Historical facts and inaccuracies in the Bible

monosharp

I was watching this tv show on the history channel the other day and I found it very interesting.

So it was talking about Moses, specifically his escape from the Egyptians. So they looked in the Bible and then they looked at historical sources for ancient Egypt etc.

In the bible it says that god went before the Israelites at night as a flame and during the day as a cloud/smoke to direct them along.

What they found in the ancient Egyptians sources was that the Egyptians actually used a large flame at night to direct their troops and during the day they covered the fire producing smoke to direct their large armies.

So its quite easy to see that the Israelites used the knowledge they gained from the Egyptians here and that it wasn't anything supernatural.

Further on they showed how Moses tricked the Egyptians using the flame. The Egyptians thinking the flame was leading the Israelites and were waiting for dawn to strike them while in fact the Israelites had abandoned the flame and crossed the red sea under cover of night. The flame to their backs which blinded the Egyptians from seeing the Israelites moving out.

Also the timing of their escape over the 'sea' when the tide was out. In the morning the waters were coming in and the Egyptian chariots could not traverse the wet marshland.

I don't have a link to any of this, maybe someone else does and if they do I'd be greateful as I want to read more about this.

So this shows that what the bible says can sometimes point to a real historical incident. The Israelites escape from the Egyptians was put down to god in the bible when in fact it was Moses' understanding of the Egyptians and knowledge of the terrain which saved them.

Doesn't this show that God didn't go in front of them as a flame or smoke, god didn't part the waters to let them cross ? These can all be easily explained by human nature and knowledge.

How many more supernatural feats of god can be easily explained by natural means ?
Doesn't this show the bible to be inaccurate ?

Zombrex

If only there was a sub-forum .... :pac:

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

So it was talking about Moses, specifically his escape from the Egyptians. So they looked in the Bible and then they looked at historical sources for ancient Egypt etc.

Although I didn't see the programme, your outline of it gives me a strong sense that it took the form of "faction". That is; a certain amount of fact is woven together with a raft of speculation to form a plausible unbelieving storyline (The DaVinci Code was a classic example of faction).

Which wouldn't at all be unusual for a secularist programmes slant on things biblical. As ever, I'd see this as part of a larger picture in which God permits the means whereby unbelief/belief can be intellectually and emotionally sustained.

You're fascinated by the programme as an unbeliever. As a believer, I'm shaking my head in wonder at the apparent cheerfulness with which the programme-makers ignore wholesale gaps in their thinking. For instance ( and assuming the jury is approaching this from an unbelieving/believing neutral position).

Option 1: The Israelites were led by Moses using the flame/smoke device that had become familiar to them through exposure to the Egyptians.

Option 2: The Israelites were led by God using the flame/smoke device that had become familiar to them through exposure to the Egyptians.


Could each jury member please give a rationale for choosing their preferred option.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could each jury member please give a rationale for choosing their preferred option.

One doesn't require that you invoke a supernatural deity to explain what happened?

PDN

I normally enjoy watching the History Channel, National Geographic etc.

What worries me is that on the one subject in which I'm knowledgable and academically qualified (biblical studies and theology) these channels present programmes that are woefully inaccurate and full of unsubstantiated assertions. That makes me wonder whether the programmes on other subjects, which I watch so avidly, are in fact equally poorly researched.

The tides in either the Red Sea or the Sabħat al Bardawīl lagoon (Sea of Reeds) is nowhere nearly large enough to drown the Egyptian army. A much more plausible natural explanation would be some form of tsunami, where the sea recedes at first, then produces an overwhelming flood.

Of course Moses would have had to have been a scientific genius on the level of Hawkings, Darwin, Galileo and Einstein all rolled into one in order to predict such an event so precisely.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The tides in either the Red Sea or the Sabħat al Bardawīl lagoon (Sea of Reeds) is nowhere nearly large enough to drown the Egyptian army. A much more plausible natural explanation would be some form of tsunami, where the sea recedes at first, then produces an overwhelming flood.

Actually if it is the program I'm thinking of they don't claim the entire army was drowned.

This is the thing, these programs don't take the entire story as literal fact, it is more a search for possible explanations for the origins of the story. They take into account that stories like these are traditionally embellished in the retelling.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually if it is the program I'm thinking of they don't claim the entire army was drowned.

This is the thing, these programs don't take the entire story as literal fact, it is more a search for possible explanations for the origins of the story. They take into account that stories like these are traditionally embellished in the retelling.

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.
2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.
3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Can anyone say 'circular'?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.
2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.
3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Can anyone say 'circular'?

I agree but then 3 is more our problem than theirs.

