THE BIBLE: The Bible is a complicated book, and human opinion has exacerbated the problem of navigating through it. There is an overwhelming amount of biblical research available on the internet, and we don't intend to create more here. We have one point: It is a mistake to dismiss the Bible out-of-hand as a book of fiction. Years ago I wrote to the Smithsonian Institution and asked if the Bible was reliable history. I wanted to know how a non-Christian organization, devoted to historical research, would answer that question. Here is a short version of their response.
The Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions: In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that the names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated; there are conflicts between archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers. However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically...Even Biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history.
~ National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.
The Smithsonian statement is not calling the Bible the Word of God, but it does validate Scripture as a superior tool for archeology. Want another opinion? I also wrote to the National Geographic Society and asked them about the Bible. Here is an excerpt from their response:
I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible.
~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.
These two organizations have no interest in Judaism or Christianity, but they do acknowledge the Bible has strong historical roots. Our point: You should read it. Keep in mind that archaeology cannot establish whether the miracles happened or not. As the Smithsonian statement mentioned, "The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically," so you will need to process the supernatural events in the Bible through faith (or the lack of it).
We have both experienced supernatural events which are consistent with Biblical stories and, by corollary, embrace supernatural stories in the Bible as historical.
|
