The historical accuracy of the Bible

[Storm]

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

If you'd bother to read it, you'd see that it does.

 

[Desert Snake]

If that is what you consider Biblical literalism I'd like to know your opinion on Israel and Zionism. I'll start another thread on that.

 

[Storm]

If that is what you consider Biblical literalism I'd like to know your opinion on Israel and Zionism. I'll start another thread on that.

Don't bother, I stay away from political threads, especially Middle Eastern.

 

[fallingblood]

I think it depends on what books are you reading. Luke, for example, was most likely written as history (to a point). There are inaccuracies, but it still contains a lot of good information.

Other parts, for instance, the Torah, is a little bit more complicated. Well a lot more complicated. There are problems with it. However, if we treat it like other works from that time, we can see quite a bit of history coming out. But the key is treating it like other similar works from that time.

What also has to be remembered that there was also oral tradition going along with this written record. Which actually does make a difference.

In the end, you will find a variety of different schools of thought on this. Some find the Bible to have more historical accuracy, while others claim there is almost know historical accuracy. Me, I'm more on the side of it having historical accuracy, but only if one is willing to study it in a productive manner. And that includes seeing it as a human product, realizing the various forms of genres it was written in, and also treating it like other similar works from that time.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it depends on what books are you reading. Luke, for example, was most likely written as history (to a point). There are inaccuracies, but it still contains a lot of good information.

Other parts, for instance, the Torah, is a little bit more complicated. Well a lot more complicated. There are problems with it. However, if we treat it like other works from that time, we can see quite a bit of history coming out. But the key is treating it like other similar works from that time.

What also has to be remembered that there was also oral tradition going along with this written record. Which actually does make a difference.

In the end, you will find a variety of different schools of thought on this. Some find the Bible to have more historical accuracy, while others claim there is almost know historical accuracy. Me, I'm more on the side of it having historical accuracy, but only if one is willing to study it in a productive manner. And that includes seeing it as a human product, realizing the various forms of genres it was written in, and also treating it like other similar works from that time.

I agree.

 

[outhouse]

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

the exodus has almost zero historicity.


the only thing that can be said with any certainty about it is that Egyptians migrated to Israel slowly.

Hebrews were never in Egypt as a enslaved race

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It is accurate to say that the Bible is a historical book that records many things in relation to historical people and places. Some of these things are themselves accurate others are not. Some of these things are meant to record historical events, some of them are not. Some of these things are forgeries, some are not.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[outhouse]

It is accurate to say that the Bible is a historical book that records many things in relation to historical people and places

No not at all.

Its a theistic book that makes up alot of history to meet its current theological needs when written.

 

[Desert Snake]

No not at all.

Its a theistic book that makes up alot of history to meet its current theological needs when written.

This is the crux of the argument.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No not at all.

Its a theistic book that makes up alot of history to meet its current theological needs when written.

Its that too. But to say it has no historical relevance is just making up your own facts to support your view of religion.

 

[outhouse]

Its that too. But to say it has no historical relevance is just making up your own facts to support your view of religion.

my point is it is not a historical book


I understand you can pull information out. Valuable history at that

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

It offers a unique historical window regarding the practices and beliefs of early Judeo-Christians as seen by its authors* during the actual time the literary aspects of the Bible was first conceived, and subsequently put in text.

*By authors, I mean the actual persons who were directly responsible in writing the words on archeological evidence found. Not who is alluded to as being any givin author(s) by way of credit.

 

[fallingblood]

my point is it is not a historical book


I understand you can pull information out. Valuable history at that

But parts of it were written as historical works.

 

[outhouse]

But parts of it were written as historical works.

But in a allegorical fashion?

A mythical fashon?

A metaphorical legend?


It really has no credibility as a history book

 

[outhouse]

The Bible and history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A good read

 

[fallingblood]

But in a allegorical fashion?

A mythical fashon?

A metaphorical legend?


It really has no credibility as a history book

No, in historical fashion. Parts of the Bible where written in the historical genre. One cannot simply throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

my point is it is not a historical book


I understand you can pull information out. Valuable history at that

I would say that it isn't a history book but it is historical. I agree with what you mean, just not with how you said it. (Yeah, I'm weird that way.)

 

[outhouse]

I would say that it isn't a history book but it is historical. I agree with what you mean, just not with how you said it. (Yeah, I'm weird that way.)