These programs aren't designed to try and show Christian faith is flawed. They aren't starting from the position that Christian faith isn't flawed. They are history programs, brain farts of curiosity. They treat Biblical myths with the same wonder of say Atlantis or Troy. There is no more of an assumption that the Bible is literal history than say Homer or Plato is. The view is that these myths got started some how, lets explore and ponder what the origin of them might have been.

There is nothing here to disprove Christian faith, but equally from where these people are starting from you wouldn't be taking the Christian version as an historical starting point anyway. If anyone bases their Christian faith alone on the assumption that the Bible is literal history they have faith than these programs would never shake

Christian faith becomes some what irrelevant to these programs. On this forum is a different matter of course.

Manach

Wicknight wrote: »

They treat Biblical myths with the same wonder of say Atlantis or Troy. There is no more of an assumption that the Bible is literal history than say Homer or Plato is

Slightly off-topic, but AFAIK (based on a college course), Troy existed and Homer's Illiad had a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Though I'd need to check my text-books for a more detailed background.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but AFAIK (based on a college course), Troy existed and Homer's Illiad had a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Though I'd need to check my text-books for a more detailed background.

I'm not sure many consider the Illiad that historically accurate, but probably discussion for another forum.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I normally enjoy watching the History Channel, National Geographic etc.

What worries me is that on the one subject in which I'm knowledgable and academically qualified (biblical studies and theology) these channels present programmes that are woefully inaccurate and full of unsubstantiated assertions. That makes me wonder whether the programmes on other subjects, which I watch so avidly, are in fact equally poorly researched.

Something I found a few years back too. I take them with a pinch of salt now. I think Antiskeptcs term 'faction' is great for them. Similar to yourself, it was my biblical knowledge, (and I'm by no means a scholar) that showed me that the emperor had no clothes. Some of the stuff was just ludicrously stupid.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

The 'bible contains inaccuracies' part is my addition. They don't assume anything, they try and piece together an accurate picture of past events using the available evidence. I believe the way they put it was 'looking at the bible from a military historical perspective'. Looking at Moses as a military leader rather then just a religious figure.

2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.

They used all the available evidence available to them to try and put togeather an accurate picture of what happened. I don't know what their sources were or weren't but I'd imagine that there are other sources available then just the Old Testament.

3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Thats my assertion, but its secondry to my question on what people think of this. Dissecting old sources to try and get at the truth. The world has so many old traditions, old legends, old religions.

A similar example might be the following, I saw a different program a few weeks ago where archeologists discovered ancient remains of Egyptian priests. They analysed the remains and found that these guys lived rather unhealthy lives, eating a very rich diet and had health problems because of this. So why ?

The reason: People would offer rich expensive food to the gods, the priests would deliver this food to a temple/whatever. When the gods failed to collect the priests brought it home and ate it.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Something I found a few years back too. I take them with a pinch of salt now. I think Antiskeptcs term 'faction' is great for them. Similar to yourself, it was my biblical knowledge, (and I'm by no means a scholar) that showed me that the emperor had no clothes. Some of the stuff was just ludicrously stupid.

Like what for example ?

Some of the programs are of a much higher quality then others.

Manach

Leaping to the defence of the Greek Gods/Temple attendants, the feasts they held, I believe, were communial affairs with only the thigh-bone of the slaughter oxen held-over for the local deity.

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Well, it does though. Case in point - when the resurection was first discovered, was it three women that discovered the tomb or five and why were the two giant angels only described in one gospel? There isn't one cohesive account of the event in any of the gospels that would make one believe it wasn't made up.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

Well, it does though. Case in point - when the resurection was first discovered, was it three women that discovered the tomb or five and why were the two giant angels only described in one gospel? There isn't one cohesive account of the event in any of the gospels that would make one believe it wasn't made up.

Not so. If all the Gospels contained precisely the same details then that would be more of an indication that they were made up, because it would look as if they'd doctored their accounts.

One Gospel describes angels, but the others don't contradict it by stating that there were no angels. So there is no conflict.

If I say I saw three women outside the pub last night, and you said you saw five, then that is not a contradiction. There may have been five, or there may have been twenty. I noticed three of them and you noticed five of them.

Anyway, if you want to start a thread on the Resurrection accounts then feel free to do so. This one is to do with the Exodus and the History Channel's attempt to boost their ratings.

Zombrex

smokingman wrote: »

Well, it does though.

That isn't quite the point.

They assume the Bible contains inaccuracies because it is a book describing historical events. Its that simple. Historians always assume historical books contain inaccuracies because they most likely do. It is the default position.

The odds of the Bible not containing a single inaccurate statement while at the same time not being divinely inspired are ridiculously unlikely as to be not worth considering. Without the introduction of the supernatural elements the Bible is not a special book with regard to historical accuracy. This isn't a slight on the Bible, it is true of every book recounting historical events.

