Accuracy of the Bible

[Autodidact]

example one:
According to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son? Belshazzar.:yes:

O.K., let me know when you're ready to answer the question I asked you.

 

[rusra02]

O.K., let me know when you're ready to answer the question I asked you.

And what ancient historian would you be willing to accept regarding the global flood, seeing there were just 8 survivors? Noah?

Regarding the exodus from Egypt, no Egyptian record of this event has been found. But the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Says Egyptologist John Ray: “Her inscriptions were erased, her obelisks surrounded by a wall, and her monuments forgotten. Her name does not appear in later annals.” Little wonder the Egyptians did not commemorate their shameful defeat at God's hands. Even today, governments go out of their way to hide embarrassing facts.

Regarding the census that occurred prior to Jesus birth, Luke acknowledges that there was more than one census—note that he refers to “this as a first registration.” (Luke 2:1-3. He was well aware of another, later registration. (Acts 5:37) This later census is the same one that the historian Josephus described, which occurred in 6 C.E.

All of the examples cited show why critics of the Bible have had to retreat in their attacks time and again. Time after time, the Bible has been proven accurate and the critics wrong. Many more examples can be cited if anyone is interested in knowing the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

And what ancient historian would you be willing to accept regarding the global flood, seeing there were just 8 survivors? Noah?

Regarding the exodus from Egypt, no Egyptian record of this event has been found. But the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Says Egyptologist John Ray: “Her inscriptions were erased, her obelisks surrounded by a wall, and her monuments forgotten. Her name does not appear in later annals.” Little wonder the Egyptians did not commemorate their shameful defeat at God's hands. Even today, governments go out of their way to hide embarrassing facts.

Regarding the census that occurred prior to Jesus birth, Luke acknowledges that there was more than one census—note that he refers to “this as a first registration.” (Luke 2:1-3. He was well aware of another, later registration. (Acts 5:37) This later census is the same one that the historian Josephus described, which occurred in 6 C.E.

All of the examples cited show why critics of the Bible have had to retreat in their attacks time and again. Time after time, the Bible has been proven accurate and the critics wrong. Many more examples can be cited if anyone is interested in knowing the truth.

Let me know when you're willing to answer the question I asked you.

 

[Agnostic75]

By faith I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallable, inerrant word of God. Its accuracy is of upmost importance to me. If the Bible is inaccurate in one area, then I can believe that it could be inaccurate in other areas and I should question the whole Bible.

If a Hindu book said that King Nebuchadnezzar existed, would you question the claim just because you dispute many other Hindu writings?

It is well-established that a global flood did not occur.

I assume that you are an inerrantist partly because you believe that a loving God would inspire and preserve the Bible. If that is one of your reasons for being an inerrantist, why do you believe that a loving God would injure and kill humans and innocent animals with hurricanes? What fair, worthy, and just goals is God not able to achieve without injuring and killing humans and innocent animals with hurricanes?

Why are any texts needed at all. Early native American Indians believe that a God exists, but they did not have any texts. Today, deists do not have any supposedly inspired texts, but they still believe that a God exists.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course there was a Bible or sacred scriptures, inspired by God.

There was a Tanahk (calling it "the Bible" is a misleading statement). There were also several apocraphal writtings that Jesus most likely considered sacred---and that his follwers certainly did---that never made it into the Bible.

Saying "Jesus believed in the Bible" is misleading and basically untrue; the Bible as we have it didn't even come into existence until several centuries after his death.

No one alive today can prove, other than through the historical record, that George Washington ever existed, or Napoleon. Yet no serious person refutes their existence. Funny how common sense doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the historical facts in the Bible.

Aside from the fact nothing in this addresses anything I said, do you really think this post makes sense? We believe the historical record about Washington and Napolean because we have one.

Why do you find this confusing?

Example 2: At one time Moab, under King Mesha, revolted, and Israel formed an alliance with Judah and the neighboring kingdom of Edom to war against Moab. (2 Kings 3:4-27) Remarkably, in 1868 in Jordan, a stela (a carved stone slab) was discovered that was inscribed in the Moabite language with Mesha’s own account of this conflict.
:yes:

You said:

Time and again, critics have had to backpedal as many biblical accounts scoffed at by these critics have been proven accurate history.

Show me where anyone is recorded as "scoffing" at this particular incident.

