Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

[McCulloch]

[The Bible] is historically and scientifically accurate.

The Bible contains at least one of each a historical and a scientific inaccuracy.

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

[JehovahsWitness]

we still have Goliath at six cubits and a span (3 meters) and Og king of Bashan, who needed a bed nine cubits (over four meters).

How tall was Og king of Bashan?

The bible doesn't say how tall the man actually was although he no doubt was extraordinarily tall as was the case for this particular tribe of people.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 3 verse 11 says his " .... bier was a bier of iron [was] nine cubits is its length, and four cubits[1] its width..." A bier is a stand on which a corpse, or coffin or casket containing a corpse, is placed to lie in state or to be carried to the grave. The fact that this STAND was 13.1 by 5.8 ft no more indicates the the man actually had these measurements than a table 12 foot table indicates something placed on it has to measure 12 feet. The size of the bier or indeed the coffin itself is not necessarily an indication of the size of the man inside, indeed given the ancients tendency to exaggerated the physical attributes of their leaders, even if he had been five feet 3 and physically repulsive, he no doubt would have buried in a 7 foot casket with a "portrait" of a demi-god engraved on it. In short although this nation was infamous for their extraordinary size, the bible does not say that Og himself (the man) measued 13 feet in height.

How tall was Goliath?

The bible (1Sa 17:4, 5, 7) speaks about the Rephaimite champion Goliath as being six cubits [1] and a span, this would make him approximately 9 foot 5 inches (2.9 m) or possibly shorter (see footnote ). The Rephaimites were extraordinarily tall nation but being around nine feet tall would make Goliath comparable to Robert Pershing Wadlow thus proving that humans can indeed exist in this height range.






FOOTNOTE: [1]

How long was a cubit?

Biblically a linear measure roughly corresponding to the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. (De 3:11) There are indications that the Israelites commonly used a cubit of about 44.5 cm (17.5 in.), and [the above] calculations are figured accordingly. There may also have been a short cubit of about 38 cm (15 in.), measured from the elbow to the knuckles of the clenched hand."Jg 3:16, ftn. which would render the two individuals mentioned some inches shorter than stated

[JehovahsWitness]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

Let's not forget the Exodus of thousands of Israelites from Egypt who wandered the Sinai peninsula for 40 years, an event which would have left tons of archeological evidence such as latrines, human and animal bones, broken bits of pottery, all kinds of stuff.

Not only is there no historical record of the Exodus from Egyptian or other sources, but archeological evidence is missing as well. In fact, the best evidence points to them always living in the area, with a few migrating in from Egypt and other surrounding areas from time to time.

Why do Egyptian records fail to provide any information about the Exodus?

Firstly, it should be noted that "nomadic societies [as was the case for the early Hebrews] do not establish permanent houses, and the constant migration permits them to move only inimal belongings. Moreover, their limited resources do not facilitate the creation of a flourishing material culture that could leave rich archaeological finds...but for the most part, they speak of th ennoomadic lifestyle as archaeologically invisible" -- Israel in Sinai by James Hoffmeier pg. 150

Further Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned, except in some context of the distant past.-- Professor of Egyptology J. A. Wilson, The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. I, pp. 338, 339 [/i]

Only after 663 B.C.E. that Egyptian chronology becomes fairly preciseand that the farther back one goes, the greater the margin of disagreement [among scholars] becomes. -- ibid, p. 268; The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, Vol. II, p. 43.

"There are no Egyptian records that even hint at the Hebrew slavery or the Exodus but this is not surprising. Egyptian records were kept not for history but for the gods. If a Phaoroah entered the afterlife with any major blot on his record such as a defeat at the hand of a band of slaves, he would receive only a lower place in the after life at best, and he might not even be admitted to eternal life. [...] every record therefore was pure and spotless. The Egyptians had mastered the art of rewriting history and eliminating every hint of anything negative. If we had only Egyptian records to go on we might believe the nation was only totally blessed by God, because nothing ever went wrong for them. [...] Modern technology has laid bare much of this. We can see the stones of many temples and monuments where old records engraved on them were ground away, and changed versions or totally new inscriptions written over them" -- All the People in the Bible: An A-Z Guide to the Saints, Scoundrels, and Other Characters in Scripture by Richard R. Losch

The Egyptians were also not above embelishing the facts -- Rameses The Great for example claimed a great victory against the Hittites, who were long-standing enemies of the Egyptians. It is now thought the battle was more of a draw.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... reat.shtml

Would it be surprising that Egyptian records made no mention of their enemies?

**Thutmose III had the names of Queen Hatshepsut and her representations chiseled out of monumental reliefs.

**Ramesses I usurped Horemheb's reliefs and inscriptions on one of the the pylon in the Precinct of Amun-Re and added his own to them.

**These were later usurped by Ramesses II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precinct_of_Amun-Re

**"How does one of the most powerful, stunningly beautiful and controversial queens of ancient Egypt virtually vanish from history?[...] Like Akhenaten, [Queen] Nefertiti's name was erased from historical records and her many likenesses defaced after her death"
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_s ... .html#nner

**Ay attempted to totally eradicate the name of Akhenaten from the history of Egypt because Akhenaten was considered a heretic.

[Zzyzx]

.
JW,

Your "argument" seems to defeat itself -- by mentioning historical characters and events that were known from some surviving records even after attempts were made to "remove" or alter them. Evidently the erasures did not eliminate their appearance elsewhere.

Can the same be said for principal bible characters and events outside the tales told in bible stories -- Mary, Joseph, Apostles, "witnesses", etc?

[Slopeshoulder]

I'll make one simple point. And I'll make rare use of bold font.

