Or are the historical accuracies simply evidence of the writers knowing their history?
2006-10-11 09:38:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think the historical accuracies are a combination of both historical accuracy and divine inspiration. Keep in mind though that the Bible has been revised many times and therefore could have been changed to reflect history. It is the scientific accuracies in the Koran that are the proof of who the real author was. The Koran tells us of things that were not known at the time it was written with the technology available at that time. Like how a baby is formed in the womb and at what point it actually becomes a life. Things like how clouds form and how there are rivers in the oceans of different temperatures, how the mountains act as a stabilizing force on the surface of the earth. We did not know these things when the Koran was written and since it still exists in the original form, unchanged by man we know that these mysteries had to come from Allah. The Koran can be proven by science. That is what makes me believe.
2006-10-11 10:05:27 · answer #1 · answered by brendagho 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
worry has not something to do with it. particularly it replaced into WRITTEN by making use of guy. yet how ought to historic guy arise with such somewhat some truths that they are nevertheless observed to this present day. If guy for the time of time did not locate it to be a source of perception into God then it could have been brushed off centuries upon centuries in the past. And yet Christianity is the biggest team of religions in the international. How ought to historic guy create a artwork crammed with prophesy that got here fulfilled? How ought to he create a rfile outlining his understand-how of creation it particularly is so consistent with present day thinking that it concurs with the large Bang, abiogenesis and evolution? those have been way previous his understanding and understand-how, yet all are mentioned in only the 1st financial disaster of the Bible. Are there errors and contradictions? particularly. that doesn't deny in spite of the fact that the truths that are discovered. in case you prefer to disclaim prophesy circulate stunning forward.... as quickly as you clarify how Nostradamus in the sixteenth Century got here up with the the call of the guy who might perpetrate the excellent evil of the twentieth Century as being "Hisler".
2016-10-19 05:30:48 · answer #2 · answered by janski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you accept the Bible is historically accurate, then you'll understand why the writings of Paul should be considered Holy. Paul was the one that wrote that "all scripture is God breathed" so you can further apply that knowledge to the rest of scripture.
2006-10-11 09:42:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would suppose in a collection of books as large as the Bible there are bound to be parts of it that are historically accurate just due to random chance.
2006-10-11 09:41:00 · answer #4 · answered by trouthunter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that is the case, does that mean that all those other history books I read are also published by Heaven's DoubleDay?
It is only evidence that men wrote the bible, not God.
2006-10-11 09:43:35 · answer #5 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does not prove that it is the word of God... but it does show that it is founded on historical record.
2006-10-11 09:44:00 · answer #6 · answered by zero 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the words "historically accurate" do not come to mind when I hear the bible mentioned.
2006-10-11 09:45:26 · answer #7 · answered by Jillian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So was my history text in 9th grade also written by God?
2006-10-11 09:41:59 · answer #8 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it's up to each person to decide for themselves....
2006-10-11 09:52:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
*lmao*
2006-10-11 09:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by amandla 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