- This topic has 9 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
I got the idea to post this question from another post I made. How much creedance do you put in the biblical acount of history? Do you think it's accurate? My Position is yes it is accurate. Archeologists are finding things that confirm the acccounts preserved in the bible. What are your thoughts?
I don't think that everything in the Old Testament is meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that many accounts can be taken as factually accurate. As I mentioned in another post, I saw a show on Biblical battles on the History Channel, and I learned about what scholars can find about military tactics in Bible stories. This would not be true if Biblical accounts were not pretty accurate.
I don't think that everything in the Old Testament is meant to be taken literally.?
True, there are many things that are symbollic. What examples of history do you think are not litteral?
It's without a doubt historically accurate.? ? I wish it got into more detail and mentioned other civilizations more often, but the Bible isn't meant to be a history book.? And,? aside from the obvious intent of the Bible, it gives man something to do, like try to find out where Ur was.? 😀
the Bible isn't meant to be a history book.?
True, but it's funny how many times we see someone or someplace thats only mentioned in the bible and historians will scoff at its mention as myth, then suddenly some archaeologist will dig up something that proves that person or place actually existed.
The Bible is 100% accurate when it tells of history.Here is an interesting example:Sir William Ramsay fully accepted the teachings of the higher critics as a student at Oxford and went to the middle east in order to prove that the Bible was inaccurate. However, through his scholarly investigations, he discovered that the book of Acts was totally historically accurate!He then dedicated his life to the exploration of Biblical lands in defense of the Bible.
I have an old book that deals with this subject "The Bible As History." I'll have to dig it out.
I have that book, its by Werner Miller.
The Bible is 100% accurate when it tells of history.
Seven days of creation, talking serpents, animals lining up double-file to go into a boat, burning bushes, walking canes that turn into snakes and back again, people turning into pillars of salt, whales swallowing reluctant preachers, virgin births....Yeah, that's believable.Widow's Son
The Bible is 100% accurate when it tells of history.
Seven days of creation, talking serpents, animals lining up double-file to go into a boat, burning bushes, walking canes that turn into snakes and back again, people turning into pillars of salt, whales swallowing reluctant preachers, virgin births....Yeah, that's believable.Widow's SonBurningTaper.com
Yes it's believable. Millions believe it so it has to be "believable."
Don't discard something just because it is metaphorical. Metaphors can teach the truth just as much as history can.
I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text. I think the Bible is very useful in studying ancient history, but I can't go so far as to say it's 100% accurate in a literal sense. Aside from the parts that are metaphorical, ancient historians had different practices than those followed by modern historians. Take Isaiah: He places the Assyrian invasion (chapters 36-37) before the visit of the Babylonian envoys (chapters 38-39), which is the reverse order of how things actually occurred. Note that in chapter 38 Isaiah prophesies that Jerusalem will be saved from the Assyrians. This would not be possible, of course, if these chapters were not out of chronological order. (Yes, Isaiah had a reason for using this order, but that doesn't negate the fact his account creates an incorrect chronological order.) He uses King Hezekiah as a "type and shadow" for Christ. Doing so, however, requires him to omits from the historical record many of Hezekiah's "negative deeds" resulting in a misleading (if not false) biography of Hezekiah.Look at the chronological details of Christ's life provided by Matthew and Luke. They can't both be correct. (Yes, Luke had a reason for using this order, but that doesn't negate the fact his account creates an incorrect chronological order.) So yes the Bible contains a lot of useful historical information. But it's historical record isn't 100% accurate.The Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people — and like all contemporary ancient histories, there are certain details added/omitted in the oral tradition. Are the histories of Heroditus or Thucydides 100% accurate? Does that discount them as history?
Seven days of creation, talking serpents, animals lining up double-file to go into a boat, burning bushes, walking canes that turn into snakes and back again, people turning into pillars of salt, whales swallowing reluctant preachers, virgin births....
This is a typical shallow argument. No one ever questions that when Jesus teaches in parables that the stories he tells are made up. That's what a parable is. Why do people think -- make that insist - that parables weren't used in the Old Testament. What, were they invented by Jesus?I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text.
I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text. I think the Bible is very useful in studying ancient history, but I can't go so far as to say it's 100% accurate in a literal sense. Aside from the parts that are metaphorical, ancient historians had different practices than those followed by modern historians.
In addition to being a fantastic history of the ancient world, the Bible enjoys the distinction of being a sacred text to millions of people. Hebrews, Christians (Catholics and Protestants), and Muslims share the same ancient history housed in the early Old Testament. Whether the entire Bible is the infallible word of God is a matter of faith. In my very humble opinion, I believe (and I think history supports) that the Bible is the true Word of God interpreted, mis-interpreted, and confused by man, who is quite fallible. I think it is a collection of books that house the history of the Hebrews and also encompasses the story God's involvement with man, as well as man's attempt to understand and explain those things that were beyond his comprehesion -- some correctly ascribed to God and some not.
