the first to have been excavated, a logical choice.

The connection between the earthly and the heavenly has become one of the most important relationships found at any archeological location. Sadly, many of our most significant sites had already been excavated before anyone  knew that a vertical story was even a possibility. At all previously excavated sites, any knowledge of solar connections has been forever lost.

Much of the evidence that the same God had been involved in peoples lives had to do with the vertical connection. Ancient people world wide, the builders of those sites, from all time periods had been providing evidence of the relation of the earthly and the heavenly. Their many temples is only the beginning of such evidence left behind for us to examine. Unfortunately, only recently have archeologists been spotting  the significant vertical connection that has been a part of history from the beginning.

During my early years peeking into alternative history, I attempted to explain the similarities using a diffusionist mentality. All similarities found were due to the way people had overspread the globe far earlier than had been previously thought. That was a portion of the answer, but not the complete answer.

Normally our expectations have a major affect on our findings. It we don’t look for subtle evidence, it’s very unlikely that we will find it. We find only what we have been looking for or that which is very evident and much is routinely overlooked. Since we have had generations of field workers who have not been anticipating any earthly and heavenly connection, none has been spotted. That seems to have left God on the outside. Never-the-less, He has been on the inside, not hiding, but seldom noticed. That is no different than the way we approach things (or fail to approach them) today.

Researchers have been looking for answers to many of our questions without factoring in God. That is often the approach taken by, not just archeologists, but, most of we humans. However, He has been a major factor and some researchers are  gradually realizing that. God has been the motivating force behind much of what we find. Those willing to allow Him a place in history are now playing catch up. Modern researchers who are reluctant to factor Him in, are factoring out the primary motivating force behind our entire existence. Although that motivation is ever present at many ancient archaeological sites, unless it is recognized,  researchers will never discover the actual cause for creation of the artifacts we find.

For the ancient builders, at nearly every location, those responsible were very well aware of a connection between heaven and earth. Many artifacts clearly point to the connection. As obvious as the similarities had been, making interpretations from them has often been fraught with difficulty. The artifact is all that remains. That an interpretation was even needed may go unnoticed. While many look for an answer that readily meets the eye; solutions are not always easily come by

Archeology is not simply about finding artifacts, although many have become interested in it due to the pottery or arrowheads they had found in their youth. It had been that way for me. The real question is: Who made the pots? Who were these people? Why did they, so often, recognize a connection between the earthly with the heavenly? They had clearly been real people who had lives of their own and who had neglected to tell their own story in a  way that would be easily understood by researchers hundreds of years later.

Finding ancient remains is only the first step. Making interpretations from what is found comes next. We are attempting to learn about people’s lives more than their pottery and we are doing it from only the fragmentary shards (broken fragments of pottery) makers have kindly left for us to examine.

The best preserved portions of any ancient culture tends to be stone. That tells a portion of the story. The more perishable items the people had used  seldom remain. There are beautiful exceptions; but, for the most part, we find only the most decay resistant items from peoples past. A good understanding of their past  normally requires more effort.

Where writing has been a part of their past, it often does get preserved. Lucky us. However, when found, it will need to be translated. When the story seen on the ground is reenforced by a written document, understanding the physical remnant becomes much easier. While no Trojan Horse had been found at Troy, and the allegorical way the story had been told must still be understood, we have a far better opportunity to understand what had taken place there than we could have gleaned without the help of a written document.

From many ancient people we have only the artifacts. But, for a few there is a written record from their own time period. Even so, it may be difficult to extract truth from it. I cannot read cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, linear B, or Mayan codices. However, they have all been translated into English which, on a good day and perhaps between naps, I can read. Never-the-less, translators provide us with only what a document says,  not necessarily what it means and the documents normally do not include a way to readily understand what had been meant. The allegorical way the story had been told is often overlooked.

That normally causes us to read a non literal story as if it had been intended to be understood literally and translators do not attempt to make interpretations. That comes later. While the facts may not be questioned; the meaning nearly always is. Interpretation is the hard part and many are sometimes made from only a few agreed upon facts. A few artifacts can generate many differing interpretations.

During the early portion of my life, the Paleolithic (old stone age), I remember being told that many artifacts were “religious”, perhaps correct but hardly a meaningful interpretation. We wanted more and needed to dig into more than dirt.

Even though many of us living in the twenty-first century western world may tell our own stories in a figurative way, when we read ancient documents, we tend to think their story had been presented in a literal way. That may not have been the case at all. Virtually all languages have their own idioms and we may not realize that we are confronting an idiom rather than a literal presentation. Attempting to make literal interpretations from non literal stories, with no additional evidence to tie things together is difficult. Not where we need to go.

Is there anything that can push us in the right direction? How can we make solid interpretations from figurative events with no way to recognize the non literal nature of our findings and no way to convert them into our own twenty first century literal western way of thinking? Big job. Were you even able to follow that sentence?

I believe there is a way. We do have a readily available research document, the Bible, which has been written in the very way many ancients presented their own thinking, the figurative. I believe both the Bible and other ancient documents had the same intent as they told their stories. Attempting to bring them together is the focus of this article.

Much we attempt to understand from both worlds, the physical and the spiritual, seem to have been made for a similar purpose both in the Bible and in many archeological sites worldwide and both seem to employ a similar teaching method. There is much contained within the Bible that  seems very similar to things from many other ancient cultures. Is the mentality of the independent inventionists on display in so many places or has the  diffusionist thinking come through to us? Perhaps the horizontal tells only half of the story.

