How can the stories in the Bible be completely accurate?

Question

Let's take an easy one: Adam and Eve I'm not sure when the basic pencil design was created, but I'm pretty sure it was, at least, a few years after Adam and Eve died. The story of the two must have been passed down from generation to generation involving inaccuracies (not lies, necessarily) and misunsderstandings. When it was finally written, it could not have been the same story. The same can be said for many of the Old Testement stories.

I also believe that some the Gospels were written some time (i.e. 200 - 300 yrs) after Jesus died. That would also make for inaccuracy. Why do many people believe the stories actually happened exactly as written? Could they have happened, but in a different way? Could the stories be more like parables instead of actual true-to-life accounts?

**I am not trying to make people question their beliefs, I am only asking because I am interested. This question is not intentionally putting down the Bible or Christianity.

Answer 1

They need not be.

Both the Bible have many internal contradictions and parts that are puzzling (not to mention boring, ever read Numbers?). The mistake a lot of people make is elevating the holy books to the same level as the Deity. That is a form of idolatry, they are worshiping the book as an idol, as if it were a part of the Almighty.

Think of the books as histories with lessons on how to act, but don't fall into the trap of saying they are the infallible word of or part of or extension of Allah/God.

Answer 2

I will admit that Adam and Eve sound like a bed time story but given that God used actual situations as allegories through out the Bible I consider that it may have actually happened that way and was used to make a point.

Now the rest of the Bible we can actually validate with hard evidence.

"William F. Albright wrote, 'We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.' (Recent discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, 'In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)' ('Towards a More Conservative View,' 3)." (1)

"Harvard Law School applies the laws of legal evidence to the New Testament accounts. The first rule of municipal law to which he alludes is a follows:

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. "(2)

Answer 3

Problem is, if you start assuming that it's wrong, you only open yourself up to further inaccuracies. You are even further removed from the event than the author. So how are you going to find your hypothetical 'truth'? Best stick with what we know. There was a great show on the History Channel called 'Decoding Exodus'. Seems science backs the Bible up to the hilt. Yes, there was an inaccuracy. The dates were off a bit. But after correcting that, EVERYTHING about that story fell into place.

Answer 4

The first 5 books of the old testament are called the Pentateuch. They begin at Genisis and end at the book of Deuteronomy. The books were inspired, which means that God "spoke" to the persons who penned the books. These people were guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Gospels were written some 70 years after the death of Jesus. The apostles thought that Jesus was coming right back, but once they realized that He wasn't coming immediately, they decided to write down the events that had happened so it could be recorded for history. These gospels were eye witness accounts of the actual events that occurred.
Jessus spoke to the people in parables so the people could understand His teachings.

Answer 5

I'll skip over Adam & Eve for now. Let's look at your statement that you "believe that the Gospels were written some time (i.e. 200-300 yrs) after Jesus died." Where did you get that estimate?

There seem to be fragments of the Gospel of Mark that date back the the second century, so it appears that at lest this gospel would have been written within the lifetime of the apostles. Not to mention that we have the letters of early christians quoting from the gospels as early as the second century. One cannot quote from a book that has not been written yet.

And cultural details mentioned within the body of the stores in the gospels can be verified by archeology. If the gospels were written hundreds of years later, the stories mentioned therein should reflect the culture of the time that they were written, since ancient people did not have the benefit of archeology to reconstruct the customs & landscape of pervious generations.

------------------------------------
....In addition to the NT MSS themselves, we have the writings of the Church Fathers, early Christian writers who quoted from the NT. To quote extensively from books and epistles (letters) of the NT those books and letters must already have been written and be in circulation.

The number of such quotations of the Bible known from early Christian literature is vast - over 36,000 quotes are known from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (McDowell, p. 52). Sir David Dalrymple once asked himself the question, "Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the 3rd century, could it have been collected together again from the writing of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?"

