Archaeology, in the past, has largely been formulated to prove that the Old Testament is historically factual. Unfortunately this has caused significant problems that have impacted modern archaeology. Biblical scholars sought to prove that the Bible was historically correct in order to qualify it's authenticity spiritually. They failed to address the problems of genre within the Bible. Today, archaeology is more about collecting evidence, making assumptions and in developing theories about the society of the Old Testament time. Whether it offers credible information to the validity of Old Testament history remains debatable. In fact, Dever (1992) maintains that the Old Testament cannot be proved historically correct and only some of the books of the Bible can be used to show any pertinent historical information. He does question the damage that has been perpetrated by Biblical archaeology. However, archaeology has made many relevant contributions in the past, and future developments may lead to a greater understanding of the Old Testament. Fear that the Bible may be reinterpreted or undermined seems to be why the validity of archaeology continues to be questioned. .
According to Bernhard Anderson (1965), early Christians believed that the Bible was God's word and in order to be spiritually correct had to also be historically accurate. Early archaeology that sought to prove the Bible's historicity, did little more than illuminate the cultural and social structures that were evident in the life of the early Christians. The fact that there existed such a difference between historical data and the Bible was problematic for early archaeologists. This kind of biblical literalism still exists today, but with the recent advances in archaeological studies, including carbon dating a greater understanding of the culture has been unearthed in which the culture of the Old Testament evolved. However, according to Dever (1992), modern archaeology actually invites more questions than answers.