No problem bud, were on the same wavelength

 

[Pegg]

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?

the greek scriptures are very accurate historically...here are a few references with the details of the accuracy of the christian writers:

A. Rendle Short writes in Modern Discovery and the Bible, about the book of Acts: “It was the Roman custom to govern the provinces of their far-flung empire by continuing as far as they safely could the local system of administration, and consequently the authorities in different districts went by many different names. No one, unless he were either an observant traveller or a painstaking student of records, could possibly give all these gentry their correct denomination. It is one of the most searching tests of Luke’s historical sense that he always manages to achieve perfect accuracy. In several cases it is only the evidence of a coin, or an inscription, that has given us the necessary information to check him; the recognized Roman historians do not adventure themselves on such a difficult terrain. Thus Luke calls Herod and Lysanias tetrarchs; so does Josephus. Herod Agrippa, who slew James with the sword and cast Peter into prison, is called a king; Josephus tells us how he became friendly at Rome with Gaius Cæsar (Caligula) and was rewarded with a royal title when Caligula came to be emperor. The governor of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, is called proconsul. . . . Not long before, Cyprus had been an imperial province, and governed by a proprætor or legatus, but in Paul’s time, as is shown by Cyprian coins, both in Greek and Latin, the correct title was proconsul. A Greek inscription found at Soloi on the north coast of Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus’ . . . At Thessalonica the city magnates took the quite unusual title of politarchs [city rulers, Acts 17:6, footnote], a name unknown to classical literature. It would be quite unfamiliar to us, except from Luke’s use of it, if it were not for the fact that it appears in inscriptions. . . . Achaia under Augustus was a senatorial province, under Tiberius it was directly under the emperor, but under Claudius, as Tacitus tells us, it reverted to the senate, and therefore Gallio’s correct title [Acts 18:12] was proconsul. . . . Luke is equally happy, equally accurate, in his geography and his travel experiences.”

1890, French Bible scholar F. Vigouroux published a book of over 400 pages entitled “Le Nouveau Testament et les découvertes archéologiques modernes” (The New Testament and Modern Archaeological Discoveries) of archeological findings which support the Greek Scriptures.

In The Archaeology of the New Testament, first published in 1970, E. M. Blaiklock writes: “Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.”

 

[Desert Snake]

the greek scriptures are very accurate historically...here are a few references with the details of the accuracy of the christian writers:

A. Rendle Short writes in Modern Discovery and the Bible, about the book of Acts: “It was the Roman custom to govern the provinces of their far-flung empire by continuing as far as they safely could the local system of administration, and consequently the authorities in different districts went by many different names. No one, unless he were either an observant traveller or a painstaking student of records, could possibly give all these gentry their correct denomination. It is one of the most searching tests of Luke’s historical sense that he always manages to achieve perfect accuracy. In several cases it is only the evidence of a coin, or an inscription, that has given us the necessary information to check him; the recognized Roman historians do not adventure themselves on such a difficult terrain. Thus Luke calls Herod and Lysanias tetrarchs; so does Josephus. Herod Agrippa, who slew James with the sword and cast Peter into prison, is called a king; Josephus tells us how he became friendly at Rome with Gaius Cæsar (Caligula) and was rewarded with a royal title when Caligula came to be emperor. The governor of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, is called proconsul. . . . Not long before, Cyprus had been an imperial province, and governed by a proprætor or legatus, but in Paul’s time, as is shown by Cyprian coins, both in Greek and Latin, the correct title was proconsul. A Greek inscription found at Soloi on the north coast of Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus’ . . . At Thessalonica the city magnates took the quite unusual title of politarchs [city rulers, Acts 17:6, footnote], a name unknown to classical literature. It would be quite unfamiliar to us, except from Luke’s use of it, if it were not for the fact that it appears in inscriptions. . . . Achaia under Augustus was a senatorial province, under Tiberius it was directly under the emperor, but under Claudius, as Tacitus tells us, it reverted to the senate, and therefore Gallio’s correct title [Acts 18:12] was proconsul. . . . Luke is equally happy, equally accurate, in his geography and his travel experiences.”

1890, French Bible scholar F. Vigouroux published a book of over 400 pages entitled “Le Nouveau Testament et les découvertes archéologiques modernes” (The New Testament and Modern Archaeological Discoveries) of archeological findings which support the Greek Scriptures.

In The Archaeology of the New Testament, first published in 1970, E. M. Blaiklock writes: “Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.”

Hmm...Interesting. Thanks for the references.