Is the Bible historically accurate?

[Guernsey]

Is the Bible historically accurate? I had just read a book by Kenneth C. Davis called "Don't much about the Bible" and I am now beginning to question if the Bible is historically accurate. I found that there was no coat of many colors, that Moses may not have written the Torah or even Jesus being born in John the Baptist's death. I may or may not be wrong in this but I want to know if the Bible is all that historically given what we really know about Egypt and other civilizations.

 

[der Astronom]

No, it isn't. If you want a similar criticism on the historical accuracy of the bible, there's Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I think there are online versions of that text.

But obviously, if a book claims that the Earth is 6000 years old, flat, a global flood occurred and that people can live in whales, there's no reason to believe it's historically accurate. Otherwise you'll have to concede to sifting through fluff.

 

[Warbsywoo]

No it isn't, and I'm Catholic. There's obviously various exaggerations that the writers put into the text as a whole, plus it should be apparent that the O.T. writers would have written the many books in the O.T. years after the fact, so the facts might be skewed. Plus I don't think there was any way to confirm with some contemporary Biblical writer the events that happened.

 

[Donald Trump]

of course it's not. It's a book/series of books about spirituality and Christianity really. It's not a history textbook. A lot of the bible is allegorical, which means it's not about literal events.
Case in point, Noah, never built an ark to save all the animals in the world. I heard that 60% of Americans believe that it was an actual event, it clearly never happened. The same with Sodom and Gamorrah, there never were cities filled with gay men waiting for people to come along so that they could rape them.
The point is that you aren't supposed to read the bible literally, which means that the historical accuracy, or lack there of, is not really a huge problem.

 

[Dionysos]

Not on it's own.

I certainly would not use the Bible alone as a source for finding history. I would however support searching for some of the events in the historical or archeological record.
Events such as the Exodus may have happened. But no, I wouldn't use only the Bible to pinpoint absolute chronology for this (we don't know for sure under which pharoahs reign the Exodus occured). Instead we look at artefacts, inscriptions and monuments and one day we may discover records of the Israelites and their mass migration out of Egypt. It's hard to even guess a date for this event anyway as not only is the chronology and accuracy of the Bible in debate, but people are reconsidering Egyptian chronology and accuracy as well.

But yeah many events in the Bible may well be pure myth, exagurations, or symbolism. Others may be descriptions of actual events though. We can't disregard the whole text just because it was written for religious purposes. Inaccurate, yes, but it is a source nonetheless. We can extract some information out of it. We just make sure that we don't beleive it on its own, and look for other evidence with the Bible as a guide perhaps.

 

[der Astronom]

I've never really understood why people still read the bible though. It's true it has "teachings" in them, but they're not original, and you have to be able to know which ones are teachings and which ones are the stuff you have to ignore. And if you know that, it's not really much of a teaching.

If the bible is allegorical, who's to stop me from saying it's a work of fiction? Works of fiction can still be based off of events that are true.

 

[Dionysos]

If the bible is allegorical, who's to stop me from saying it's a work of fiction? Works of fiction can still be based off of events that are true.

No-one. Apart from a lot of angry believers in the word of the Bible. But to most people studying history the Bible is viewed as an elaborated, fictionalised account of the past. Or at least a version of the past that the people who wrote it wanted to present. Sadly that means it is very unreliable, but it is still a source nonetheless.

I guess it's just like Homer is for Greek prehistory. It is obviously not a true historical account of the Trojan war, but some elements contained in the Iliad can be looked for in the archeological record, and have been found to support some of the descriptions in the Iliad. Some elements of the Bible can be looked for in the past, but really, we can only look for them and THEN confirm the existence if we find anything. We shouldn't trust the word of the Bible alone. But yeah, then again the Bible was largely written for religious reasons, so yeah a lot more tweaking.

I don't think it is worthless though. Even in history. It is usefull to read to find passages about a time in history, a certain historical (or mythological) figure, and what the writers of the Bible has to say about them, and then compare them to other accounts etc.

 

[Asuka]

When you say 'the Bible' you are in fact critisizing 66 books, 39 of which are in the Old Testament. Of which it's a little vauge to assume a yes/no answer.

Some of the books though (eg. Genesis) are supposed to be taken metaphorically. Most Christians I know believe in evolution and not a literal Adam & Eve that gave birth to the 6 billion people we see today.
You also have to remember that the whole of the Bible isn't written in the same prose. Some of it is stories, some of it is historical, some of it are poems and songs. And to say is it all one thing is like saying are all of C.S. Lewis' books one particular attribute.

Some books in the Bible are too be taken historical and accurately, and are by many Scholars because they coinside with other non-biblical text:

Scientist Henry Morris in his book Many Infallible Proofs points out many Bible verses that assume facts about the physical universe - facts which weren't known until thousands of years later.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers.

The literal meaning of the word 'circle' here when translated from Hebrew is circle or sphere. And this was 2,700 years before there was a common idea that the world wasn't flat. This is one of over 2,000 prophecies in the Bible. So to say is it reliable, yes it is.