The books in the Bible were never intended to be accurate representations of historic and "scientific" reality. Ever. They are ALL theological interpretations of events. In the case of the Hebrew scripures, this lens is called covenant history. In the case of the greek/christian, it is salvation history.

Asking if it is accurate, or defending it as such, are both 1. prima facie absurd, and 2. flying the face of 99% of non-fundy scholarship. We should know better. It mistakes what the Bible actually is, what it says, and how it functions: as the collected record of a people (or two)'s interpretation of their experience of life with their God. I strongly implore those who haven't yet recieved the memo on this to get some education about historical-critical, higher-critical, and several other kinds of biblical exegetical methods and theories.

Here's an example:
True story: I was laid off after 9/11, at the peak of my old career, and entered into a protracted period of unemployment in which I lost my house and was reduced to literal penury. I felt like Job, after living a blameless life. Forced to move 3000 miles, it became possible for my wife to earn three academic degrees in a way that she wouldn't have where we were living. This led to an incredible collaboration, sublime experiences, and a new career that really comes from my core. Bliss.
OK, so far that's historically accurate.

Now, if I say that God was leading us to this, forcing me to give up control, careerism, love of false security, ego, fear, and self-betrayal, teaching me with tough love, calling me to my better self, and opening new vistas through his abiding grace, then that would be salvation history or covenant history. Especially if I enhance the story with semi-fictional events, visions, dreams, and voices that feature symbols that my community understands. What is revealed is what is discerned, via insight, creativity, interpretation and shared meaning in a community of shared meaning.

And if I wrote that interpretation down and my community later considered it a sacred revelation, it might become scripture.

But it isn't history, it is theological interpretation. And that is what makes it wonderful, get it? So if the story resonates, join the community that values it. If not, go where your fed. But let's not call it factual.

[/b]

[Zzyzx]

.
SS,

You have once again demonstrated why you have earned my respect (and that of many other members) by a reasoned, rational and grounded theistic view.

If ONLY your views were characteristic or representative of mainline Christianity as it is presented to the public. You make it almost appealing (or at least quite acceptable) even to Non-Theists.

I encourage readers to consider that what you present is Christianity as it should be (and as representative of the teachings of Jesus).

[Slopeshoulder]

.
SS,

You have once again demonstrated why you have earned my respect (and that of many other members) by a reasoned, rational and grounded theistic view.

If ONLY your views were characteristic or representative of mainline Christianity as it is presented to the public. You make it almost appealing (or at least quite acceptable) even to Non-Theists.

I encourage readers to consider that what you present is Christianity as it should be (and as representative of the teachings of Jesus).

Thanks Z.
And I in turn encourage all readers (including you) to read the great texts and thinkers from the great religious traditions, and in this way: When you come upon magical thinking, tales, and propositional truth claims, bracket them, set their factuality aside (but don't cut them out like Jefferson did). Then ask yourself: is this theological, mythopoetic interpretation at work here (hint: yes)? What were they getting at? Does this resonante with me? Does this seem important? Is there wisdom here? What about it is unique? Does it overlap with what others have said elsewhere and since? Importantly, is there a reason that this point is made in this literary form, and not in simple direct philosophical prose (hint: it might have to do with the symbolic nature of poetry and symbol). Taken together, does it appear to speak to an orientation that strikes you as admirable, appealing, enriching? (Remember, at this point you've bracketed the literalness/historicity of magical claims for later consideration...).
And to introduce one of the tools in my (our) books: how does this text/story/tale/idea purport or even succeed to help people satisfy what we call the six fundamental human desires: meaning, value, purpose, connection, resilience, and transcendence (defined broadly)? This makes for interesting reading, reflection, and conversation.
You can apply this to jewish, christian, hindu, native american, animist, mormon, neopagan, taoist, etc. etc. texts and tales. And see what, if anything, sticks.

Then, and aside from all that, ask yourself, how much non-evidentiary, magical, ontological thinking can you tolerate or accept as a possibility? 0%? 2%? 5%? 50%? 100%? That will differ for each person, and be driven in large part by one's assessment of modernity, but IMO high numbers are not a prerequisite for meaningful religious engagement.
Personally I'm epistemologically humble enough to accept as much as 2-5% as "could be, maybe, wouldn't that be nice." In my book that's good enough. Sometimes (actually, rather often) I'll live as if it were real, not as a wager, but as a choice that helps me make meaning in a way that I value. Simply because 1. I'm epistemologically humble enough to suspend judgment at the fringes of awareness, understanding and experience, and 2. I've been spiritually inclined since childhood (god gene, elect, father issues, indoctrination, plain ol' crazy, a calling...not sure).

But it is worth noting that many people active in a religious tradition, especially skeptical and liberally educated people, will find that over time these small 1-5% allowances accrue, until they become quite comfortable with the language and presuppositions of their faith. I have no problem with that, because these folks usually remain rationalistic enough to say, "Well now, wait just one cotton pickin' a minute" when the real crazies show up. At least that's how we do it up here in Boston.

BTW, since my first post above, it occured to me that the enhanced narrative aspects of visions, miracles, etc. in biblical (and other) ancient texts functioned, in the ancient world, much like special effects do in ours. The audience expected it and responded to it. And just like how a great film can work at several levels, based on audience sophistication and receptivity, these stories do too. At home, we have a theory: if God himself showed up and spoke truth from a podium, and he had an honest and clear but butt-boring delivery, nobody would listen. Sometimes you need some lights and incence, some ritual, some magic, etc. Concepts don't sell; visions, hope, stories and people do. Ancient writers knew that, consciously or not. It was just part of their grain, as well as that of the oral traditions they sourced.

Puttin' the real in realigion (go ahead and steal that),

SS