Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[sojourner]

WHether or not the Bible is historically correct is should not a matter of debate, the Bile on many occsion stands as HISTORY-Therefore its accuracy cannot be taken in cportions but in whole- and in whole the Bible is strangely accurate

As for the Parables- the Hebrews used idioms in every thing- it is all a matter of understanding this ancient "slang" language

If I understand what you're saying, I disagree. The Bible is historically accurate in some places and wildly inaccurate in others. Its historical veracity does not stand as a whole.

 

[d.n.irvin]

If I understand what you're saying, I disagree. The Bible is historically accurate in some places and wildly inaccurate in others. Its historical veracity does not stand as a whole.

Only, if the Bible is to be considered as any other book. But if you consider the Bible - the whole Bible, to be Holy - and the inspired Word of God - then there is harmony from Genesis to Revelation.

I take time now to reiterate my position- every post that I have made in this entire Forum has been made on the strength that I believe every word of the Bible. And that my friend is what we call "Faith", of which God says- without it, " it is impossible to serve Him". I have "Faith" that in due time all mysteries and so called discrepancies will become plain. The Bible tells me so.

 

[sojourner]

Only, if the Bible is to be considered as any other book. But if you consider the Bible - the whole Bible, to be Holy - and the inspired Word of God - then there is harmony from Genesis to Revelation.

I take time now to reiterate my position- every post that I have made in this entire Forum has been made on the strength that I believe every word of the Bible. And that my friend is what we call "Faith", of which God says- without it, " it is impossible to serve Him". I have "Faith" that in due time all mysteries and so called discrepancies will become plain. The Bible tells me so.

I believe every word of the Bible, too. I just don't believe that it's 100% factually accurate -- it was never intended to be.
The Bible is "like every other book." It deserves due diligence in exegesis and interpretation. It also deserves to be seen for what it is -- not for what it is not. I do consider the Bible to be holy. Why would you think that I don't? It's set apart from other literature as divinely inspired.

The Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith. It's a good place to begin...

 

[doppelganger]

It's a good place to begin...

One of many.

 

[MaddLlama]

In order for the Bible to be a useful and inspirational spiritual book, does the entirety of it have to be 100% historically and scientifically accurate?

 

[sojourner]

No. It may be better if it's not, in fact.

 

[d.n.irvin]

I believe every word of the Bible, too. I just don't believe that it's 100% factually accurate -- it was never intended to be.
The Bible is "like every other book." It deserves due diligence in exegesis and interpretation. It also deserves to be seen for what it is -- not for what it is not. I do consider the Bible to be holy. Why would you think that I don't? It's set apart from other literature as divinely inspired.

The Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith. It's a good place to begin...

If you can substantiate these comments with scripture, you will have my full attention, until then- my friend - its mere conjecture

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible is not the be-all end-all of faith. It's a good place to begin...

If you can substantiate these comments with scripture, you will have my full attention, until then- my friend - its mere conjecture

Since to claim that the Bible is the be-all end-all of faith would require Biblical foundation to be able to taken as true, I'd suggest that no support for either side would indicate that sojourner's point is a good one.

But in any case, consider the last verse of the last chapter of the last Gospel, John 21:25:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

It's one of the ones usually cited in support of the idea that the Bible is not, as sojourner put it, "the be-all end-all of faith".

 

[sojourner]

If you can substantiate these comments with scripture, you will have my full attention, until then- my friend - its mere conjecture

That doesn't make even make sense. You can't use what the Bible says to prove that what the Bible says is true. You need more objectivity. It isn't there.
In fact, The Bible itself does not say that it is 100% factual. Nor does it say that it is infallible. I'm afraid that the burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is these things.

Conjecture? What about the lack of evidence in the archeological record to back up the "fact" that Israel was ever held captive by Egypt? What about the lack of evidence in the archaeological record to back up the Biblical accounts of a widespread military invasion of Canaan? What about the fact that the Biblical writers do not agree as to the extent of the taking of Jerusalem?

I'd say that the facts bear out that the Bible is not 100% factual. It is conjecture to assume that it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say that the facts bear out that the Bible is not 100% factual. It is conjecture to assume that it is.

And it might be completely contrary to the true purpose: if someone were to get into a tizzy about finding historical evidence of the "real" ant and grasshopper of the fable by Aesop, they'd be missing the point entirely (and would also likely not be ready for winter to boot).

d.n.irvin, given that ancient societies often used folklore and allegory consciously as a tool to express and teach difficult concepts, what reason do you have to automatically assume that the Bible isn't an example of this?

 

[d.n.irvin]

Since to claim that the Bible is the be-all end-all of faith would require Biblical foundation to be able to taken as true, I'd suggest that no support for either side would indicate that sojourner's point is a good one.

But in any case, consider the last verse of the last chapter of the last Gospel, John 21:25:



It's one of the ones usually cited in support of the idea that the Bible is not, as sojourner put it, "the be-all end-all of faith".

