There has been some lively debate about the archaeological find at Khirbet en-Nahas (claimed by some to be King Solomon's mines) and what this find may or may not mean for the historical claims of the Bible. Debates about the historical timeline are valid. However, these debates often take a turn into the fallacious when people try to make religious claims based on archaeology.

The argument often becomes one of extending the historical accuracy or lack thereof to the existence of a deity. If deistic claims can be made from the accuracy or age of said historical claims then the Old Testament would be trumped by many other much older religions. Trying to make a claim to history/antiquity and then stopping in the 1st Millenium BCE is not a defensible position. Upon what basis is the ancient god (actually gods) of the Old Testament more defensible than the more ancient Ra (~2400 BCE) or the gods from Mesopotamia of over 6000 years ago (actually before the god of the Old Testament supposedly created our 4.5 billion year old planet).


The later problem is actually one of cherry picking the data or exhibiting selection bias. The believers generally do not attempt to address any of these fallacious modes of thinking as they are for the most part entirely unaware that they are engaging in such faulty logic. Such are the hazards of being in patterns of belief that lead one to avoid questioning and perspective taking.