I am of a mind that there is a third possibility. At nearly every archeological site, there are similarities alluding to the relation between the earthly and the heavenly. Both ancient people and those living today have left behind a trail of evidence that reveals their relationship with the one and only living God. The similarities are often remarkable. However, They are not the only evidence of a connection. It is the similarity of the purpose and methods that provide a clue that they originated from the same source, the creator God.

Similarities exist for a reason. They often have a similar origin. However, that origin may not be the result of either independent invention or diffusionism. While independent invention advocates completely reject any possible connection, diffusionists look only to a horizontal, an earthly, connection. The Bible has been written using the very symbolism evident in the earthly archeological findings we see in many places, the relation of the earthly and the heavenly. It is looking toward a vertical relationship and, read carefully,  it tells us so.

Archeoastronomers are identifying the connection of the earthly and the heavenly at nearly every turn of the spade. However, identifying them is not necessarily an interpretation. The effort that has gone into understanding these relationships has been limited. That they exist is one thing; understanding what they mean is quite another.  Astronomy is not an answer unto itself. It is only a beginning.

Why do these alignments exist? What are they telling us? They have not been easily created. The tremendous effort extended in creating so many alignments is, by itself, an indication of their importance. As important as they may have been, we have seen very few attempts at an understanding what these relationships mean. Important, yes: readily understood, no.

One reason ancient people depicted an earthly and heavenly connection was that they felt that the god of their worship resided in the heavens.  The search they conducted for him caused them to not only look to the heavens for him, but they constructed earthly things in which they might conduct their worship or that might provide an earthly residence for their god. They wanted to draw close to him. The ancient Hebrews had done the same.

The Bible is a readily available research document that can be of help in getting started. The story being told by the Bible always has its primary focus on the heavenly. It’s purpose is to bring man into a relationship with God. The focus of people who had lived at many ancient sites had been the same. Since the purpose had been the same and the approach had been the same, the comparative use of the Bible can become a useful tool in gaining an understanding of many ancient people for whom we have no other ancient document.

Since the heavenly connection is not well understood, it is rarely researched. Until the connection is better recognized, it will not be researched. It may be a catch twenty two situation. The breakthrough will almost certainly come from those who are willing to look into the unseen.

Not only did the ancients do many of the same things we find in the Bible, but, they did them for the same reasons. They were reaching out to God. The God that they had initially worshipped may have originally been the same God that we in the twenty-first century western world worship. However, they were often no better at staying with that God than the ancient Hebrews had been. They strayed from Him with nearly each new generation and we can see both aspects of their relationships in the artifacts they have left for us to find.

The Bible is our written record. Properly understood, it explains the reasons things had been done and that is our key to understanding other ancient people. I believe that after sixty years, it’s time to attempt some initial, if only limited interpretations. The first step in looking into this possibility will be to justify why a worldwide vertical understanding could be our answer

The Bible is a theological book. Much evidence that is visible from the ancient world has a theological orientation, as well. The teaching the Bible advances is always of a spiritual nature and its teaching seems very similar to the message of the ancient artifacts we find worldwide.

While those who read the Bible often attempt to extract a literal understanding when a symbolic one has been called for. It can be understood at the spiritual level that was intended by the author, the living God. The spiritual nature of the Bible closely parallels the spiritual nature of many ancient artifacts from many different cultures.

At nearly all archeological sites, the entire ancient city was designed and constructed with its’ most significant features at the very center. Their magnificent temples were that center. Both the Jews and many ancient people built their places of worship at the very center of their physical world. The center was the most important ground location of their own world. The central location  of their temples specifically points out the importance of their temples.

For both, the temples were the most important edifice they would build and both focused on the heavenly. The center of their physical world was reflecting the importance to them of the spiritual world. The temples had been constructed as the primary place of their worship.

From the time of the Exodus, God did not have a “house”, but only a tent, until David got the idea to build a house for Him and until Solomon actually built it. The city has its’ place in the very center of their physical world, but represents its central place in their spiritual world. That in turn points to the importance of their deity and that is nearly always demonstrating the relation they see between heaven with earth.

The similarities between the Bible and many ancient archeological sites is explained, at least partially by the relation between the physical and the spiritual. That is at the forefront in both the Bible and many ancient archeological sites. The Bible teaches about the heavenly by reaching down, using the earthly. Archeological structures demonstrate worship of the heavenly by reaching up to the invisible. It’s that relationship that we need to understand as we attempt to understand the people who built the structures. Because of the shared method of presenting its’ case, the Bible can be our key to understanding many different people of the ancient world.

To many it may seem impossible that the God of the Bible could be the same God evident in ancient cultures around the world. That ancients had done much in an identical way that biblical charters had done is beyond question. That they had done them for much the same reasons is also beyond question. That they were  worshipping  the same god might still be a question. However, if God is truly everywhere, why would He share his space with a lessor god?

That will be a major issue that must be dealt with. Is the Living God the same god that was worshipped in many other times and places? The large number of similarities will become the evidence that the same God may have been worshipped by many of them.

Once that has been has been established, I believe we will have reached a beginning point. We can then begin to use the Bible to interpret some things from the ancient world. Once the principles and teaching method the Bible employs are understood, they can be applied to the similarities which exist between it and archeological sites, world wide. We have found a useful  interpretive tool. The teaching method of the Bible can be applied to many (not all) ancient sites and interpretations can be undertaken.