Are the stories from the bible, torah, koraan, etc considered myths or facts by scholars?

Answer 1

It all depends on the story. In general, the stories from those sacred texts are considered myth. However, more and more achaeological evidence is surfacing that backs up many of the stories, or, at least, the historical fact the myths are built around.

Answer 2

to furnish you some attitude, the history of Herodotus isn't considered a fantasy in spite of the undeniable fact that it incorporates strikes of the gods, mythical beasts, etc. the reason it somewhat is no longer is with the help of the fact such aspects are secondary to the main function of the text textile. Likewise, however the bible incorporates some fantastical products which you won't settle for, it somewhat is by and massive a historic record. evaluate the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy; there are effective few aspects that any one might describe as mythological yet particularly some training this is particularly best for historians to learn (how the classic Israelites equipped the tabernacle, their cultural practices, social roles, inhabitants, etc). evaluate the Hittites, that have been long considered a "biblical fantasy" until eventually archeological evidence shown it. Or evaluate the city of Jericho, which replaced into suggested to have been destroyed and reconstructed interior the bible long in the previous archeologists got here across it and shown the statements to be genuine. additionally, there is the question of the familiar of the historic documents. Textual diagnosis shows that the thoughts have not been a great deal corrupted via latter generations (to furnish attitude returned, textual diagnosis shows that information like the Iliad or the Vedas have been extensively compromised via latter generations), there are distinctive copies of only approximately all sections of the bible, and those sections have been all penned close to the time that the activities occurred (this is somewhat subjective, yet many times interior 3 hundred years or much less; from time to time, severely much less). upload that to the discoveries of the ineffective Sea Scrolls, and we've an extremely stable text textile, no longer basically like the Vedas (written some thousand years after the fact, few and contradicting copies, corruption via later generations, few confirmations of activities exterior the text textile, etc). in spite of the undeniable fact that, to be conscious, the Vedas are not technically mythological the two. they do no longer own the comparable historic clout as many of the bible, yet myths many times particularly consult from religious ideals that folk do no longer nonetheless have faith in.

Answer 3

Jacob Bronowski who wrote the ascent of man believes that the bible is part history, part myth.

Richard Dawkins believes that they are myth (he is a biologist)

Karen Armstrong (a former catholic nun) while I don't remember her explicitly stating that the bible was myth or not. It is implied

In my humble opinion, most scholars believe that these works can shed some light on the lives of people at the time and give clues on the history of the region, but the stories are so intertwined with myth it is hard to figure out what is fact, or what is myth.

Answer 4

It depends on the degree of religiosity of scholars. If a scholar is very religious, he will probably take such texts for gospel. If he is moderately religious, he might believe the veracity of the texts and at the same time maintain a measure of scepticism. An atheist will of course read the Books as mere myths, fabulous creation of the human mind

Answer 5

Up until about the mid 17th century, scholars uniformly supported the belief in the divine origin and inspired nature of scripture.

Since then, and right up until today, based on no new evidence, just opinion, the majority of "scholars" would likely support the opposite position.

The Bible never changed, nor did its' historical/theological underpinnings, so the reasons must exist within academia itself.

Answer 6

They are mostly considered to be creation myths. Myths that try to explain how the world came to be, by a very primitive people.

But they are considered by some, more important because they are myths. I cannot explain this great mystery.

But I would say, make no mistake, they are very important, and there is great meaning in them you can't find almost anywhere else.

Answer 7

I don't know about the others but archaeologists take the bible with then on some of their digs as kind of a map. The bible is based on fact, Maybe not word for word because it has been translated too many times.

Answer 8

The Bible (including the Old Testament/Torah) has been proven archaeologically and historically thousands of times. The Koran is just a mismashed abomination of a drunk's attempt to use change the truth in order to give himself status.

Answer 9

Some stories have historical evidence to support them and other stories are works of fiction. While many of the stories are based on fiction, the purpose of them is not to state historical fact, but to rather tell an allegory that contains a deeper meaning.

Answer 10

Having been apart of the researchers of religious texts I can tell you that no objective historian gives any credence to what are obviously fictional religious texts. While some of the locations are factual and some characters existed, their supernatural aspects are not taken seriously.
It's only the hyper-partisans who have an agenda or Axe to grind that continue to tout them as totally factual.