Again: just because certain details---settings, events, etc.---can be shown to be accurate, this doesn't mean the story itself is.

And considerring the Bible is a collection of stories (some may be true, some aren't, some were never meant to be read as such) from a wide assortment of different books written by different people, at different times, with different perspectives and purposes, to point to one accurate detail in one part of the Bible and think that this somehow proves the accuracy of the entire collection is like pointing at the library and saying, "The books at the reference desk are accurate therefore all the books in the Science Fiction section must be too".

 

[rusra02]

There was a Tanahk (calling it "the Bible" is a misleading statement). There were also several apocraphal writtings that Jesus most likely considered sacred---and that his follwers certainly did---that never made it into the Bible.

Saying "Jesus believed in the Bible" is misleading and basically untrue; the Bible as we have it didn't even come into existence until several centuries after his death.


There is no evidence Jesus believed in the apocrypha, nor his early disciples.
By the second century B.C.E., the collection of the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures was referred to as ta bi·bli′a in the Greek language. At Daniel 9:2 the prophet wrote: “I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books . . . ” Here the Septuagint has bi′blois, the dative plural form of bi′blos. At 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul wrote: “When you come, bring . . . the scrolls [Greek, bi·bli′a]. In their several grammatical forms, the Greek words bi·bli′on and bi′blos occur more than 40 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures and are usually translated “scroll(s)” or “book(s).” Bi·bli′a was later used in Latin as a singular word, and from the Latin, the word “Bible” came into the English language.


Aside from the fact nothing in this addresses anything I said, do you really think this post makes sense? We believe the historical record about Washington and Napolean because we have one.

Why do you find this confusing?

I don't find this confusing. If you read my post carefully, I am making the point that people take for granted historical figures based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and others, but refuse to accept the eyewitness testimony in the Bible.

You said:



Show me where anyone is recorded as "scoffing" at this particular incident.

Again: just because certain details---settings, events, etc.---can be shown to be accurate, this doesn't mean the story itself is.

And considerring the Bible is a collection of stories (some may be true, some aren't, some were never meant to be read as such) from a wide assortment of different books written by different people, at different times, with different perspectives and purposes, to point to one accurate detail in one part of the Bible and think that this somehow proves the accuracy of the entire collection is like pointing at the library and saying, "The books at the reference desk are accurate therefore all the books in the Science Fiction section must be too".

That is not what I did. I mentioned several examples of scriptural accounts denied as fables because there was no non-biblical confirmation of the account. Then, confirmation came to light, the sceptics were proved wrong, and the Bible vindicated as truthful and accurate. This has occurred time after time. Certainly a book completed 2,000 years ago should be easily refuted. The Bible has proven to be what it claims to be, the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

 

[rusra02]

If a Hindu book said that King Nebuchadnezzar existed, would you question the claim just because you dispute many other Hindu writings?

If the Hindu writings are full of false stories, I would question the claim based just on Hindu writings.

It is well-established that a global flood did not occur.

Well established by whom? Asserting the global flood did not occur does not establish it did not.

I assume that you are an inerrantist partly because you believe that a loving God would inspire and preserve the Bible. If that is one of your reasons for being an inerrantist, why do you believe that a loving God would injure and kill humans and innocent animals with hurricanes? What fair, worthy, and just goals is God not able to achieve without injuring and killing humans and innocent animals with hurricanes?

A loving God does not kill and injure humans and animals with hurricanes. Such storms are not acts of God. They are the result of natural forces and often are more devastating due to the actions or inactions of people. It is not yet God's time to end death and suffering. When God's kingdom takes full control of the Earth, such natural disasters will occur no more. (Matthew 6:9,10 Revelation 21:1-4)

Why are any texts needed at all. Early native American Indians believe that a God exists, but they did not have any texts. Today, deists do not have any supposedly inspired texts, but they still believe that a God exists.

Mere belief in God's existence is not sufficient. God has inspired a book that contains all that is required to know him as an intimate friend. This book answers the questions that otherwise would be unanswerable. Why we are here, why we die, what the future holds, why so much suffering and much more. It permits us to seek for God and really find him. (2 Timothy 3:16,17 Acts 17:27)

 

[johnhanks]

That is not what I did. I mentioned several examples of scriptural accounts denied as fables because there was no non-biblical confirmation of the account. Then, confirmation came to light, the sceptics were proved wrong, and the Bible vindicated as truthful and accurate. This has occurred time after time. Certainly a book completed 2,000 years ago should be easily refuted. The Bible has proven to be what it claims to be, the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

The fact that an ancient text contains accurate references to certain real people and places does not validate its supernatural claims, much less prove it to be the word of god.

