Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[MaddLlama]

please clarify

Do you have scripture to support the idea that everything contained in the Bible is 100% historically and scientifically accurate (based on, of course, our modern understanding of both), and do you have any scripture to support the idea that if one doesn't not believe that the Bible is accurate in this way or meant to be a literal document, then they aren't Christian?

Something that states these postulates clearly and concisely, using many of those words will suffice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In John 17:17 Jesus prays, Sanctify them by your truth. Your word(speaking of Himself) is truth. When Christ speaks he often refers to Himself in different ways.

It's fine if you believe that, but it still doesn't say "the Bible is true".

BTW: when I look up your passage from 1 John, I see the following footnote:

not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century

 

[sojourner]

In John 17:17 Jesus prays, Sanctify them by your truth. Your word(speaking of Himself) is truth. When Christ speaks he often refers to Himself in different ways.

You're interpreting "word" to mean the Bible. It does not mean that. "Word" is translated from the Greek logos, which has nothing to do with scripture. The scripture you quote refers to Christ, not to the Bible.:sorry1:

 

[d.n.irvin]

Do you have scripture to support the idea that everything contained in the Bible is 100% historically and scientifically accurate (based on, of course, our modern understanding of both), and do you have any scripture to support the idea that if one doesn't not believe that the Bible is accurate in this way or meant to be a literal document, then they aren't Christian?

Something that states these postulates clearly and concisely, using many of those words will suffice.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture(the word) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What is righteousness?

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Who or what is the Word?

Numbers 23:19
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Hebrews 6:18
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

Can God Lie?

1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

What is Truth?


Your question could best be answered like this: If God CANNOT lie -and God is Truth, and the Truth is his Word, why don't you believe the Bible (the Word) as a real, literal, historical document?

 

[d.n.irvin]

You're interpreting "word" to mean the Bible. It does not mean that. "Word" is translated from the Greek logos, which has nothing to do with scripture. The scripture you quote refers to Christ, not to the Bible.:sorry1:

please clarify

 

[sojourner]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture(the word) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What is righteousness?

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Who or what is the Word?

Numbers 23:19
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Hebrews 6:18
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

Can God Lie?

1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

What is Truth?


Your question could best be answered like this: If God CANNOT lie -and God is Truth, and the Truth is his Word, why don't you believe the Bible (the Word) as a real, literal, historical document?

I notice that "knowledge of historical fact, archaeological veracity, scientific explanation and divining of future events" were not on the list in 2 Timothy...:sorry1:

 

[d.n.irvin]

I notice that "knowledge of historical fact, archaeological veracity, scientific explanation and divining of future events" were not on the list in 2 Timothy...:sorry1:

The answer to What is righteousness? was FAITH something rarely talked about in this Forum - but the Bible says it is essential

Proverbs 22:12
The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, But He overthrows the words of the faithless.

Deuteronomy 32:20
And He said: ‘I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith.

Habakkuk 2:4
“ Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.

Luke 18:8
I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”

1 Corinthians 2:5
that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Mark 11:22
So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God.

I have Faith that Jesus will reveal all things in due time.. Its not over friends! You heard it from me-

Just wait until God disproves all doubts and doubters about the Bibles, "knowledge of historical fact, archaeological veracity, scientific explanation and divining of future events" get ready its coming sooner than you think.

# Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

 

[sojourner]

It occurs to me that "faith" and "wishing" are two different things.

 

[sojourner]

please clarify

Clarify what? That logos does not refer to the Bible? Or that the English words translated as "word" refer to Christ and to the Bible, but not synonymously?
Christ and the Bible have always been conceptualized by the Church, by theologians, by exegetes, by the Church Fathers as two separate things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture(the word) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Given in the New Testament referring to the Old... at the time it was put to paper, this book was not considered "scripture".

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

So I guess you don't care about the note I gave about this being a late insertion?

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

If, as you've been claiming, "the Word" = "the Bible", then wouldn't this mean that Jesus was a walking, talking book?

...Or, more likely, could it be that your equivocation of those terms is faulty?

Numbers 23:19
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Interesting passage. It seems to speak against the Trinity: "God is not [...] a son of man".

Your question could best be answered like this: If God CANNOT lie -and God is Truth, and the Truth is his Word, why don't you believe the Bible (the Word) as a real, literal, historical document?

And to ask you a question in return: do you realize the circular reasoning you're employing by using "God cannot lie" as the foundation for the truth of the Bible, and "the Bible is true" as the foundation for the honesty of God?

 

[doppelganger]

# Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Anyone else think that sounds an awful lot like existentialism?

 

[logician]

The Xian bible is not a work of historians, it's a work of novelists.

 

[gnostic]

I seriously wish people would stop confusing "truth" with "fact". They are only two totally different words, they are also not always synonymous.

