Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[doppelganger]

Sir William Ramsay.

The chemist?!

 

[joeboonda]

Not a circus; a sideshow. When I was a Christian, I always found those books that argued for the inerrancy of the Bible unconvincing and embarrassing.

Anybody now living? Any notable historians?

Again, circus, sideshow, whatever. I am sorry you found those books you read unconvincing and embarrassing, for I have found great gems of apologetical truths in those I have purchased. I believe the Bible is historicaly accurate, if you don't that is your right. Yes, many living theologians refer to Ramsay's studies of Luke and Acts, its from them that I read of Ramsay. Ramsay was an archeologist. Peace.

 

[joeboonda]

The chemist?!

archeologist

 

[lew0049]

There are several glaring inaccuracies. Some examples:

1. The siege of Jericho - The walls were destroyed in 1550 B.C.E. which is more than 300 years before the Exodus.

2. Quirinius - According to Luke, he was governor of Syria during the reign of Herod. Problem is that Herod died 9 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria.

3. The census - The closest Roman census to the year of the birth of Jesus was in 6 C.E. There's also no record of anyone ever having to travel to the city of their birth for any Roman census. In short, there's absolutely 0 historical evidence that the census described by Luke ever happened and the manner in which he claims it was conducted would have been unprecedented.

Luke has almost 100 proven arch. findings in his writings.


I have no knowledge about #1, but to #2 & #3, you are jumping to this conclusion without looking at specific details. In Luke 2:2, most Bibles translate the Greek word hegemoneuo as "governor" although the true meaning is in charge of or "to be leading." And I believe before he was governor, he was the military leader againist the Homonadensians - hence he was leading twice.

And Luke states that this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor. Saying it was the first implies that there was a 2nd as well - hence the one that is recorded by Josepheus.

 

[lew0049]

Historically accurate?

Lets see:
-Creation of the universe in seven days? What does the Smithsonian have to say about that one?
-Adam and Eve are first man and woman so their children must have had sex with each other. Huh? But isn't this against the rules presented in the bible?
-Talking serpents?
-Worldwide flood that completely covered the entire planet, where did all this water go?
-Burning bush that does not burn?
-Staffs turning into snakes?
-Immaculate conception?
-Water into wine?
-Walking on water?

A Harry Potter book must be historically accurate in your view as well.

Question everything and choose very carefully what you believe because only you will be responsible for it.

So you are discounting the historical accuracy of something simply because you are not giving the possiblity for an outside force intervening? (AlthoughI agree that using the Smithsonian would probably not be best)

 

[lew0049]

So you believe that Goliath was killed by David and by Elhanan?

Again, there is no true contradiction when you actually look at old Hebrew and Greek.

1 Chronicles 20:5 and 1 Samuel 17:4 clear up the apparent contradiction - it is obvious that it was a early copyist probably misread the Hebrew for "lahmi the brother of" as "the Bethlehemite (in Hebrew the word "killed" stands first in the clause) Jaare-Oregim. The Hebrew for "Oregim" occurs at the end of the verse, where it is translated "weavers." An early copyist probably inserted the name by mistake since 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads "Jair" instead of "Jaare-Orgemin."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe that the bible is completely accurate in a historical sense?

If not, which parts are not accurate, and does this matter?

From what I've read (particularily "The Great Transformation - The Beginnings of our Religious Traditions" by Karen Armstrong), I believe that the archaeological record discredits a literal interpretation of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt as described in the Old Testament.

People in different communities and cultures do things, well, differently. There are regional variations in everything from how buildings are built and laid out to how cloth is weaved and pottery is made. When one culture moves into a new area, you expect to see a change: suddenly, new styles of artifacts appear: new pottery, painted in different patterns; new wood & metal tools; new practices for agriculture and trades. In contrast, the archaeological record of ancient Judea doesn't show this change; it's seamless right through the period when the Exodus supposedly happened. The archaeology doesn't agree with the claim that a large number of people suddenly arrived and took root in Judea.

Also, cultures in contact are influenced by each other. Artifacts in Judea don't show the Egyptian influence that one would expect after countless generations of Jews had lived and worked in Egypt.

It would seem that at the time that the Old Testament was being compiled, the Jews who were doing so were indigenous to the area.

As for whether this matters... to me, not so much. To a Biblical literalist, it might matter a bit.

 

[logician]

The gospels are obviously not a record of history, but stories made up about a mythical Christ. The gospels themselves have many conflicts between them, thus could not be any kind of a historical "record".

 

[Smoke]

1 Chronicles 20:5 and 1 Samuel 17:4 clear up the apparent contradiction - it is obvious that it was a early copyist probably misread the Hebrew for "lahmi the brother of" as "the Bethlehemite (in Hebrew the word "killed" stands first in the clause) Jaare-Oregim. The Hebrew for "Oregim" occurs at the end of the verse, where it is translated "weavers." An early copyist probably inserted the name by mistake since 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads "Jair" instead of "Jaare-Orgemin."

