History books and the Bible are BOTH translated from Ancient manuscripts. The Bible is just critized because it has the super natural attached.
Historical events cannot be scientifically proven. They are not recreatable nor repeatable.
Sorry I know this is not a question but lets think a little about this people. I know a Christian thinking for herself, hard to believe.
2006-10-16 18:01:35 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
History books are mankind's history. The Bible is God's letter to mankind telling us why we're alive, our purpose for living, and what to expect in the age to come.
2006-10-16 18:04:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
What's with history books today? History books are definitely NOT 'translated from ancient manuscripts'! They're modern interpretations of well-documented historical facts. The bible is a number of assertions and predictions that nobody can even trace back to an objectively reliable source. You'll say God is that source. But God's got a problem. Not everyone takes him to be reliable.
Besides, when a historian makes a speculation, IF he's honest (which is not always the case) he'll admit it's a speculation, as opposed to actual proven facts.
2006-10-16 18:16:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thinking for yourself is a good thing. Thinking outside the box is even better. Do you consider archaeology a science? Most do. I would like to put forward to you the fact that much of history has been confirmed. We have evidence as to what has happened in the past and are able to deduce events using reason. The bible on the other hand has only a few confirmed events in it. I would expect the writers to get some things right, however, most of it is either out right false or completely unprovable. As to the supernatural stuff, that's just plain old imbellishment. If you were a nomadic tribe of sheep herders wouldn't you want to write your history to make you out to be the chosen among all the nations of the world? Of course. If you were a new group of people with a radical new religion wouldn't you write the story in a sensationalized way? You would. You would make up miracles even greater than the old religions stories. You would make your new leader god himself. Hard to trump that. It is biased and skewed journalism at it's finest.
The difference in history books and the bible is that history can be confirmed and requires only common sense. The bible requires insane beliefs and blind faith.
2006-10-16 18:22:57 · answer #3 · answered by Medusa 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well the history books I was familiar with...that covered the history of my country and stuff...were not based on "ancient manuscripts." The country isn't old enough to have ancient manuscripts.
The difference is, history books deal with the more recent past, things that are still talked about and known of and have more documents and remnants of it. The bible deals more with magic and belief that it actually happened more then anything else.
2006-10-16 18:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by Indigo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
By your belief the Iliad and Odyssey are 'historical' documents of the fall of Troy to Rome. They just have the supernatural Gods Zeus, Hera, etc in them. They are about an accurate historical document as the bible, but that does not mean that the Gods of the Romans were real.
2006-10-16 18:21:13 · answer #5 · answered by zatcsu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes...but historical event are well within reason..The bible is not...History is written by the winners, such as wars and all the facts...written history is mostly one sided depending on what part you read first, and whatever culture wrote a better story is going to get more acclaim...sometimes what you read first seems more believable, because you don't know any different yet
2006-10-16 18:04:59 · answer #6 · answered by nicole 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Um... history books can be proven. We have things called artifacts. When real things happen, they leave traces. Bones, bits of pottery and clothing, even footprints. There is some speculation involved, but it is based on real things people found and not maybe real, may not real people two thousand years ago who might have said they maybe saw a miracle once.
2006-10-16 18:09:45 · answer #7 · answered by Girl Wonder 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So your conclusion is that if you believe history, you have to believe the bible? My conclusion is that you should be suspicious of both.
2006-10-16 18:09:18 · answer #8 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, history books tend to make sense, whereas the bible tends to make no sense.
2006-10-16 18:05:33 · answer #9 · answered by tomleah_06 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Good opinion. I never even thought of it that way.
2006-10-16 18:04:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