The end -all of Faith is truth - and the truth is Gods Word- the Bible -for without it, there is no truth.

The entirety of Your word is truth,And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.Ps. 119:60

The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright—words of truth. Eccl .12:10

But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince. Dan. 10:21

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

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. John 4:23

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The end -all of Faith is truth - and the truth is Gods Word- the Bible -for without it, there is no truth.
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

The entirety of Your word is truth,And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.Ps. 119:60

Is that a typo? I have a very different wording for Psalm 119:60.

Your verse from Ecclesiastes seems to imply only that truth exists, not that the Bible is the only real collection of truth.

The passage from Daniel refers to his prophecy that follows. I don't see how it's intended to refer to the Old and New Testament.

 

[d.n.irvin]

That doesn't make even make sense. You can't use what the Bible says to prove that what the Bible says is true. You need more objectivity. It isn't there.
In fact, The Bible itself does not say that it is 100% factual. Nor does it say that it is infallible. I'm afraid that the burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is these things.

Conjecture? What about the lack of evidence in the archeological record to back up the "fact" that Israel was ever held captive by Egypt? What about the lack of evidence in the archaeological record to back up the Biblical accounts of a widespread military invasion of Canaan? What about the fact that the Biblical writers do not agree as to the extent of the taking of Jerusalem?

I'd say that the facts bear out that the Bible is not 100% factual. It is conjecture to assume that it is.

As I stated before in another post, belief in the Bible is based on the strength that the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God- and is Holy. If I truly believe in the Bible, I believe that by "Faith" God will make all mysteries and so called discrepancies plain in due time.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Heb. 11: 7

God says without Faith it is "impossible to serve Him". An element or dimension of salvation that conventional science will never be able to prove.

the "Time" aspect cannot be stressed enough. God reveals things in his own time. suppose tomorrow God makes it so, scientist find Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. There goes Evolution- And guess what- it can happen!

In other words, most people will not be lost because they are bad people, but because of their unbelief.

To not believe in the Bible 100% is not to believe in God 100%

 

[MaddLlama]

As I stated before in another post, belief in the Bible is based on the strength that the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God- and is Holy. If I truly believe in the Bible, I believe that by "Faith" God will make all mysteries and so called discrepancies plain in due time. God says without Faith it is "impossible to serve Him". An element or dimension of salvation that conventional science will never be able to prove.


In other words, most people will not be lost because they are bad people, but because of their unbelief.

To not believe in the Bible 100% is not to believe in God 100%

Do you have any scripture to support that, or the idea that in order to believe in God one has to believe there is nothing in the Bible that can't be proven by history or science?

 

[sojourner]

The end -all of Faith is truth - and the truth is Gods Word- the Bible -for without it, there is no truth.

Except that the Bible is not the whole of God's word. Nor does truth necessarily depend upon factual veracity. The stories portray a powerful truth about our relationship with God, regardless of whether the historical facts are "so." That's the truth that's important -- to which we should be paying attention -- not to the picayune details of historical fact.

 

[sojourner]

As I stated before in another post, belief in the Bible is based on the strength that the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God- and is Holy. If I truly believe in the Bible, I believe that by "Faith" God will make all mysteries and so called discrepancies plain in due time.

And none of that inspiration or holiness is based upon historical accuracy. It's based upon the broader truth of the stories, poems and prophecies therein, which reveal God to us.

To not believe in the Bible 100% is not to believe in God 100%

Your loyalty to the Bible is touching. I, too, believe in the Bible 100%. But I also believe in the Bible for what it is -- revelation, not history. Revelation, not science. Revelation, not fortune-telling. The Bible is the theological record of our relationship with God, and the theological account of how we believe God interacts with us on a cosmological level. It was not written by God. It did not fall out of the sky in King James English. it is a living document that deserves our attention to delve into its depths to discover what God will reveal about God's self to us.

 

[d.n.irvin]

Is that a typo? I have a very different wording for Psalm 119:60. 119:160 sorry

Your verse from Ecclesiastes seems to imply only that truth exists, not that the Bible is the only real collection of truth.

The passage from Daniel refers to his prophecy that follows. I don't see how it's intended to refer to the Old and New Testament.

Both these text refer to Scripture - the Bible - as Truth

What is Truth?

 

[d.n.irvin]

Do you have any scripture to support that, or the idea that in order to believe in God one has to believe there is nothing in the Bible that can't be proven by history or science?

please clarify

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both these text refer as Scripture- the Bible - is Truth

What is Truth?

No, all three happen to have the word "truth" in them. None of them, as far as I can tell, claim that the Bible is the only source of truth, or even that the Bible is entirely factually accurate.

 

[d.n.irvin]

No, all three happen to have the word "truth" in them. None of them, as far as I can tell, claim that the Bible is the only source of truth, or even that the Bible is entirely factually accurate.

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

John 17:17
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

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.