To get the Bible to the point of inerrant you have to introduce the supernatural element, which is not a particularly historical non-bias thing to do.

People always seem to think these types of programs are picking on the Bible, or trying to convert believers. They aren't (or don't seem to be) they are simply treating the Bible as any other religious historical text.

monosharp

wikipedia wrote:

The Hebrew term for the place of the crossing is "Yam Suph". Although this has traditionally been understood to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea, this is a mistranslation from the Greek Septuagint, and Hebrew suph never means "red" but rather "reeds." (While it is not relevant to the identification of the body of water, suph also puns on the Hebrew suphah ("storm") and soph ("end"), referring to the events of the Exodus).[6] Scholarly opinion generally posits that the Exodus story combines a number of traditions, one of them at the "Reed Sea" (Lake Timsah, with the Egyptians defeated when the wheels of their chariots become clogged) and another at the far deeper Red Sea, allowing the more dramatic image of the Israelites marching through on dry land with walls of water on either side.

So has the real history been forgotten/replaced with something more dramatic, something to make people more awestruck.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

One Gospel describes angels, but the others don't contradict it by stating that there were no angels. So there is no conflict.

So one guy saw some women and thought that would be more interesting to write about then seeing angels ? A rather strange choice wouldn't you say ?

Anyway, if you want to start a thread on the Resurrection accounts then feel free to do so. This one is to do with the Exodus and the History Channel's attempt to boost their ratings.

I love this attitude.

They could have made a program about any historical event anytime and be talking about any historical book. The same tv show does the same thing with the illiad, ancient greek and roman sources etc.

They do their job using the historical method, they are historians and they try and paint an accurate picture of events in a scientific way.

Yet how dare they touch your book and try to use their historical expertise to try and shade a little light on some historical events described in your book.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

Like what for example ?

Some of the programs are of a much higher quality then others.

Like a 'Scholar' saying the bible was quite clearly inaccurate in saying that Babylon were 'Godless'. He expleained how babylon had 'many gods', and that worship of them was throughout every part of the Babylonian society.

I had to double take at this stupidity. It was like, 'Are you for real?'

On another occasion, and it was not quite so idiotic, was a programme to explain away any supernatural source of the plagues of Egypt. It sounded interesting, and I was interested to see how plausible this notion was.

Can't remember the exact detail, but it basically went along the lines of:

There was an earthquake which caused part of an island to fall into the sea, this caused a rise in sea level or something and made the Nile salty, which caused the fish to die etc. Some substance (can't remember exactly) made the Nile appear to be red, then all the frogs left the nile. All the flies came with the death from the nile, the animals died from the contaminated water. It just so happened that a locust swarm occured there too, and it was the time of an eclipse etc etc.

All in all, it was a big elaborate exercise in 'If', that was full of holes. So many of these programmes just stink of naturalist bias, without actually having any backup. Its like, 'well this, this and this sound plausible. Even if that, that, that, that, that and that don't'. It doesn't stop them patching something together though. 'Faction' is a rather perfect term for this type of 'Scholarship'.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So has the real history been forgotten/replaced with something more dramatic, something to make people more awestruck.

Thats one theory.

There are no records of Exodus in the Egyptian records, and they were pretty good with records. The closest they can get is Merenre II because his father, Pepi II, reigned for 60-94 years, as the Bible describes the father of the Pharaoh in Exodus.

But he is described in records as ruling for a year and then dying, possibily through an assassination.

In the time of Pepi II and Merenre II the Old Kingdom was in decline. The death of Merenre is it was linked to some kind of coup attempt could easily cause disruption that may have lead to a slave revolt.

There is also records of natural disasters from the time of the decline of the Old Kingdom (spanning about 100 years).

If these records were kept orally it is easy to see how the stories could have melded together into a shorter more interesting legend of the Hebrew flight from Egypt.

So I'm not sure many historians considered Exodus as described in the Bible as an historical fact. From a historical point of view the larger question is what inspired the stories in the first place. Most myths have some grounding in reality.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Like a 'Scholar' saying the bible was quite clearly inaccurate in saying that Babylon were 'Godless'. He expleained how babylon had 'many gods', and that worship of them was throughout every part of the Babylonian society.

... and whats wrong with that ?

Everything he said is true. The Babylonians did have many gods.

If the bible said they were 'godless' then it is clearly inaccurate. They had 'gods' whether or not these gods exist is not the point. Would the bible call the Romans godless ? or the Greeks ?

Babylonian religion;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rbaa.htm <- THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA BY THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D. Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Babylonian_and_Assyrian_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

I had to double take at this stupidity. It was like, 'Are you for real?'

Please explain what is wrong with his statement ? Because from what you've described here there is nothing at all wrong with his statement.