If, as you've been claiming, "the Word" = "the Bible", then wouldn't this mean that Jesus was a walking, talking book?

...Or, more likely, could it be that your equivocation of those terms is faulty?

No.

It is not talking about book or books. It was not even talking about the Bible. The Word or more precisely, Logos, is equated with Jesus.

d.n.irvin got it wrong.

There were no such thing as the "Bible" in any of the gospels or epistles. And the whole collection of gospels and epistles were put together at the time of John writing his gospel....if he was writing it. There were no such thing as New Testament at that time.

The only thing that can be called a bible, was ones known to exist in the 1st century AD, was the Aramaic Targums and the Greek Septuaguint of what we called later called the "Old Testament". There were even no thing as "Old Testament" in the gospels or epistles.

What we called the Old Testament, can be collectively called Tanakh, Hebrew Scriptures, which included the most important part - the Torah ("Laws"), ie. the 1st five book of the Genesis.

So for d.n.irvin, or any Christian for that matter, to assume that the passages in John was referring the Logos or Word to be the Bible, is playing game of deception, taking the what is written, completely out of context. It seem that even Christians can't even interpret Christian texts without colouring with misinformation.

 

[anders]

d.n.irvin got it wrong.

Thread summary.

To expand, the Bible refers to a six day creation of the universe, an "exodus" leaving no traces at all from two million people and their livestock for forty years, the sun standing still for some time, people vanishing into space, monumental buildings at sites where modern archaologists find nothing, prophesies about places bound to be destroyed but that have survived to modern days, the list is endless.

Anyway you look at it, the Bible is not a history or science book. You're all welcome to find some spiritual or moral teachings from it, like the necessity of killing everybody who doesn't agree with you, or why eating shrimp is an abomination, but science or history -- not in any way.

 

[Overwrite]

Thread summary.

To expand, the Bible refers to a six day creation of the universe, an "exodus" leaving no traces at all from two million people and their livestock for forty years, the sun standing still for some time, people vanishing into space, monumental buildings at sites where modern archaologists find nothing, prophesies about places bound to be destroyed but that have survived to modern days, the list is endless.

Anyway you look at it, the Bible is not a history or science book. You're all welcome to find some spiritual or moral teachings from it, like the necessity of killing everybody who doesn't agree with you, or why eating shrimp is an abomination, but science or history -- not in any way.

That's my take on it to and I couldn't have put it better myself.

As an intersting footnote (and forgive me if someone else has written this......I didn't read every post ), of the twenty or so historians who lived in or around the time of Jesus Christ (as defined by the Bible), not one of them mention him.

 

[rojse]

As an intersting footnote (and forgive me if someone else has written this......I didn't read every post ), of the twenty or so historians who lived in or around the time of Jesus Christ (as defined by the Bible), not one of them mention him.

That is an extremely interesting comment, especially given the significance of the religious movement, and his deeds, as written in the bible.

Is there any debate or rebuttal about this fact?

 

[d.n.irvin]

That is an extremely interesting comment, especially given the significance of the religious movement, and his deeds, as written in the bible.

Is there any debate or rebuttal about this fact?

Josephus

 

[doppelganger]

Josephus

Long after the fact, and hotly contested as to whether part or all of it is authentic or a later interpolation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Long after the fact, and hotly contested as to whether part or all of it is authentic or a later interpolation.

I'm not sure that 50 years constitutes "long after the fact" and, while many if not most feel that the Testimonium Flavianum is at least a partial interpolation, I believe that it is equally true that most view Antiquities 20.9.1 as substantially authentic.

 

[d.n.irvin]

I seriously wish people would stop confusing "truth" with "fact". They are only two totally different words, they are also not always synonymous.
Truth is Fact - Facts are true

No.

It is not talking about book or books. It was not even talking about the Bible. The Word or more precisely, Logos, is equated with Jesus.
d.n.irvin got it wrong. really?

That comment precisely proves my point
There were no such thing as the "Bible" in any of the gospels or epistles. And the whole collection of gospels and epistles were put together at the time of John writing his gospel....if he was writing it. There were no such thing as New Testament at that time.
The only thing that can be called a bible, was ones known to exist in the 1st century AD, was the Aramaic Targums and the Greek Septuaguint of what we called later called the "Old Testament". There were even no thing as "Old Testament" in the gospels or epistles.
What we called the Old Testament, can be collectively called Tanakh, Hebrew Scriptures, which included the most important part - the Torah ("Laws"), ie. the 1st five book of the Genesis.

What is your point?

So for d.n.irvin, or any Christian for that matter, to assume that the passages in John was referring the Logos or Word to be the Bible, is playing game of deception, taking the what is written, completely out of context.
You should really read the posts again,


It seem that even Christians can't even interpret Christian texts without colouring with misinformation.

It seems that even gnostic's can't interpret Religious Forum posts without coloring with misinformation