His answer? "...as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses." (McDowell, pp. 50-51)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was martyred around 180 A.D. He was a student of Polycarp, the long-lived disciple of St. John himself. Extant quotes of Irenaeus' writings include quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus (10). Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter. Barnabas quoted from the N.T. around 70 A.D., Hermas 95 A.D., and Tatian 170 A.D. Clement of Alexandria, who lived 150-212 A.D., quoted from all but three books of the NT. Justin Martyr, in 133 A.D., quoted from the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and both Pauline and the other epistles. (McDowell, pp. 51-52).

"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." -Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the distinguished archaeologist, 1955 (McDowell, pp. 62-63)....

Answer 6

2. The "late" dates for the New Testament books are the dates usually assigned by the more "Liberal" theologians. There is good evidence for the "originals" being much closer to the time of Christ's earthly ministry. For example, there is considerable reasons for believing that St. Matthew's gospel may originally have been written Hebrew/Aramaic ... and then written/translated in Greek.

1. If the first generations of the O.T. were "oral" accounts, that doesn't make them less reliable. For one thing, oral wouldn't have to be from father to son to grandson to great-grandson, etc. Consider that a father might have told things directly to his great-great-great-grandson (or however many generations overlapped). And who couldn't it have been the same story by the time when it was recorded ... not all that many generations after it happened? And just WHO inspired the Scriptures that were recorded? Seems the One Who was there could inspire the accurate writing.

Answer 7

having studied the bible in college I believe that most of the stories are not real but a compulations of tales that were passed doen from generation to generation.

I totally agree with you that the Bible is a book of stories that have been passed down and altered. No one can say for certain what is true and what is not.

The places it tells of no longer exist and no know artifacts have been found to support any of the stories.

Pope Augustus decided to leave a lot out of the Bible and the bible has been in many forms until the Pope decided what he wanted in it.

Answer 8

i think people of that culture were much more accurate at transmitting information via word-of-mouth than we are today. since there was no way to write it down, they would have been much better at remembering exactly what was said. take a look at the illiterate cultures around the world that do the same thing. another thing: the Gospels were written around 70 A.D. (before or after; scholars differ). the canonization, or gathering of the gospels, took place later. if the gospels were written around ~70 A.D., then they would have been written within the lifetime of a) eyewitnesses of Jesus or b) people who spoke with eyewitnesses. hope this helps!

Answer 9

I'm going to go backwards here.The Gospels were not written after the 1rst century.Mark wrote his first,about 45 A.D. and it was what he witnessed as a young guy plus Peter's recollections(He traveled with Peter)He also mentions himself at Jesus' arrest ,the youth who ran away and his clothes were grabbed and ripped off.Matthew was next ,then Luke who traveled with Paul and wrote his around 70AD after Paul's demise.He interviewed people like a reporter(Hence Mary's version of the birth of Christ as well as HER genealogy(Which is why it doesn't match Joseph's in Matthew).John wrote his last about 90 AD.as well as I,II and III rd John and Revelation.
The early church fathers who were taught by and knew the Apostles quote them frequently and accurately and they wrote many letters at the end of the 1rst and into the early 2nd century(see writings of the early fathers,Clement etc)
One of the reasons God chose the Hebrews to keep his records is because they were SO unusual.Their record keeping was immaculate.God chose them to be the Oracles of the faith,Paul says.That's why theirs is accurate and the Babylonian version of the flood is segued,their are flood records from many civilizations including American Indian ,but the Jews got it right.Including what happened after the flood with the new civilizations.i'd have to say the Archeologists will back that up.
That friendship guy above me?....What a freaking BORE!!! Like we are gonna sit for 5 days and look up all your references...edit yourself Mr.Selfrighteouss.

Answer 10

There is a possibility that it isn't accurate, but theyr'es also the possiblity that it is. But does it hurt to believe them? The Bible is an inspired book and i believe in it. After all, nothing the Bible says to do is wrong or against the law. And it's better to follow the Bible and have a reason to live besides dying.