On another occasion, and it was not quite so idiotic, was a programme to explain away any supernatural source of the plagues of Egypt. It sounded interesting, and I was interested to see how plausible this notion was.

The plaques of Egypt actually probably never happened.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

There was an earthquake which caused part of an island to fall into the sea, this caused a rise in sea level or something and made the Nile salty, which caused the fish to die etc. Some substance (can't remember exactly) made the Nile appear to be red, then all the frogs left the nile. All the flies came with the death from the nile, the animals died from the contaminated water. It just so happened that a locust swarm occured there too, and it was the time of an eclipse etc etc.

All in all, it was a big elaborate exercise in 'If', that was full of holes.

Not really, this is all based on known natural phenomena.

That earthquake was the Minoan/Thera eruption, which historians think happened in the mid to late 16th century BC.

And there were a number of total eclipses that would have moved over Egypt around that time

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

... and whats wrong with that ?

Godless is commonly used to describe pagans. It doesn't mean not following gods, it means without knowledge or understanding of God, ie this god.

The Romans for example are described as godless, not because they don't have gods but because they don't follow God.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So one guy saw some women and thought that would be more interesting to write about then seeing angels ? A rather strange choice wouldn't you say ?

It would be strange if anyone had suggested anything remotely like that.

I had thought perhaps we could engage in a discussion without you resorting to your old tricks. Evidently not.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

... and whats wrong with that ?

Everything he said is true. The Babylonians did have many gods.

If the bible said they were 'godless' then it is clearly inaccurate. They had 'gods' whether or not these gods exist is not the point. Would the bible call the Romans godless ? or the Greeks ?

Babylonian religion;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rbaa.htm <- THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA BY THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D. Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Babylonian_and_Assyrian_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon



Please explain what is wrong with his statement ? Because from what you've described here there is nothing at all wrong with his statement.

What WN said. I guess its not just the 'Scholar' who was clueless.

The plaques of Egypt actually probably never happened.

Thanks for that insight. An insight that is probably a good example of alot of these 'historic' programmes we are talking about.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

Godless is commonly used to describe pagans. It doesn't mean not following gods, it means without knowledge or understanding of God, ie this god.

The Romans for example are described as godless, not because they don't have gods but because they don't follow God.

So basically any god thats not the christian god is not a 'god' and therefore anyone who is not a christian is 'godless' according to the bible/christians ?

So godless is basically 'not christian' ? Seems a bit strange, shouldn't the bible have said that the babylonians 'worshipped false gods' ?

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

So basically any god thats not the christian god is not a 'god' and therefore anyone who is not a christian is 'godless' according to the bible/christians ?

Well, errr, obviously.

So godless is basically 'not christian' ? Seems a bit strange, shouldn't the bible have said that the babylonians 'worshipped false gods' ?

Godless, is anyone 'without God'. Babylon had idols of gold, clay etc which they called gods. They weren't though, they were just works of men.

Even from a non-believer POV, its so flippin obvious the context of the Bible account. Its one thing that some internet poster doesn't get it, but for someone who is presenting their view as 'scholarary', its inexcusable.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

What WN said. I guess its not just the 'Scholar' who was clueless.

Hang on a second, I'm not a christian. 'godless' to me immediately sounds like 'no gods'. How was I supposed to know you have your own meaning for the word ?

I even looked it up in a dictionary;

god·less (gdls)
adj.
1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
2. Wicked, impious, or immoral.

I'd like to see what the original word the bible used was and how it was translated. Can you point out the relevant passage ?

Thanks for that insight. An insight that is probably a good example of alot of these 'historic' programmes we are talking abou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity

I'm not denying they happened, I have nothing to gain or lose either way. But I can't accept them as fact because history does not accept them as fact. One source for any historical event is simply not reliable, especially when its a religious text.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

It would be strange if anyone had suggested anything remotely like that.

I thought that in separate accounts, someone sees women, someone else sees angels at the same place around the same time ?

I had thought perhaps we could engage in a discussion without you resorting to your old tricks. Evidently not.

It would be quite pleasant to have a discussion where someone doesn't use their tricks or powers to unfairly gain advantage, why don't we try that ?

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, errr, obviously.

How is it obvious ? The bible talks about 'false gods' all the time. Wouldn't it have made more sense to use this to refer to the babylonians ?

Godless, is anyone 'without God'. Babylon had idols of gold, clay etc which they called gods. They weren't though, they were just works of men.

According to my dictionary godless is anyone without a god. It doesn't have to be your god.

Even from a non-believer POV, its so flippin obvious the context of the Bible account. Its one thing that some internet poster doesn't get it, but for someone who is presenting their view as 'scholarary', its inexcusable.

Well can you show us the bible passage please ? It could help me understand the context.