Historicity of Bible

[Deeje]

Bible is a religious teaching book, not a history book

To me it is both....why would God lie about what happened in the past? History teaches us volumes.....

 

[Spirit of Light]

To me it is both....why would God lie about what happened in the past? History teaches us volumes.....

All religious scriptures do contain some historical info for sure, but the Main goal of spiritual teaching as you already know,is to awaken people to the truth and not being a history book

 

[Deeje]

All religious scriptures do contain some historical info for sure, but the Main goal of spiritual teaching as you already know,is to awaken people to the truth and not being a history book

I guess scripture inspires me because of what it tells us about the past....we know where we came from...why we are here, what went wrong, and what will happen in the future to make everything right again. It inspires hope and gives comfort....along with giving us things to aspire to spiritually. Scripture is a wonderful gift...

 

[Spirit of Light]

I guess scripture inspires me because of what it tells us about the past....we know where we came from...why we are here, what went wrong, and what will happen in the future to make everything right again. It inspires hope and gives comfort....along with giving us things to aspire to spiritually. Scripture is a wonderful gift...

Scriptures certainly is a gift

 

[Justanatheist]

Scriptures certainly is a gift

Even when scripture leads to discrimination against LGBT for example, is that a gift?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Even when scripture leads to discrimination against LGBT for example, is that a gift?

Scripture explain to the follower of that scripture what is the moral code within that path, for the practitioner, not for those who do not practice.
Discrimination is wrong to do against others. As a human you are free to chose what you do without believers of a religious teaching should discriminate.

In the different scripture it is explained why certain things are a sin and other things are not.

 

[Justanatheist]

Scripture explain to the follower of that scripture what is the moral code within that path, for the practitioner, not for those who do not practice.
Discrimination is wrong to do against others. As a human you are free to chose what you do without believers of a religious teaching should discriminate.

In the different scripture it is explained why certain things are a sin and other things are not.

I have never seen any explanation of why being LGBT is a sin in any scripture, have you?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have never seen any explanation of why being LGBT is a sin in any scripture, have you?

It is no sin to be born as a LGBTQ what scripture speak about is the action done.

According to scripture it was man and women who was created to be able to make babies.

But i can not speak on behalf of God, only from my own understanding

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is Bible historicaly accurate or not? (I started to discuss this with @Deeje in the thread about sincretism.)

Let's start with Abraham.

The Catholic Church largely wrote the Bible, maybe based off of some existing literary scraps from antiquity. Thats the extent of its historical roots.

 

[Justanatheist]

It is no sin to be born as a LGBTQ what scripture speak about is the action done.

According to scripture it was man and women who was created to be able to make babies.

But i can not speak on behalf of God, only from my own understanding

But that is not an explanation it is just an assertion.

 

[Deeje]

I have never seen any explanation of why being LGBT is a sin in any scripture, have you?

Romans 1:
"Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error."

Paul does not mince words here.....both gay and lesbian sex is considered disgraceful....an obscenity. Males though were singled out because the seed of life is treated with disrespect. It was intended to be deposited in only one place. Anything else is against nature.

No human abnormality is a sin. The word in simple terms means "imperfection"....its an archery term meaning to "miss the mark".....there are two kinds of sin in the Bible....one we are born with.....a propensity to do, think and say the wrong things....and the one we commit deliberately, knowing that it is wrong, but doing it anyway. We can't help the first kind and that is not held against us if we simply implement God's commands and keep ourselves in control of our actions....because it is our actions that condemn us, not our sinful nature.

God forbids immorality...no matter what gender we are, or who we commit it with. Sex outside of scriptural marriage breaks God's law. Sex is not just for pleasure...its primary function is for making babies. The fact that it joins two people as "one flesh" means that the sanctity of life is protected in a committed union between a man and a woman in a relationship sanctioned by God to transmit life to the next generation....in a family.

There is no 'hatred' and there should be no discrimination towards any person for things they have no control over or cannot help.....if we are born that way, God knows, and if we try to exercise self-control, we will suffer no condemnation...actually we will be commended for the strength of character that we display....putting God's will before our own.....but you have to love him more than you love yourself or anyone else. Once you get to know him...its not hard at all.

