Can the bible be a basis for accurate historical events?

Question

i have nothing against the bible, in fact i read it alot because it brings inspiration and hope, but if you approach it in a more objective way, is it really accurate-perse? the bible was made from a compilation of many authors during the time of Constantine. Im not privy to the details, but if your interested, its was featured in Discovery Channel, where they talked about the origins of the bible.

Answer 1

Absolutely Not.

The bible is not in any way accurate historical events.

The bible is allegory (teaches spiritual truths via parables)

Jesus also taught by parables.

Answer 2

The Bible is an account of a small segment of mankind and as such, it has limited references to historical events beyond that experienced by its people. The major events that are described in the Bible (nations, etc.) line up pretty well with archeological findings and recorded secular history going back about 3500 years. Before that, it is a toss-up, even for secular (non-Biblical) history. Was Rome a major power two thousand years ago? I don't know anyone who says otherwise. The answer to your question is that yes, the Bible contains _some_ historical references. But there are no original records from the time. Virtually everything is in the form of copies unless it is inscribed in stone and then, there are no details. That alone means that we have no real means to determine if the historical information (either Biblical or secular) is entirely accurate. All that said, much of the Bible is not written in prose, but poetry (much of the Old Testament). Significant parts are symbolic, rather than literal (Revelation, for instance). That means that there is a lot of interpretation that needs to take into account artistic license that was used in writing the original material (if it wasn't passed down via oral tradition). One needs to accept the Bible on its own terms, not ours. It doesn't claim to be a singular work and, in fact, is not. It is an ancient record and needs to be treated as such. That means, judging its contents against the time and conditions under which its various parts were written. Also, one needs to take into account their purpose. None of the four Gospels were written with the same goal in mind, although all four of them tell of the ministry of Jesus. The letters (epistles) were written to correct problems that existed in the various churches and is not a complete handbook of instructions with regard to the operation of the church. And with the death of the Apostles, much of the knowledge of how things needed to be run and probably many of the teachings were lost to antiquity. So is the Bible historical? Only as far as it goes and within the scope of its text.

Answer 3

Your should read the actual New Testament. You are correct about Constantine and the compilation of the Bible. Read The Gospel of the Nazirenes restored with historical documentation by Alan Wauters and Rick Van Wyhe. This is the original New testament which was kept hidden in a Buddhist Monetary by the Ancient Essenes because they had to go into hiding being they where being killed by the government and others. go to gospelofthenazirenes for complete details. This was the Book before Constantine changed it.

Answer 4

Numerous archeological evidence has been uncovered that points to the validity of the Bible. Here are a few...

1. Just south of Baghdad the base of the Tower of Babel was
discovered.
2. It is recorded in the Bible that Egypt went through 7 years
of good and seven years of famine. Egyptian records
were uncovered as well confirming that.
3. On the shores of the Red Sea, at Wadi Sidri on the west side of the Sinai is a huge inscription written in a curious combination of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Hebrew letters. This inscription which covers a wall of stone about 100 feet high, was already considered ancient by historian Diodorus Siculus in 10BC. It relates the story of the miraculous crossing by the Israelites over a divided sea, followed by the mighty army of pharaoh submerged in the sea as the waters returned. The story is identical to the biblical account from Exodus 14:21-28.

4. Even evidence is pointing to the New Testament. An ossuary of Matthias, dating to 40AD (less than 10 years after Christ) contains the inscription "Jesus is Jehovah (God)."

References to many people once regarded as myths by archeologists--such as Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the high priest, and others--have since been discovered in archeological inscriptions.

Answer 5

Most things in the bible are believed to be Accurate and some things have archeological basis and basis. But archeological proof is not always known. Forbidden archeology is a prime example.
But the bible does have it quirks and mistranslations and misinterprations. The gospels dont agree with all circumstances and mythology is alleged to have mingled in with the story of the nativity.
However it was TAUGHT with much agreament that scriptures are good for teachings in righteousness and do build up faith. So the bible and other works of scriptures are good for those that believe unto perfecting the saints that seek out learning how to be righteous.
then again! i think it was Paul that said: we were once under ther school master but now are free. i think he meant to say that the scriptures are basic lessons only, and those that grow up in the Lord growup to maturity beyond the scriptures where walking in faith and in the spirit are a greater exaltation

Answer 6

I have many questions for the writers of the bible, myself. But since they are all dead, I figure that the bible will remain as a book of confusion. If you take the entire bible as a literally accurate piece of work, you are saying that Jonah lasted 3 days inside of a BIG FISH, you are saying that Noah infact built a huge ark all by himself, and etc. You can not pick and choose parts of the bible. But if you have open mind, then you can decipher that the bible is a wonderful piece of literature, contributed to by many men of various backgrounds. Some of it is poetry, songs, news, exaggeration and etc. Now choose?

Answer 7

yes and no.

Yes many of the people and events are true.
No many of the the books are missing from things like the king James version. As well the oldest bible in the world - at St.Catherin's monastery in Egypt by mount Sinai - shows how many times modern bibles have differed from their ancient roots. Not to mention that the bible was not complied until several hundred years after Christ and under the supervision of Romans who used Christan's and adapted the book as they wished.
Peace

Answer 8

Sorry.

No archaeological evidence for Jews spending 40 years wandering in the wilderness area they are alleged to have wandered in.

No archaeological evidence of a global flood.

No Egyptian chariots recovered from the Red Sea.

No other civilization recorded the sun stood still in the sky.

The census did not take place during Herod's reign.

etc..... etc....

Answer 9

actually the bible is very accurate. search for any archeology that proves the bible wrong and you will find none. contrary to what you may have heard the books of the bible were written and read by Christians long before Constantine. study people such as Justin martyr, clement of Rome, ireaneus, and papias. you will learn what many aren't telling you about the truth.


believe

Answer 10

No...re-research your study on the Bible..ok?
Don't believe what a TV channel say's.
The Bible WAS NOT written during the reign of Constantine.

Answer 11

It would depend on which particular book of the Bible you are reading and its context. Yes, many parts of the Bible are historical. In fact, the historical context of each book is reflected in the story. Other sections, however, are more symbolic and metaphorical.