 

[Agnostic75]

Regarding the Ten Plagues in Egypt, no non-biblical records mention them. If they occured, they would have been unprecendented in human history, and would easily have been the biggest news stories in the entire Middle East and beyond.

A global flood did not occur. It is not likely that a localized flood occured that killed everyone except for Noah and his group, and all of the animals, birds, and plants. Glenn Morton is a Christian geophysicist and former young earth creationist. Morton believes that the flood was localized, but he says that is could not have occured in Mesopatamia. Well, Mount Ararat is in Mespotamia.

Ezekiel says that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. That did not happen. Even if it did happen, why would God give anything to a pagan king?

The texts claim that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all Galilee, and throughout all Syria, and that great multitudes of people sometimes followed him. If that is true, Jesus' miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would easily have been the greatest celebrity in the entire Middle East. Non-biblical, first century historical records do not suggest that that happened. If Jesus performed miracles, there is no way that Pontius Pilate would not have heard about it and conducted investigations.

 

[Autodidact]

Mere belief in God's existence is not sufficient. God has inspired a book that contains all that is required to know him as an intimate friend. This book answers the questions that otherwise would be unanswerable. Why we are here, why we die, what the future holds, why so much suffering and much more. It permits us to seek for God and really find him. (2 Timothy 3:16,17 Acts 17:27)

Other than that little tiny global flood dealie. Oh, and the whole exodus from Egypt bit. And the technicality of Israelite conquest of Palestine. And the creation myth. And the tower of Babel. And the resurrection. And all those miracles. And the destruction of Tyre. Other than that, it's roughly correct in a few spots.

 

[logician]

The texts claim that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all Galilee, and throughout all Syria, and that great multitudes of people sometimes followed him. If that is true, Jesus' miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would easily have been the greatest celebrity in the entire Middle East. Non-biblical, first century historical records do not suggest that that happened. If Jesus performed miracles, there is no way that Pontius Pilate would not have heard about it and conducted investigations.

Which is, of course, is why a "historical" Jesus that remotely fit the biblical stories could not have existed by definition, because the stories were about impossible events. Likewise, someone followed by "multitudes" of people would have been recorded by the historians of that time, who also recorded the most minute and trivial of events concerning everything in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas.

 

[rusra02]

The fact that an ancient text contains accurate references to certain real people and places does not validate its supernatural claims, much less prove it to be the word of god.

True, historical accuracy alone is not proof the Bible is God's inspired word. But we certainly would expect God's word to be historically accurate. Proof of divine authorship comes from fulfilled prophecy and other evidence. A person should at least read the Bible before making a decision as to whether God inspired the book or not.

 

[rusra02]

Which is, of course, is why a "historical" Jesus that remotely fit the biblical stories could not have existed by definition, because the stories were about impossible events. Likewise, someone followed by "multitudes" of people would have been recorded by the historians of that time, who also recorded the most minute and trivial of events concerning everything in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas.

Are you denying Jesus Christ is a historical figure? Those 'impossible events' as you call them, were witnessed by thousands of people. Thousands accepted Jesus teachings, and became a force that changed 1st century history and onward. Many gave up their lives rather than renounce their faith. Historians in Jesus day did attest to his historicity. Suppositions of what a political ruler would or would not do are simply that.. baseless speculation. The fact is Pilate did question Jesus when he had the chance, showed little interest in ascertaining the truth, and ultimately had him executed. By the way, Bible critics once questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, but were fairly silenced when in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.

 

[rusra02]

Regarding the Ten Plagues in Egypt, no non-biblical records mention them. If they occured, they would have been unprecendented in human history, and would easily have been the biggest news stories in the entire Middle East and beyond.

A common theme of Bible critics is lack of non-biblical records regarding some event the Bible mentions. Time and again, evidence has come forth to disprove the doubters. The Egyptians, like many modern day countries, were not above omitting from their records anything embarassing to their rulers. Their stunning defeat at Jehovah's hands was, in fact, the biggest news story of the day. It remains such to our day.

