How reliable is the bible as a historical source?

Question

Can the bible be used as credible source?

Answer 1

As a professional historian and an educator I would suggest you refrain from quoting the bible as a historical source, its validity is very much in question. Remember much of it was written and put together 300 years after the death of Christ and the pieces that were included were picked by men.

Answer 2

Many of the stories are believed to be apocryphal, but more and more archelogists are finding evidence for some truth to the stories. For example, there is some evidence of a huge flood in the area of Iraq, when the Mediterranean Sea broke through a slim section of land, creating the (I believe) Caspian Sea. Any person in the way of that flood would have seen it as a worldwide deluge, since their experience with the size of the world was fairly limited. Also, I saw a recent documentary dealing with the Exodus, and the host/documentarian argued that the generally accepted date was wrong--that it could have happened just after the eruption of the volcano at Santarini. This would have caused all kinds of disruptions in the Nile delta, such as plagues of locusts, and lava which spewed into the area, some of which reached high into the atmosphere, froze, and came back down as a mixture of fire and ice (remember that plague?). There was a logical explanation of all the plagues, if put into that context, even the death of the first-borns. A lake in Africa recently had a landslide, which caused gases in the bottom to surface. One of the gases was carbon monoxide. It killed people who lived in lowlands near the lake, but dissipated quickly and did not harm the people in higher areas. An unusual custom of the ancient Egyptians was that the family slept on the roof of the house during warm weather, but because of his rank, the oldest son was permitted to sleep on the first floor of the house. It's possible that the earthquakes resulting from the eruption caused the same effect around the Nile, killing the firstborns on the first floor, but not harming the rest of the families sleeping upstairs.

Also, if you look at some of the original manuscripts of the Bible, there is a very important mistranslation. It does NOT say Moses parted the RED Sea--he parted the Sea of Reeds. This is a marshy area, which can be located, and which was in fact known as having to do with Moses. The water from these areas could have been affected by the eruption, much like a recent event in Turkey. There, after an eruption, the water pulled back temporarily, then after a brief period, rushed back with a wall of water about 15 feet high, much like the biblical account. So just because the events sound incredible doesn't neceessarily mean they can't be explained.

Answer 3

Yes, the Bible is a credible historical source. Archaeologist have continually confrimed that the history of the Bible is correct. They have found many of the cities mentioned. They have confirmed many of the customs and traditions mentioned in the scriptures.

Odd things like Jacob's wives fighting over a mandrake plant because they though it would make them more fertile and able to have a child. We now know that was a common belief in that time period. It is listed in the Samarian Tablets, written just a couple hundred miles form where Jacob lived during his grandfather's (Abraham's) life time.

It includes accurate records of the kings of not only Judah and Israel, but several nations around them. It records wars and treaties between such people as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and others that history confirms.

To date, no archaeologist has been able to disproof any portion of the scriptures. There are still people and events in the Bible for which proof is limited. (But then, until a copy of Julius Caesar's autobiography was uncovered in the 10th century, no one knew that he had fought and won the Galilic Wars and how that brought him to the throne of Rome. For over a thousand years scholars argued about how and why he came to power.) But nothing has been disproven.

Answer 4

It is unreliable on matters such as the Creation, the Flood etc which in the biblical context are myths, just like the myths of many other primitive peoples. It is likely that early stories such as those of Abraham and of Moses are also myths. There is no evidence within the Egyptian record, for example, of the plagues of Egypt, or of the overwheming of Pharaoh and his army by the Red Sea. It seems inconceivable that such events would not have been recorded elsewhere. It is reliable in respect of the later history of the Jewish people, provided you don't accept everything at face value - like Elijah being taken up into heaven in a flaming chariot. You need to read the Bible as history as critically as you read other ancient texts - we now know, for example, that there was such a city as Troy, and that it was destroyed several times over. That doesn't mean we accept as historical truth the story of the wooden horse. The Bible is no different.

Answer 5

Archaeology is finding more and more evidence that the Bible is very, very, accurate in its historical records. Whatever you think of its message, the stories and details it relates are accurate.
The New Testament, in particular, was picked on for 'inaccuracies'. As more and more stuff is uncovered, what is recorded turns out to be true. Two I can think of (it's early morning + I just checked this site before bed!) are the references to two 'Mayors' ("Diarchs", I think was the term) in a town St Paul visited and his being accused of breaking the Law by bringing Timothy - a "Greek" - into an area of the Temple he was not allowed in as a non-Jew.
Excavations in the town showed they did, in fact, have two "Mayors" - but the only record for centuries was in the NT.
Excavations in Jerusalem on the site of the Temple only uncovered stone signs in the last few decades which actually threatened death to non-Jews passing beyond the point where the signs were placed! They were in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, so you had no excuse to say you didn't know what you were doing!
Old Testament stuff is harder to prove definitely - but it, too, tends to support the record in the Bible, even if the Bible looks at it from what you might consider a biased way. There is evidence many non-Egyptians rose to positions of power in Egypt in the years around the time Joseph and his family would have been there. Not long after, the "Hyskos" Kingdom was created, by conquest. They would have been the Pharaohs "Who did not know Joseph" and who tried to limit the power of a large sub-section of society (read, "Hispanic-American" or "Black American"!). Shortly after this, records in the kingdoms of what we know call the Middle East included references to the incursions of the "Abiru"/"H'Abiru", from the Sinai area - where the Jews wandered before entering the Holy Land.
Whatever you think of the moral/spiritual teachings in the Bible, it is becoming more and more clear that the social, political and cultural references are/were correct at the times they were recorded.

Answer 6

The Bible is a very reliable source of the history of the Hebrew people. You'd be hard pressed indeed to find another source with as much manuscript evidence for its accuracy and historicity.

Answer 7

The Bible does depict real people. There is evidence for these people's existence outside of the Bible. However, many details found in the Bible could have been altered after the many books where written for the needs of the Church. It should not be taken literally.

Answer 8

The Bible is not at all reliable. Between creation and Solomon´s death everything is phantasy. And then there are many contradictions and many things that show by themselves that they are nonsense. For example: The Roman soldiers who served as guards at Jesus´s tomb told that they were at sleep instead of obeying orders and while they were sleeping, the followers of Jesus came and stole the corps. Even at that time sleeping persons did not make any observations. This is only one of many examples.

Answer 9

It is only the wrriten word of God that has been the most popular book in the last 2000 years.

Answer 10

Some of the parts of bibile are pretty accurate, others are amalgams of several events and people, while others are pure fantasies