IMDb > "Science of the Bible" (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
"Science of the Bible" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 3 reviews in total 

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Superb Series

Author: haridam0 from United States
7 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Revelations about so-called "sacred" biblical objects are slowly coming under the scrutiny of science.

When I visited Rome a few years back, I attended a chapel called, "St. Peter in Chains." There under glass in the center of the pulpit was supposedly the chains used to bind the biblical Peter as he fled from the Roman army. Seeing a vision of "The Christ," Peter stopped his flight and allowed himself to be caught, bound, and returned to the city.

So there it was for the world to see: the very chains used on Peter. And only a few feet away was "Moses"--that statue carved by Michaelangelo (with rays of light protruding from his "hollowed head" after receiving "The Ten Commandments").

Question is: how authentic are the chains, or even the story of Moses? For centuries people have bought into these tales, believing in them without a shred of archaeological evidence. Are they indeed factual or merely amplified urban legends? "The Science of the Bible," presented by The National Geographic, explores, uncovers, and reveals the evidence supported by scientific analysis. The general end finding: there is no archaeological evidence to support these biblical assertions.

A case in point came in the second of the series, addressing the matter of "King Solomon's Tablets." In the end, after careful, painstaking study, the various objects that had fooled the experts turned out to be forgeries. The forger was shown being taken into custody and his "secret lab" exposed, with hundreds of "biblcal objects" in various stages of "development." Not only that: it was brought out that the forger's work has made its way into the top museums and private collections of the world--London, Paris, Madrid, New York--as "authentic relics." Also that various collectors have paid millions over the years for pieces that are now proved or speculated as fake.

The National Geographic continues with this series following its excellent "History of Christmas" and "Inside the Vatican" to expose what amounts to a world-reaching fallacies in the name of religious truth.

Metaphysicians claim that we have now left the "2,000 year rein" under the "sign of Pices" and are now in the equal year period, "sign of Aquarius." Which means folks who once accepted "belief without evidence" now require "belief only with scientific proof." "The Science of the Bible" is making a significant contribution toward eradicating false "taboos" and "fears" associated with the so-called "biblical era" and its corresponding domination of worldwide cultural inhumanities.

Bravo to all associated with this fine series! --harry-76

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Parting of the Red Sea

Author: Jay Davis from United States
22 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't know if this is a spoiler or not, but Science of the Bible tries to explain the parting of the Red Sea with wind blowing and keeping a channel open for Moses & crew to pass. The only problem is, in the demonstration he uses a leaf blower and a basin with a path of rocks built up in the middle. Now lets forget that the wind would have to blow just right in the right place at the right time. Anyone can see, with the amount of wind it took the leaf blower to barely push some water aside, how could anybody possibly be able to walk through those hurricane force winds. It's just wrong, but nice try Professor Humphrey's.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Revisionism at Its Worst

Author: Joshua Bozeman from Evansville, Indiana
30 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This short review might contain seem minor spoilers...

The main contributors to this program are, no shocker here- members of the fringe Jesus Seminar, the revisionists who claimed to want to find the "truth" of Christ, yet started their "search" with a number of a priori demands on what Christ could and could not be. He could not be the son of God, he could not be above or beyond nature, he could not have performed miracles, he could not have said anything that would support any of these items...

That's not how you do history- it's the way to do propaganda, which is precisely what National Geographic has done with this abysmal series. Jesus COULDN'T have carried any part of his cross- why? Well, because they got a strong volunteer to try to carry a large piece of wood from a particular tree they picked out...heavens knows that the piece they picked out was the same wood, the same length, the same width, the same weight, etc. as the piece of the cross that Christ carried (they know this how? no one knows! the bible doesn't mention the weight of the cross!)...thus, Christ could not have carried any part of the cross- it's impossible, question solved, the "tale" is a mere myth.

Funny tho- we have numerous accounts of Roman crucifixions where the executed, GASP, carried parts of their own crosses! Forget those historical records, we proved it with out massive piece of wood that we made! Case closed! The show's main goal, whether it admits to it or not, is to DEBUNK the bible stories. This much is clear from the preview of the next segment- "next, we'll show you what really happened" (as opposed to what that silly bible says!) This isn't science, this isn't history, it's propaganda. You don't set out to debunk things- you look into the issues with an open mind, and 99% of the people featured on the show are anti-biblical historians and I mentioned, the show heavily features the members of the Jesus Seminar, men who aren't even taken seriously anymore by most scholars. It'd be a miracle if National Geographic featured an open minded historian in this show, but alas they only really feature a number of outright skeptics.

Did Jesus heal the lame? Well, the story stands up to historical scrutiny, but there was confusion in the room in the bible story, so that's "enough" to leave doubt...and then they completely leave that story! Christ actually just made people FEEL a bit better because they BELIEVED they were better! Amazing! The show on miracles and 1st century medicine started out with the presupposition that miracles never happen, and they want to find the "truth" as to what "really" happened. That's not how you search for truth- you don't say...'this and this and this are totally false, because I say, let's figure out what REALLY HAPPENED.' Again, that's not history, it's propaganda.

The entire show starts out with the premise that the bible is false, that the stories are the relics of backwards people who will believe anything. That just isn't the way it was. The people in the 1st century weren't fools who believed in anything. They weren't all fooled by hucksters. The biblical stories have been hammered by thousands of different people for 2, 000 years...yet, very smart people look into them and still stand by their accuracy.

If you're anti-Christian, if you want to debunk the bible by listening to those singing to the choir- this show might be for you. I, myself, don't search for truth with numerous a priori assumptions in placed before I journey out to find that truth...I don't close my mind before the journey even starts. That's what Natl. Geo. has done with this pathetic series, and it's clear that their agenda was to diminish all biblical stories with a number of 'just-so' explanations, confusing antics, and more. I'll say it one last time- this isn't history, it's not a search for truth, it's mere propaganda. Forget the many experts in various fields that stand by the bible stories- the National Geographic Channel has hired a number of anti-biblical minimalists, and THEY'RE right, the others are wrong. End of story, case closed.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history