Why do so many people say the Bible is not at least an accurate historical document?

Question

I am talking about the King James Version,
there are many different types of Bible but the one proven to be closest to the original text is the 1611. it can be proven through historical documents and any number of historical and currant digs. why is it rejected so?

Answer 1

You know the answer to this one, because if it wasn't rejected then it would be full of lies, remember. The Bible [KJV] included assures us that many will reject the word.

Answer 2

Simply put -- because if you go to the original source materials, there are over 5,000 demonstratable translational errors in the KJV1611.

The problem is, the translators in 1611 did not have the vast knowledge of the original source documents, its language, etc... that we have now. Thus, it was the best translation -- at the time. However, I know of no serious theologian who considers the KJV1611 to be the pinnacle of translation, many preference other versions if they are not reading the documents in the original source languages (even Aramaic scholars get tired of having to translate once in a while).

There are also indications that there were intentional variations on the translation. I forget the exact psalm, but there is an indication that one of the translators encoded a tribute to William Shakespeare into one of the psalms to celebrate Shakespeare's birthday. I seem to remember it being fourty-something. (EDIT: I looked it up, it's Psalm 46, and was to celebrate Shakespeare's 46th birthday. Count down 46 words from the beginning. Count up 46 words from the end)

1611 also had no oversight commitee, no peer review of their work. Modern translatations have multiple oversight commitees and if anyone put out a modern Bible with any mistranslation or incorrect translation, thousands of scholars, secular and religious, around the world would immediately bring the mistranslations to light to demand the various oversight committees correct them.

All in all, 1611 is just a questionable source document period, no matter how you view it.

Answer 3

It can't be claimed that the 1611 is the closest to the Original texts... because there isn't ANY Original texts. Which historical events are you saying is accurate? Too many try to use this as "proof" that Jesus was resurrected.... THAT is why it is rejected. If a person writes about an actual event, but adds all kinds of other events that can not be substantiated... one can not claim the Entire event is absolutely true and has evidence because one part does.

Answer 4

The babble - oops, bible - is riddled with historical inaccuracies of the lands of Palestine. It was written by a bunch of crotchety old men in Rome who had never visited Palestine. Mentioning the names of a few real places does not make a fictional book true, any more than mentioning the names of other cities makes Batman comics or Harry Potter true. Even Homer's "Odyssey" has more historical accuracy than the bile - oops, bible.

The biggest errors in the christian fable involve its central character:

1) Of more than 40 writers whose work has survived 2000 years (eg. Pliny the Elder), NONE make any mention of the mythical "jeebus". Nary a one, and since "jeebus" was supposedly a shift disturber (or words to that effect), it's odd that the Romans made no mention of such a being. The Soviet concept of "nonperson" wasn't around then, and the Romans were meticulous record keepers.

2) Nazareth has been proven to be less than 1800 years old. It existed at the time the perfidious old men in Rome wrote the fable, but NOT at the time the fable is alleged to have happened. Claiming that "jeebus" lived in Nazareth 2000 years ago is like claiming "moses" used an electric jackhammer to inscribe the ten condoms - oops, commandments.

The buybull - oops, bible - as a history book?

That's like using a rocking horse to pull a cart.


.

Answer 5

The Bible cannot be used as a historical document because the majority does not match up to anything else.

Also, the fact that you're toting the KJV as the "closest to original" version just shows how uneducated on the subject you are. The King James version contains numerous translation errors and includes no foot notes for explanations on mis-interpretable translations.

Answer 6

The Bible changed into once written over thousands of years - 66 books and about 40 authors who ALL tell the same tale. Missler has likened the word to a hologram - a three-d photo which, compared to a photo, once you shrink a slice out of it, you received't lose the photo (besides the actual incontrovertible fact that you would possibly want to lose some sharpness). that's pondering that's an coated message from God. it is also a message containing about 28% prophecy, that's almost a million out of each and every 3 verses being lengthy time period-prophetical. purely a God who exists exterior of time can attempt this with 100% accuracy.

Answer 7

There are some verifiable historical facts in the Bible. There are also some in "Gone with the Wind." By your logic that makes GWTW a historical document.

Both books are essentially fiction, and the inclusion of a few historically accurate facts doesn't change that.

Answer 8

Perhaps because it is a translation into Old English... When it says in Matthew 5:14 "Ye are the light of the world." are we supposed to believe that ancient jews spoke that way? Or should we come away with the thought that mankind is a wonderful, shining, and uplifting people?

Further, which gospel's version of the rolling away of the stone from the tomb is accurate? (read them - they all differ...)

Many people have decided that the Bible is an inspirational book with great symbolism, and not necessarily a history book...

Answer 9

Because many of its claims cannot be corroborated with archaeological evidence. there is for example not proof at all (other that the holy Scriptures themselves) that all the slaves in Egypt were suddenly and completely liberated and they all left as described in Exodus.

The point of the Bible is not to be a historical document or a science book. The Bible is the word of God, it teaches us how to live.

Answer 10

I think the reason it's rejected is because many people find that particular version a bit harder to understand. I don't think historical reason are the big issue for this particular text. Many, many Christians will ignore history and science altogether if they don't want to believe it.

Answer 11

Many reasons
A. Camels are mentioned as domesticated before they really were
B. No mention of pyramids
C. No evidence of 400 years of slavery of Jews in Egypt.
D. No evidence that any humans lived to be 900 years old.
E. Some cities are described as inhabited or destroyed long before or after they really were.
F. 1 Chronicles "According to this verse David's army had 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah, Of course, this numbers is ridiculously high for a battle between two tribal armies in 1000 BCE. (The United States had about 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.) 21:5 David provides Solomon with a fantastically large amount of gold and silver with which to build the temple: 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver. Since a talent was about 60 pounds, this would be about 3,000 tons of gold and 30,000 tons of silver. 22:14"
etc...