Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[logician]

Who's we?[/quote]

Those who have been following these posts.

Not likely.

 

[d.n.irvin]

Not likely.

Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?

 

[SassDiva2000]

"Why must the Bible be factual and infallible in order to be inspired of God? "

I have often asked myself this question as of late. I don't think fallibility necessarily takes away from the inspiration and wisdom one may find in the Bible.

 

[d.n.irvin]

"Why must the Bible be factual and infallible in order to be inspired of God? "

"God is not a man, that he should lie".. Numbers 23:19
" For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. Hebrews 3:4

I have often asked myself this question as of late. I don't think fallibility necessarily takes away from the inspiration and wisdom one may find in the Bible.

"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;" Hebrews 6:17,18,19

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 10:38,39;11:1,2,3

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Why must the Bible be factual and infallible in order to be inspired of God? "

"God

is not a man, that he should lie".. Numbers 23:19
" For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. Hebrews 3:4

d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie.

The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables. They use examples and analogies in order to teach lessons about morality and life. Does the literal existence of a historical ant and grasshopper have any bearing on the real truth of their fable, i.e. that we should plan and prepare for the future?

None of Aesop's Fables are literally, historically accurate accounts of real events, but nothing in them is a lie. In the same way, it is possible to see the Bible as wholly true, but not a literal telling of events that physically happened.

 

[gnostic]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If that is so then the fairy godmothers are real. So are ghouls and goblins.

 

[d.n.irvin]

d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie. The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables.

Fable - A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. 2)A story about legendary persons and exploits. 3)A falsehood; a lie. 4)To recount as if true

They use examples and analogies in order to teach lessons about morality and life.

You mean like the Bible does -which is really more "allegory", and the Bible is "Literal," - "fables" by definition are not "true" -and do not teach morals.

Does the literal existence of a historical ant and grasshopper have any bearing on the real truth of their fable, i.e. that we should plan and prepare for the future?

Unlike scripture, "Aesop's Fables" are not "allegory" -that is, they were never designed to be "literal" -as opposed to Scripture -which was and is designed to be "literal." from which we draw "analogies"

None of Aesop's Fables are literally, historically accurate accounts of real events, but nothing in them is a lie. In the same way, it is possible to see the Bible as wholly true, but not a literal telling of events that physically happened. The only story in the Bible I can think of, off the top of my head is -the story of "Balaam." where God used a donkey to "literally" speak to him. When we compare "Aesop's Fables"[which is really hard to do] to the stories the Bible, for instance the story of "David and Goliath" which is real -though it employs "allegory" and "analogy" it most certainly is not a "fable"

[/quote]
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Timothy 4:4

So what is "Truth?" What "analogy" can be drawn from these text? Especially as we make an application of these text toward our generation. With all the so called exactness -to which men propose "theories", and account to "science" -that which is clearly discordant with Scripture.

 

[d.n.irvin]

If that is so then the fairy godmothers are real. So are ghouls and goblins.

That depends on who your God is -If you believe in "fairy godmothers" "ghouls and goblins" -if that is what your God or church teaches, your doctrine - then sure -you should have "Faith" in what you believe.

But as a truth -the Bible says that manifestations of "ghosts and goblins" "UFOs" "etc"., and other so called "paranormal" events,[because these people are indeed witnesses to something] are nothing but -Satan and his angels preforming "miracles in the sight of men" according to -and "IF" you believe the Bible.

 

[SassDiva2000]

d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie.

The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables. They use examples and analogies in order to teach lessons about morality and life. Does the literal existence of a historical ant and grasshopper have any bearing on the real truth of their fable, i.e. that we should plan and prepare for the future?

None of Aesop's Fables are literally, historically accurate accounts of real events, but nothing in them is a lie. In the same way, it is possible to see the Bible as wholly true, but not a literal telling of events that physically happened.

I like your analogy because I think there is assumption that if the Bible is fallible, then God is necessarily a liar when one is not necessarily predicated upon the other. While I do not think that in order to be inspired of God, the Bible must be infallible, I also do not think that infallibility requires that all events/stories within the Bible be actual and literal. I can still subscribe to the infallibility of scripture without believing that every single thing literally happened.

 

[camanintx]

d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie. The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables.

