I posed a question to AI (the internet’s “artificial intelligence”): “Has there ever been any piece of biblical information proven false?” The answer that came back: “Yes—individual biblical claims have been shown to conflict with established historical or scientific evidence, but no scholar claims that all biblical information has been proven false. The picture is mixed: some passages are strongly corroborated by archaeology and external records, while others are contradicted or remain unverified” (COPILOT; 7.3.26).
I pushed back against this answer and said archaeology does not prove anything and, moreover, archaeology is data that must be interpreted. COPILOT accepted this as a reasonable push back: “You’re right to push back here, Ron — and this is exactly the kind of precision you like.”
I want you to notice there is no evidence of the biblical record ever being “proved” false by archaeology. Archaeological data, by its very nature, is limited, because a small spec (or piece) of information is too little to make broad, sweeping claims. When I asked COPILOT about archaeological data disproving the Bible, COPILOT’S answer was in relation to the conquest of Canaan, a historical event that occurred around three thousand five hundred years ago, wherein archaeology is especially sparse. The archaeological data giving evidence of this is limited, but there is evidence. “… archaeology does not show a single, sweeping, rapid military conquest of Canaan, but it does show several specific destructions, burn layers, and cultural shifts that align with parts of Joshua … The evidence is mixed, and the interpretation depends heavily on chronology” (COPILOT 7.8.26).
Three things about this: first, COPILOT offered no direct contradictory evidence of the conquest; second, the data that is available is interpreted by some negatively; third, there is some evidence of destruction that corresponds with the biblical record. This means that assertions of “contradictions!” is factually false, a lie (at worst) or ignorance (at best). A negative interpretation of information/data that is available is not a contradiction, but a presupposed interpretation.
Thus, nothing proven false, only a negative (unbelieving) interpretation given.
There is some good to be said about “modern scholarship,” but one thing that stands out very badly against modern scholarship are its presumptions. In other words, some so-called scholars of today go into the realm of interpreting biblical data with the presupposition the Bible can’t be trusted as a historical record. They judge this through the lens of atheism, skepticism, and unbelief. Rather than let the record of biblical information stand on its own and reserve judgment until more information than is currently available comes to light, they take what little information there is and make sweeping judgments.
Peter warned that as some people do (did) this with the writings of Paul, we are reminded that some people will do the same with the data/information of the Scriptures, attempting to show the biblical record unreliable: “…as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). RT