The historical accuracy of the Bible

[Desert Snake]

There is a thread similar this already however I want to get a different take on it and all opinions. Something I'd like to avoid though is arguments among RF members that deviate too much from the OP.

So, what is your opinion on the historical accuracy of the Bible?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's probably less accurate than a history book, but probably more accurate than, say, a chocolate bar.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's probably less accurate than a history book, but probably more accurate than, say, a chocolate bar.

I don't know. Those nutritional stats and ingredients lists on chocolate bars seem pretty accurate to me.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's probably less accurate than a history book, but probably more accurate than, say, a chocolate bar.

In another similar thread you responded that you had no idea, it seems your opinion changes by the minute.

 

[Alex_G]

I would think that things people had conflicts of interest over or vested interests in would likely have less reliable accuracy than writing that described more benign things. I'd be more inclined to believe something that was written describing some insignificant feature, like a building, street or ornament, but less inclined if the subject was something that had political meaning or value at the time.
Also obviously one will use common sense and an understanding of basic physics to not take the more florid bits too seriously either.
So in all useful, but with limitations.

Alex

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The bible does not pretend to be accurate history. It is not written by historians.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It seems to be pretty accurate about generalities, such as towns, people and the positions they held, locations, and a few other facts about the various empires that existed. But, overall, I'd give it about a 50% on the total historical accuracy part. This is because, concerning details, it tends to be overly concerned with the biases of the authors. There is an agenda to the Bible, and this cannot be ignored when trying to discover it's usefulness in any capacity.

 

[Desert Snake]

The bible does not pretend to be accurate history. It is not written by historians.

That's too vague of an answer, and innacurate.

 

[outhouse]

It depends on what part and time period, but more important in what context??

If your trying to pull a literal story from allegory you will not get the historicity your looking for

 

[Desert Snake]

It depends on what part and time period, but more important in what context??

If your trying to pull a literal story from allegory you will not get the historicity your looking for

If something in the Bible is not obviously meant to be allegorical then I generally take it to be historical in nature.

 

[Storm]

If something in the Bible is not obviously meant to be allegorical then I generally take it to be historical in nature.

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

 

[Storm]

In another similar thread you responded that you had no idea, it seems your opinion changes by the minute.

It seems the threads aren't as similar as you think.

 

[Desert Snake]

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

I wasn't referring to literalism, not even close. Even an atheist can read the Bible in a historical context.

 

[Storm]

I wasn't referring to literalism, not even close. Even an atheist cna read the Bible in a historical context.

Yes, atheists can fall prey to Literalism as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, atheists can fall prey to Literalism as well.

Again, I'm not necessarily referring to literalism, historians refer to the Bible for historocity, such as the story of the exodus from Egypt.

 

[Storm]

Again, I'm not necessarily referring to literalism, historians refer to the Bible for historocity, such as the story of the exodus from Egypt.

That IS Literalism - reading the narratives literally. Read the article.

 

[Desert Snake]

It seems the threads aren't as similar as you think.

This is a vague statement to the point of being meaningless.

 

[Desert Snake]

That IS Literalism - reading the narratives literally. Read the article.

I didn't have to read the whole article to realize that it was not useful to this conversation.

 

[Storm]

I didn't have to read the whole article to realize that it was not useful to this conversation.

IOW, you dismissed it out of hand.

 

[Desert Snake]

IOW, you dismissed it out of hand.

No, it simply doesn't have anything to do with what I'm referring to as historocity.