PBS's Controversial Documentary

Abraham didn't exist? The Exodus didn't happen?

The Bible's Buried Secrets, a new PBS documentary, is likely to cause a furor.

"It challenges the Bible's stories if you want to read them literally, and that will disturb many people," says archaeologist William Dever, who specializes in Israel's history. "But it explains how and why these stories ever came to be told in the first place, and how and why they were written down."

The Nova program will premiere Nov. 18. PBS presented a clip and a panel discussion at the summer tour of the Television Critics Association.

The program says the Bible was written in the sixth century BC and that hundreds of authors contributed.

"At least the first five books of the Bible come together during the Babylonian exile," says producer Gary Glassman.

The program challenges long-held beliefs. Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.

"These stories are unlikely to represent real historical events, but rather there's some kernel of ancient experience in there which has survived and which helps give identity to the people at the time the Bible finally took shape centuries and centuries later," Meyers says. - Orlando Sentinel

This, to say the least, is going to definitely cause a stir in Judeo-Christian communities. I don't blame folks for being outraged.

Wikipedia is Reliable

Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. In a recent study, wikipedia was matched up against the likes of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia articles contained four serious errors while Brittanica contained three. Further research shows that when matched up directly against E.B, wikipedia prevails as the most accurate.

What do librarians think of Wiki? In 2006, librarians from the Library Journal concluded that the free encyclopedia has their stamp of approval. Despite this, only 400 or so articles have referenced wikipedia in print.

News and media organizations and publications have even gone as far to prohibit employees from looking at wikipedia for fact checks.

The main criticisms of wikipedia are not on whether the website is reliable or not, but rather on the concept and contributors. Since "anyone" can edit articles, the topic of article bias is immediately discussed.

Speaking of "anyone," highly trafficked and controversial pages often prohibit unregistered users from editing.

Someday (soon hopefully), wikipedia be looked upon as a reliable source. Right now, on August 1st of 2007, the website is credible and has won the approval of critics, however, some (like teachers) are completely oblivious to this fact which means we won't be able to reference the media machine in any writing we do.