The New Testament co-insides with many archaeology scholars as well. World famous archaeologist Nelson Gleuck comments:

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference"

Another world famous archaeologist John Romer, proud Christian, comments that whilst being in Jerusalem he was able to show from a archaeolgical point of view that the New Testament..

.. "accurately describes this enviroment. The flowers and the trees and the lake"..

Up until archaeology however, a lot of criticism assumed the Bible as myth because there was no evidence to prove it happened other than the Bible. Now there is evidence to support their claims.

The same goes for Pontius Pilate who ordered the execution of Jesus. Up until 1961 he was just a name in a book unknown to the world except for in the Bible. However in 1961 an archaeological exavation in Caesarea uncovere evidence of Pilate's existance and the fact he was Prefect of Judea. Quoted from archaeologist John Elder:

"Forgotten cities found, handiwork of people reappered, comtempory records of biblical events unearthed. Nowhere has arcaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history."

I would write more, maybe in the future. But I need to eat. x_______x
iluall~

 

[Ang]

The thing that one has to remember about the Bible is that it may not be telling us how it is all the time. Jesus used parables, so could those who wrote the old testament.

One must also remember that, in context to the 7 day world creation in Genesis, what is one day? It is not 24 hours. It is simply a measurement of the time in which any planet takes to complete one revolution. Yes, we take 24 hours but Mercury etc take different times. Who is to say that the 7 days refer to Earth days?

The Bible is inaccurate... probably, but I still believe that there is a God and the Bible is holy and no book written will ever be able to stop me from believing.

 

[Relient A]

I don't want to get too much into this discussion, but there is a point I would like to throw out there.

There is evidence both for and against a literal 24 hour day for the 7 it took to create everything. The best explanation I've heard so far is actually one I cannot begin to fully explain to you, since it was an hour long lecture on dimensions and string theory.

Loooong story short, we live in dimension 3.5. The fouth dimension is time, and since we only move forward, we are not "fully" in this dimension. So the higher up you go, the more... power, I guess, is available to you. If God sits above 4d then it would make perfect sense to not mean a literal 24 hours, because this fact enforces the "To god a day is 10,000 years and 10,000 years is a day" line.

 

[Takaiki]

There are numerous times when science has proven the bible. History channel did some digging and found out that a select volcano erupted in the right place at the exact right time. To add to that that volcano also was dormant for hundreds of years beforehand and has not erupted sence. They know this by carbon dating the rocks at the top of the volcano and it has only erupted that once. Also there is a theory out there that helps the flood out greatly, the snowball theory. this theory stats that the entire earth once before got completely frozen over. For a drop of that size in temperature it requires a massive amount of moister to be in the atmosphere and as it cools it would fall to the earth as rain. There is the rain as for surviving it that is simple caverns and plant life. in select caverns the people would be able to survive due to the heat of the earth.
I think I will stop there for now.

 

[Asuka]

Loooong story short, we live in dimension 3.5. The fouth dimension is time, and since we only move forward, we are not "fully" in this dimension. So the higher up you go, the more... power, I guess, is available to you. If God sits above 4d then it would make perfect sense to not mean a literal 24 hours, because this fact enforces the "To god a day is 10,000 years and 10,000 years is a day" line.

That seems so interesting. I was studying Buddhism this semester and they have a concept of time that says that time is a manmade concept. We use terms such as past, present & future to make definition easier.

But I was speaking to a Baptist Minister who had a degree in Physics and he claimed otherwise to time. He claimed that if two people with the exact same watch at the exact same time and one of them were to go into Space for a week, the person in space would come back down to earth with his watch slower than the person who remained on earth.

Ontopic slightly: I'd love to learn about time and space, especially since God is thought to exist outside of time. He created the world in no time at all, the time we call infinity.

 

[Garner]

You don't know if the man who first wrote the bible was just crazy. Whether you believe in the bible or not is up to you. It's all about faith.

 

[phantasmor]

hmm i don't know about you but i do believe the bible is historically accurate because it has been proven numerous times

as for the day-age theory i think when the bible states plainly "And there was evening and there was morning, a first day" it means that it was one literal day and when it says somewhere that i can't find right now that god created the earth in a week to set a pattern for man i believe that besides god could have created the earth in a millisecond if he wanted to but he didn't

 

[Ryushikaze]

hmm i don't know about you but i do believe the bible is historically accurate because it has been proven numerous times

Such as?
It's been proven wrong more times than it's been proven right. The lack of a worldwide flood layer, the walls of Jericho having fallen centuries before the Hebrew exodus- and thus their rather poinltess destruction of Jericho- was supposed to have happened, the lack of any evidence for the Exodus itself or any mass slave escape, despite Egypt's ability at that time to note the passage of two slaves across the sinai desert thanks to their watchtower network.
Then there's the distressing lack- in more recent matters- of any sort of contemporaneous record of Yeshua, a man who was as big of a pain to the local government that the crucified him, an extreme punishment that was designed to make specific example of the executed. Not making note of him pissing the Romans off and making sure everyone knew yet making the spectacle of him does not reconcile.

