I believe it can! The Bible is empirically tested all the time by historical criticism and archaeological investigations. Through historical criticism, we know that Jesus possessed a radical self-concept as a divine person alongside of but functionally subordinate to God the Father. We also know that Jesus was crucified and buried. Afterwards, the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty by a group of his women followers. Various individuals and groups of people sincerely believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. And Jesus' original disciples came to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary. Through archaeological investigations, the skeletal historical outline of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament has been confirmed.

Above all the history in the Bible was written from the theological point of view. It wasn't matter, as the most important, to describe res gestae, facts, historical events, but God's hand in it. Of course there are books in the Bible with the more historical view (e.g. the Acts of the Apostles) but in them this theological view is very strong as well.

That's a big "if" in your question. For example, in attempting to answer another religiously-oriented question, I searched out some actual facts on the events described in Deuteronomy, in which Joshua was supposed to have been commanded by God to wipe out various tribes of people. You might find that this event is now in dispute, and that archeological discoveries imply instead that there was a mingling among these peoples. Not genocide.

In science, no one source is ever accepted as being absolute truth. Every assertion has to be independently verified, and even after being tentatively accepted by the community, everything continues to be questioned. The bible has never been subjected to such rigor. There are very few independent accounts of the events described in the Bible. You might want to search Flavius Josephus, as one independent historian who reported on Christians and their ideology, ca. 60 AD. Even when events described in the Bible are shown to be potentially factual, from independent sources, their divine nature continues to be only a matter of faith.

I'd say, the problem is that the Bible was written by believers. Not by skeptics who questioned and verified every single point.

The Bible presents factual evidences of both physical and spiritual success. For example, all who follow the biblical counsel about the principle of healthy lifestyle, would benefit and enjoy the Dividends of practicing the healthy counsel on health and wholeness prescribed in the Bible. While the Bible provides empirical evidence, It does not rely on the empirical mentality of the skeptics and critics to interpret and accept its empirical revelation or findings This is because the Bible was not written for skeptics and critics. It was written for believers within the Christian faith. Thus, only the receptive minds of believers and or non-believers that clearly acknowledge the factual and empirical evidences of the Bible.

To address Mr. Manfredi's answer...

I cannot think of any other written work in the history of mankind that has received more scrutiny, examination and rigor than the book known as the Holy Bible. There are entire branches of science (ie. hermeneutics, textual criticism) devoted to its critical analysis.

The example presented from the book of Deuteronomy is an old skeptic's favorite that has seen a resurgence in usage recently, probably due to some recent findings in DNA archaeology (which I find fascinating!).

That argument is quickly dismantled when you read the account in Deuteronomy. Here is a *very* brief summary:

1. God commanded Joshua to completely the Canaanites, lest there be trouble for the Israelites.

2. He did not destroy them.

3. There was trouble for the Israelites.

To address the original question (Bible used as empirical fact)...

If you believe that the Bible is the unalterable word of God, then you begin with an "a priori" position on its claims, and can move forward from there in your deductions. If you are not inclined to believe the Bible's claims wholesale, then another approach may be to take each claim from the Bible individually, compare it to you own experiences (a posteriori), and then evaluate the claim for your conclusion. You could then proceed with further deductions.

In short, I do believe that the Bible can be used as a basis for empirical research.

This has been my own approach, but I have a problem with thinking way too much. I realize that I am using a sort-of hybrid method of empirical-and-rational testing. So I may not know what I am talking about...

When one considers the philosophy of science behind your question, one must firstly ask whether "facts" and "empirical research" is completely objective or without preconceived notions. In my view, all historical research includes preconceived notions, interests of the researcher, worldview, ideology, point of view of the researcher, commitments of faith, interpretation, etc. In other words, historical research is per definition an interpretative enterprise.

We must first establish that the Bible is historically accurate if we are to use it to verify things. However this is an approach known as "Biblicism" which is anti-scientific. The proper approach is to use the tools of science, quite notably archeology, to establish the truth of the Bible.

Now having made that suggestion, I would note that archeology suggests that the Bible does a fairly good job of recording many things. It is hardly perfect, and in places clearly presents an idealized version of history, but in other places it does seem accurate.

Now for Mark David Worthen, the answer about the resurrection lies partly in faith and partly in understanding the culture of the day. There was clearly an event that triggered the belief in the resurrection and that event is confirmed. Now whether the interpretation of it meaning that there was a resurrection or not might be debated, but that the event occurred is fact.