 

[leroy]

So


Yes we have the historical fact that the romans left the body of a crucified man to decay on the cross as part of the punishment and ritual humiliation that was crucifixion. They were then thrown in a communal grave.

.

I would like to see the evidence for that historical fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is Bible historicaly accurate or not? (I started to discuss this with @Deeje in the thread about sincretism.)

Let's start with Abraham.

It depends what section you are talking about. Many sections of the Bible are not historical books. You take a book like Genesis, and it begins with unadulterated myth (that is not a "lie," it is a powerful form of literature). It eases its way into legend, and then combines legend with actual history.

Some things are clear. Genesis 1 is a creation myth. Noah is a legend.

Other things are not so clear. How much of the story of Abraham actually happened? I'm quite certain Abraham existed, but I am not so confident that everything written about him is historical.

For me, this possibility that the stories are not entirely historical is not a problem -- the Torah tells us what it means to be a Jew. It's lessons are worthwhile whether they are encased as history or as legend or something in between.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But that is not an explanation it is just an assertion.

It is my understanding of it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I am not one to hang off the words of men like I hang off the words of God....you cannot compare authors IMO, nor were the historians there to witness what they try to write about. God has witnessed everything....so why would he inspire men to write fiction? Truth is so much more interesting.

Bible doesn't claim to be the actual word of God - inspiration is not dictation. God inspired people to tell/write something. Other people compiled, redacted... Only the ten commandments are said to be "written with the finger of God".

Obviously God didn't reveal to authors of the Bible historical and scientific truths. He inspired men to write stories that contain spiritual teaching/truth, faith...

 

[Brian2]

Let's assume little or none. What might one reasonably infer from this?

That evidence for Abraham should not be expected even if one believes he existed, and lack of evidence should not be used against belief that Abraham existed.
Certainly names in Genesis and places etc associated with the Abraham story have been found even if not necessarily connected to Abraham.

 

[Brian2]

According to literal biblical chronology Abraham's journey was around 2000 BC. The problem is that no archeological connection was found (and there should be).

Details in the narrative (camels, products of Arabian trade, Philistines, mention of Gerar... ) point to a time many centuries later (8th and 7th century BC) than reported in Bible.

There are other historians and archaeologist etc who disagree with Finkelstein and Silberman however even if their ideas are common these days.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That evidence for Abraham should not be expected even if one believes he existed, and lack of evidence should not be used against belief that Abraham existed.
Certainly names in Genesis and places etc associated with the Abraham story have been found even if not necessarily connected to Abraham.

I agree. I also insist that (if you'll forgive the reference) the devil is in the details. Origin myths are not unfettered science fiction. They must necessarily resonate with the cultures that that embrace and propagate them, and that necessitates that they communicate a recognizable context. None of this serves as evidence for the any of the relevant specifics asserted by these stories.

To the best of my knowledge, there is zero non-biblical evidence for Abraham.

 

[Windwalker]

I would like to see the evidence for that historical fact.

Why Romans Crucified People (The Story Beyond the Cross & Nails)

"In the book, I argue that it is likely that Jesus was not given a decent burial, as described in the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and his request for the body on the afternoon of the crucifixion.

(See my previous two responses in this thread here and here).

Rather, it is more likely that – as was the case with virtually every other crucified person in all of Roman antiquity – Jesus’ body was left on the cross for several days before being tossed into some kind of pit. It sounds bizarre, but I think that’s what the evidence suggests. And Craig thinks otherwise. This will be an interesting point/counter-point/counter-counter-point, I hope – as it is obviously a very important issue for a very great number of people."​

 

[Brian2]

Which is the first problem, the Philistines did not live in the Levant until the 12th century BC.

The Philistines were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan from the 12th century BC until 604 BC, when their polity, after having already been subjugated for centuries by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, was finally destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Philistines - Wikipedia

Why wouldn't the Philistines have been in Canaan at the time of Abraham. It would have been no doubt a smaller number than later but there is evidence of Philistines much earlier than your article states.
I think the problem is that many historians decide to say the Bible is wrong unless attested by other historical documents. But why can't the Bible be the historical documents that are true and confirm others.
Anyway archaeology puts the Philistines around Gerar near the time of Abraham even if they came in larger numbers in later centuries.
Patriarchal Era: The Genesis Philistines - Associates for Biblical Research