Which is entirely without going into the internal contradictions.

as for the day-age theory i think when the bible states plainly "And there was evening and there was morning, a first day" it means that it was one literal day and when it says somewhere that i can't find right now that god created the earth in a week to set a pattern for man i believe that besides god could have created the earth in a millisecond if he wanted to but he didn't

Except that the sun and the moon did not exist on that first day. They were later creations.
Also, can I ask, how do you reconcile the two differing counts of creation in your own book, and the differences in the order of the way things were created?

 

[phantasmor]

there is plenty of evidence to support a worldwide flood i hope i do not have to point out all of it and though i have not done research on Jericho and exodus but there is a lot of evidence(i have been told) that there was an exodus and that the Jews did destroy Jericho but i am tired i will do research tomorrow

also even though the sun and moon did not exist on the first day light did

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.


also there are not 2 different accounts of creation there is one account of creation then it backs up and goes into detail about the day God created man nothing occurs in a different order


now good night i hope to see a reply tomorrow and i hope you do not disappoint

 

[Ryushikaze]

there is plenty of evidence to support a worldwide flood i hope i do not have to point out all of it

You don't. As there's none. Unless you would LIKE to try and find the universal layer of massive flood damage within the last 10,000 years or so.

and though i have not done research on Jericho and exodus but there is a lot of evidence(i have been told) that there was an exodus and that the Jews did destroy Jericho but i am tired i will do research tomorrow

Says who, might I ask? A million man slave uprising from Egypt was never recorded, even in their correspondence, and the desert watchtowers could detect a two man escape. Also, there is no record of any sort of mass occupation in the sinai desert, especially not the kind one would expect from a 40 year occupancy thereof.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the Sun and Moon, etc. were not in existence until the third day.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Whatever day and night were in Genesis 1, they are not related to the Earth's revolution, and thus not related to what a day actually is.

also there are not 2 different accounts of creation there is one account of creation then it backs up and goes into detail about the day God created man nothing occurs in a different order

Yes. Yes it is. In the first account, plants and vegetation had existed since day three, and man came on day six. According to Gen 2, Man came about when there were no plants or vegetation.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

now good night i hope to see a reply tomorrow and i hope you do not disappoint

I wish you the best of luck in discovering the evidence for the worldwide flood. You will need it.

 

[Franice]

there is plenty of evidence to support a worldwide flood i hope i do not have to point out all of it and though i have not done research on Jericho and exodus but there is a lot of evidence(i have been told) that there was an exodus and that the Jews did destroy Jericho but i am tired i will do research tomorrow

also even though the sun and moon did not exist on the first day light did

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.


also there are not 2 different accounts of creation there is one account of creation then it backs up and goes into detail about the day God created man nothing occurs in a different order

Genesis 1:26-27 -- "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them'

Genesis 2:7 & 19 -- "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being . . . Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name"

Huh?

Being told something doesn't mean it's true, and research is worthless if your sources are biased. I would very much love to see your evidence of the worldwide flood, though.

And, an explanation of how, exactly, one man can gather every single species onto a 1.5 million cubic foot boat(also, how he could both build and get something that big to fucking float with such primitive technology), when there are over 200 species of monkeys alone, and how not one of them managed to die or be eaten for forty days and nights. Please.

Edit: Aw, damn. Too late. x_x

 

[Ang]

Whatever day and night were in Genesis 1, they are not related to the Earth's revolution, and thus not related to what a day actually is.

A day is NOT one of Earth's revolutions. A day is a revolution of whichever planet they are talking about or relating it to. Who says it had to be an Earth day?

also, how he could both build and get something that big to fucking float with such primitive technology

Who says he can't? Why shouldn't he be able to with the correct guidence.


Also, for the anti-Christians or anti-God or whatever, I would like to point out that, before you go off randomly criticizing religions and the bible, that science has yet to produce any sane and likely cause for the universe to exist. This is a little off-topic but I still think that it's important to say here

Anyhoo. Back to the matter at hand. There is only one thing that seperates the people who think that the Bible is correct and those who think that it's not: faith. I have faith. I believe. Therefore, I believe that there is a God and I believe that Jesus existed so I believe that the Bible is, except for the parables, true.

The one thing about the Bible, Qu'Ran (sorry if I mispelt it), the Torah etc. is that they can never be disproved as religion and God can never be disproved. That is why there can be no end to the arguement unless science, yet again, disproves itself.

 

[Donald Trump]

A day is NOT one of Earth's revolutions. A day is a revolution of whichever planet they are talking about or relating it to. Who says it had to be an Earth day?

Of course it's a dat on Earth. It's hardly likely to be talking about jupiter is it?
The point is that most of the bible is allegorical. Lazarus didn't actually rise from the dead, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, There was no massive flood that almost destroyed the entire population etc.
However that's not to say that there wasn't a flood that killed some people who may or may not have been sinners.
The bible is not supposed to be a factual book, so criticising it for its lack of historal accuracy means that you haven't understood the point. It's a book for spiritual and moral guidance. Its historal accuracy or lack thereof is a moot point.