A global flood did not occur. It is not likely that a localized flood occured that killed everyone except for Noah and his group, and all of the animals, birds, and plants. Glenn Morton is a Christian geophysicist and former young earth creationist. Morton believes that the flood was localized, but he says that is could not have occured in Mesopatamia. Well, Mount Ararat is in Mespotamia.

What Glenn Morton says does not make it so. His assertions prove nothing.

Ezekiel says that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. That did not happen. Even if it did happen, why would God give anything to a pagan king?

The historical record says it did happen. A cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This may be the occasion when mighty Egypt was brought under Babylonian control, as foretold by the prophet Ezekiel evidently in the year 591 B.C.E. (Eze 29:17-19) The Bible answers your question as to why God would give something to a pagan king.

The texts claim that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all Galilee, and throughout all Syria, and that great multitudes of people sometimes followed him. If that is true, Jesus' miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would easily have been the greatest celebrity in the entire Middle East. Non-biblical, first century historical records do not suggest that that happened. If Jesus performed miracles, there is no way that Pontius Pilate would not have heard about it and conducted investigations.

I responded to the above issue in a prior post.

 

[Katzpur]

Is the accuracy of the Bible important? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Is the accuracy of the Bible important in some areas moreso than others, such as, for example, science over history? Which areas do you think are most important, and why?

To me, the accuracy of the Bible is important in terms of what it teaches me about attaining eternal life with God. It is completely worthless as a science book!

 

[Autodidact]

True, historical accuracy alone is not proof the Bible is God's inspired word. But we certainly would expect God's word to be historically accurate. Proof of divine authorship comes from fulfilled prophecy and other evidence. A person should at least read the Bible before making a decision as to whether God inspired the book or not.

I'm guessing that most of the atheists here have done that, and it played a large part in their conclusion there was no God. It's hard to read the Bible and conclude that a divine being had much to do with it.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you denying Jesus Christ is a historical figure? Those 'impossible events' as you call them, were witnessed by thousands of people.

Thousands of people? How do you know? Where, outside the Bible, does it record that?

Historians in Jesus day did attest to his historicity.

Really? Which historians during Jesus day attest to any of Jesus' miracles, resurrection, or even existence?

Suppositions of what a political ruler would or would not do are simply that.. baseless speculation. The fact is Pilate did question Jesus when he had the chance, showed little interest in ascertaining the truth, and ultimately had him executed.

Wait, did you say fact? How do you know? The Bible?
*hint: you can't use the Bible to authenticate the Bible.

 

[dogsgod]

People are told from a very young age that a man named Jesus lived two thousand years ago, they point to the gospels and call it an historical text and use it as proof that Jesus really existed in order to support their belief that the story is true. Talk about your circular reasoning.

 

[johnhanks]

True, historical accuracy alone is not proof the Bible is God's inspired word. But we certainly would expect God's word to be historically accurate. Proof of divine authorship comes from fulfilled prophecy and other evidence.

There's precious little biblical prophecy you can declare fulfilled without an awful lot of word-bending and special pleading. What's the 'other evidence'?

A person should at least read the Bible before making a decision as to whether God inspired the book or not.

Do you apply this same stricture to yourself viv-a-vis every other culture's sacred texts?

 

[johnhanks]

Are you denying Jesus Christ is a historical figure? Those 'impossible events' as you call them, were witnessed by thousands of people.

Odd, then, that so many of them were ignored by those thousands. Look at the events which supposedly accompanied the crucifixion: earthquake, darkness at noon, dead people walking the streets. Why didn't the entire population of Jerusalem - the Romans themselves, come to that - convert en masse?

Thousands accepted Jesus teachings, and became a force that changed 1st century history and onward.

With a little help from Constantine.

Many gave up their lives rather than renounce their faith.

It's been pointed out many times that willingness of some people to die for a belief does not demonstrate the veracity of that belief.

By the way, Bible critics once questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, but were fairly silenced when in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.

Christians are fond of claiming "sceptics once disbelieved such-and-such, but...", but in this case I've been unable to uncover any of this scepticism about Pilate: the writings about him in Philo have been known for a long time, though Philo's accounts of his brutality do not square with the prevaricator we see in the gospels. Either way, it's as before: the appearance of a real historical figure in a text does not validate its truthfulness in other respects.