That seems to indicate that the Bible might have been accurate, had it been copied accurately. Even if true, that doesn't do us much good in the real world.

 

[lew0049]

That seems to indicate that the Bible might have been accurate, had it been copied accurately. Even if true, that doesn't do us much good in the real world.

That is one verse in the Bible. One verse in a book is comprised of many authors - some of which date over 2000 yrs. Well, I'm quite confident that the authors lived in the "real world" then as well so I take alot from it. Archealogical evidence shows that 100s of place and events have been verified.

 

[lew0049]

The gospels are obviously not a record of history, but stories made up about a mythical Christ. The gospels themselves have many conflicts between them, thus could not be any kind of a historical "record".

Wow, that incredibly insightful.

 

[slabbey06]

The gospels are obviously not a record of history, but stories made up about a mythical Christ. The gospels themselves have many conflicts between them, thus could not be any kind of a historical "record".

Could you give me an example? I'm interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Smoke]

Archealogical evidence shows that 100s of place and events have been verified.

That might be a bit of an overstatement, but I don't have any problem at all understanding that the Bible mentions many real places, people, and events. It's a huge jump from that to thinking it's entirely factual, though.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Historically accurate?

Lets see:
-Creation of the universe in seven days? What does the Smithsonian have to say about that one?
-Adam and Eve are first man and woman so their children must have had sex with each other. Huh? But isn't this against the rules presented in the bible?
-Talking serpents?
-Worldwide flood that completely covered the entire planet, where did all this water go?
-Burning bush that does not burn?
-Staffs turning into snakes?
-Immaculate conception?
-Water into wine?
-Walking on water?

A Harry Potter book must be historically accurate in your view as well.

Thank you.

Equally fantastic (and in some cases, precisely the same) events are depicted in other ancient folklore, and this alone justifies the assumption that the folklore in question is not historically accurate. It is an assumption everyone would make for any text making such outlandish claims, from Gilgamesh to Beowulf, unless of course the text is the basis of your religion.

 

[Runt]

Although I do recognize that certain parts of the Bible may contain accurate historical records, I do not believe the Bible is 100% accurate (primarily because I do not accept it as religious truth.) However, whenever I hear theists argue for the historical accuracy of the Bible, and indeed whenever I hear nontheists argue against the historical accuracy of the Bible, I like to direct them to the following passage by American theologian Allen Verhey:

"[Christianity's] remembered past is not simply a series of events that can be described objectively but rather events to be celebrated in repentance and jubilee, to be rehearsed in ritual and festival.... The practice of reading Scripture is not the only way the church has to remember, but Scripture is surely the critical document for the church's remembering...There are temptations to forgetfulness, ironically, in the sort of historical reading of Scripture that treats these writings simply as the (more or less reliable) record of a figure of the past whose life ended with his death. Then the memory of Jesus is 'merely a memory,' an intellectual process of recollection, a disinterested reconstruction of some historical facts, not the memory that is constitutive of identity and community and determinative for discernment. In Christian community Scripture is read on the Lord's Day, in celebration of resurrection, and in the confidence that the remembered Jesus lives. Forgetfulness threatens a loss of identity, but the remedy for forgetfulness is remembrance, and remembrance is served by reading scripture." --- Allen Verhey in "Reading The Bible In The Strange World of Medicine"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Archealogical evidence shows that 100s of place and events have been verified.

Kansas exists. Munchkins do not.

 

[slabbey06]

Kansas exists. Munchkins do not.

How do you know Munchkins don't exist? I think I just ate one at dunkin donuts the other day.

 

[joeboonda]

The thread is the historical accuracy of the Bible. Historical statements mentioning certain towns, governors, kings, world rulers, countries, tribes, etc. have been found to be correct especially in the last several decades as archeologists have uncovered ancient cities and artifacts that only shed more light on the historical accuracy of the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you give me an example? I'm interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

How did Judas die?

The thread is the historical accuracy of the Bible. Historical statements mentioning certain towns, governors, kings, world rulers, countries, tribes, etc. have been found to be correct especially in the last several decades as archeologists have uncovered ancient cities and artifacts that only shed more light on the historical accuracy of the Bible.

So... is it your position that you can establish through the study of history that the key events of the Bible are at least as true as the key events in the movie Casablanca? Both mention real towns, rulers, historical happenings, etc., but at least one is fictional.

 

[joeboonda]

So... is it your position that you can establish through the study of history that the key events of the Bible are at least as true as the key events in the movie Casablanca? Both mention real towns, rulers, historical happenings, etc., but at least one is fictional.

No, we are simply saying that the Bible is an historically accurate book.