Is the bible historically reliable?

Discussion in 'History' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 19, 2014.

  1. Ilikeponies579 Registered Member

    Just what the title says.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Is 7 up?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    in part, yes
  8. Jägermeister Registered Member

    Some of it is pure fiction, some of it is fiction based on real events and people. It is not historically reliable.
  9. madethesame Banned Banned

    the exact dates are not reliable. bible gives historic ideas. to confirm history in bible one must study vedas, upanishds.
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    The Bible is historically accurate enough to convince anyone who thinks it's a historical narrative that they are seriously mistaken. For example it attributes the construction of Nineveh to Ashurbanipal. So this should lead the fundamentalist to the ruins of the Library of Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, where thousands of clay tablets were recovered. There she will be surprised to learn that an older flood myth was found from which the version involving Noah was adapted.

    Equally important are the historical errors in the Bible. For example, the curious fundamentalist would be shocked to discover evidence that the prophesies of Daniel were written long after the facts recorded, so much later that some of the history has been forgotten and becomes muddled. For example the fable confuses Darius and Cyrus and can't correctly recall the order of succession of monarchs of that era.

    Another important consequence of the above is that it leads to evidence that much of the Bible is much younger than it purports to be, and that a lot of myths, legends and fables believed by fundamentalists to be the oldest events in human history, were actually invented when the Jews were POWs held in captivity in Babylon, only about 300 years before Alexander conquered Palestine, leading to abandonment of Hebrew and the closing of the canon.

    That makes the Apocryphal books removed by Protestants also historically valuable. They account for the evolution of Judaism as it adopted proto Christian beliefs due to the syncretism of mashing cultures as a consequence of Greek troop movements, and Hellenism. During the Apocryphal era angelology, demonology, Heaven and Hell, and messianic beliefs were incorporated, as were the legends of Socrates and Mithra, which predict the legend of Jesus to some degree.

    The third historical era of great legend-spinning is the Judeo Roman war of ca 67-70 CE which is the background for the creation of the sadistically abused demigod who was executed in a manner reserved for escaped slaves and rebels - the hideous public display of executed outlaws, along the main roads, to deter other potential resistors of Roman domination.

    In sum, I would give three great eras of evolution of the Bible, in roughly 300 year chunks: 600-300 BCE, from the Baylonian exile to the beginning of Hellenization, 300 BCE-70 CE, the era of the Apochrypha, and 70 CE until Jerome, ca 370 CE, embarked on creating the modern Christian Bible. During this last period the New Testament was written

    Finally, the single most important historical fact in the NT is the mention of the earthquake which destroyed the Temple sanctuary when the Jesus character dies. In fact the Romans demolished the Temple as they moved to crush Jewish insurrection. It is the complete loss of collective memory of the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, and mass starvations by attrition, which is so shocking. Instead the collective memory goes into some bizarre form of PTSD and comforts itself with the insane and ghastly legend of Jesus.

    A ton of history is there, and it all contradicts the imagined history of anyone who would attempt to show that the Bible is true and correct in its literal interpretation. I think that's the most important thing to take away from this question of history vs. the Bible.
  11. madethesame Banned Banned

    the thing is can write another bible too, but it wont solve the problem. whosoever yeshu was does not matter, black or white, no difference. teachings are important, that's why we read bible.
    religion and history together are dangerous.
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    It was written over centuries in smaller tracts. The Catholic saint Jerome is probably mostly responsible for deciding which ones to leave in and which to exclude. Obviously he was not interested in incorporating the Gnostic gospels, or scriptures from afar like Jubilees. That fact seems lost today to modern fundamentalists and primitivists.
    I believe the only name ever recorded until translations were done was Iesous (transcribing the Greek). There seems to be no interest by NT authors in preserving a Hebrew or Aramaic name.

    But there is no reason to believe his race is in question, since the legend clearly portrays him as a Semite.

    There are different interpretations of every teaching depending on whether or not you accept the fact that portions of each text are built from myth, legend and fable. It also matters which documents you believe are canonical. That issue alone can completely define a religion.

    Only to a system closed to the truth of the alleged facts. Other systems include the religious colleges and seminaries dedicated to promulgating the facts if history, as best evidence reveals. The fear of academia is mostly a 19th-20th c phenomenon, having a comeback since about the Reagan administration.
  13. madethesame Banned Banned

    the cultures are interconnected and it will take lots of effort to find history in bible.
    bible can also be adultrated .

Share This Page