Fable - A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. 2)A story about legendary persons and exploits. 3)A falsehood; a lie. 4)To recount as if true

Allegory:

1.
a. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
b. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

2. A symbolic representation

 

[d.n.irvin]

I like your analogy because I think there is assumption that if the Bible is fallible, then God is necessarily a liar when one is not necessarily predicated upon the other. While I do not think that in order to be inspired of God, the Bible must be infallible, I also do not think that infallibility requires that all events/stories within the Bible be actual and literal. I can still subscribe to the infallibility of scripture without believing that every single thing literally happened.

Be more specific when you reference fallible and infallible? what exactly do you mean?

 

[SassDiva2000]

Be more specific when you reference fallible and infallible? what exactly do you mean?

When I speak of infallibility, I mean that something is trustworthy or without error. Conversely, fallible means something is liable to be false and not necessarily that something IS false. But what that "something" is I think is open to some debate and I think that sort of goes to the point 9th Penguin was trying to make.

Infallibility can can speak to something other than the belief that everything that happened in the Bible occurred literally. Some read the Bible without so much of a focus on the events themselves as much as on the lessons learned from the events. The truth is in the moral lesson that is taught and not necessarily in the event that is used to teach the moral lesson. For example, some view the creation story as an allegory or metaphor,if you will, to teach us, among other things, that God is a creator God. One does not have to believe that God created the world in literal 7 24-hour blocks of time to learn that aspect of God's character or nature. In this way, infallibility does not require one to believe that events in the Bible are actual or literal. Of course, one could believe in the creation as it is told literally and actually. But I think that is just one view and one is not required to believe literally in order to believe the Bible in infallible.

 

[sojourner]

Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?

1) There is no archeological evidence showing any kind of military invasion of some culture outside of Canaan during the time the Bible says that the returning Israel took Canaan by force.
2) Even the Bible does not agree as to whether Jerusalem was a)completely annihilated, b) taken and the locals subjugated, c) partially annihilated.
3) Egypt has no record of a large number of foreigners living as slaves during that time.
4) There is no evidence to show that the United Kingdom under David was able to support or fund an army as large or as strong as the Bible says it was.

 

[logician]

"Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?"

I didn't post this, it may have been in response to something I posted.

I've given plenty of examples showing the bible is not historically accurate, indeed it can only be a work of fiction.

 

[gnostic]

In Daniel 9:1, it speaks of Darius the Mede being the son of Ahasuerus (the also name used in the book of Esther); Ahasuerus being Xerxes (reign 485-465 BC), I presumed. I also presumed that Darius the Mede referred to as being Darius I (reign 522-485), or Darius the Great.

The bible is inaccurate, because it says that Ahasuerus-Xerxes ruled first, before Darius I, when historically it is the other way around.

Xerxes does have a son named Darius, but he was murdered by his brother Artaxerxes I, before he could ascend. Artaxerxes I (reign 465-424) ruled after Xerxes.

Also Darius is not the son of Xerxes, but he was a son of Hystaspes. Darius was only related to Cyrus II, only by marriage (his wife Atossa is a daughter of Cyrus), so Darius started a new dynasty in the Persian empire.

If the bible was infallible then it would have not such mistake.

 

[sojourner]

"Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?"

I didn't post this, it may have been in response to something I posted.

I've given plenty of examples showing the bible is not historically accurate, indeed it can only be a work of fiction.

It contains fiction, but I think that it can be (and is) more than "only fiction."

 

[d.n.irvin]

Can anyone give definitive proof -that the Bible is not Historically Accurate?

Anyone?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can anyone give definitive proof -that the Bible is not Historically Accurate?

'Definitive' is in the eye of the beholder. There can be no 'definitive proof' for the willfully ignorant, or the deceitful who simply pervert the language to serve their dogma.

So, when was this Exodus of yours?

 

[d.n.irvin]

'Definitive' is in the eye of the beholder. There can be no 'definitive proof' for the willfully ignorant, or the deceitful who simply pervert the language to serve their dogma.

So, when was this Exodus of yours?

So does that mean you have proof? or not?

 

[Scott1]

So does that mean you have proof? or not?

Please educate him on the historical accuracy of the Exodus account in your Bible....

Smite this heathen with your Godly knowledge!