Why is the Bible not a reliable source for historical information?

Question

Personally, I think that since it claims God is real, nothing else can be taken seriously. But what are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Well, that's a good point. It does have a moderate track record as far as the verifiable facts go, but it is simply false with respect to so much that it's really foolish to trust it as a source.

Answer 2

Well, lets take the story of Noah for example. In his story he was the young age of 600 years old and stayed on a boat that he built over 50 years and floated for 375 days with two of every animal on the planet (including either all the salt water or fresh water fish, etc as the water covering the planet would have been either fresh or salt water) plus all the food that these animals and 8 humans needed for 375 days. Do you know how much an elephant eats? Or a horse? Plus then the extra animals needed to be brought on board to feed the lions and tigers, etc. The story is not anywhere close to being possible. So hence as all the stories are so far fetched, would you really use them as any source of historical information? There is no different between the ark and the stories of Hercules, they are both mythological stories, that is all written by human beings, not gods but humans.

Answer 3

The major problem with such writings is that at the time there was no single calender. everybody used whatever they found convenient. Greeks for example counted years from the first Olympics. Lunar years. Rulers were dated from the first ruler of a city usually a character straight out of Mythology. The bible as you now know it came in to being some time in the 4th century ad. The book never existed in any form but hundreds of parchments and clay tablets spread out all over the Middle East and Egypt. Probably Babylon too. The story starts sometime in the bronze age. They had not invented writing yet so all this comes down by word of mouth they start to be written around the 4th century bc. Do you have any idea what kind of a nightmare this is to put this stuff in chronological order? You have no starting point. In between points have been lost or changed to suit later rulers and priests. It is actually a miracle that it has only the inaccuracies it does. But it's not much more accurate than the Iliad, but after all it is younger than the Iliad

Answer 4

I didn't realize it wasn't. Much that's in the Bible has been historically proven. Or at least, it's been shown that it was POSSIBLE. For example, the story of Joshua and the destruction of Jericho. Most people realize that the story of Jericho really did happen. However, they leave out the part that God had anything to do with it. Well, there are three things that are cohesive with the story that's in the Bible:
1. The inner city walls of Jericho fell OUT, not in.
2. One whole section of the inner city wall, against which was a house, was still intact. It was the only part of the wall that WAS still intact. (Could that have been Rahab's house?)
3. Whole jars of grain were left. The reason this is such a huge discovery is because in those times, grain was very valuable. It was, in fact, often used as currency. And yet, the grain wasn't touched. Why not? Could it be because the Israelites believed that God had told them NOT to touch the grain?

There are many other instances of this in the Bible. The kings mentioned did in fact live, the cities were where the Bible said they were, and many other events, which are inexplicable, did occur.

Edit: I knew I should have used sources, because I knew there would be people who wouldn't like my answer. So here are some sources:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
The story of Jericho:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/jericho.html
http://www.creationapologetics.org/news/jericho.html
http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class%20of%2051/jericho/kenyon.html

And I can get more.

Answer 5

The old testement is a rough historical document. Most of the stories had been orally handed down for generations before they ever saw a writing implement. Because they were oral stories, some facts were exagerated and some were left out. This doesn't make it any less a historical document tho. Many of the sites mentioned in the old testement have been found by modern day scientists. Many of the events from the old testement have been proven to at least be possible, to some extent.

Just because you do not use the bible as the word of your god (which I do not) does not make it any less a historical document.

Answer 6

History in the sense you're using the term is a relatively modern invention. Before there was "History" there were stories of the past which were not subjected to the kind of scrutiny we now expect of historical accounts.
The Bible is a source of information for historians and some of it is accurate just not consistently enough to be taken as History in the modern sense.
BTW If you reject everything in the Bible simply because it claims to be the Word of God then you are an idiot with no capacity for rational thought. People like you make me embarrassed to be an Atheist. The story of Job and the Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet are excellent reading for any Atheist.
Grow up!

Answer 7

In fact some of the tales in the Bible are pretty informative for something passed on word of mouth as much as it was. There are certainly instances of fabrication, missing information and mistaken chronology, all of which tells you that like any book claiming to be a history, it's only as accurate as the author's access to information and only accurate as the author wants it to be. Find a historian anywhere without a viewpoint, particulary in these times when you have to argue a novel viewpoint to get published or even get your Ph.D. Look at all the examples we have of historians writing histories of the king's family and dedicating the book to the king who paid them to write it. You wouldn't expect to find many unflattering truths, would you? i don't think there is any such thing as a complete history, even when the history given is accurate from a certain point of view. After all, I am sure if Jezebel wrote an autobiography she'd have a very different view of her life.

Answer 8

The Bible is what it truly is. it truly is a compilation of works by quite some authors chosen to be the reputable canon of the church. they are what they are. they are as valid as the different historic writings. i'm no longer a religious guy yet I have my own beliefs. i do no longer understand why everybody reveals it so had to disprove the certain writings contained in the Bible. i ask your self, do you doubt the different historic writings? Are the Hieroglyphics on historic pyramids works of fiction? Do you've faith any historic texts in Greek or Hebrew or Latin or the different language are authentic? do all of us know for a shown actuality that Julius Cesar ever existed? All we would want to tutor it truly is historic writings. Why are you so able to settle for some and push aside others? .

Answer 9

I don't think it's a reliable source of information. I think anything that was written that long ago is going to encounter skepticism about its validity. It just doesn't sit well with people to believe whole-heartedly that something in a book is true when it occurred beyond the lifetime of any living beings or their immediate predecessors.

I agree that the ridiculous stories and the assertion that a God (omnipotent, omniscient, androgynous, everywhere all the time, etc.) totally deprives it of whatever credibility it might have had re: the relay of historical information.

Answer 10

The bible was not written as a definitive source for historical information, so expecting it to be one is not realistic. There isn't a history book that is 100% accurate. In fact, there probably isn't ANY book that's 100% accurate. I have found errors in every single book on any subject I have ever read.

Also, your personal disputation of the existence of god does not affect the validity or invalidity of the bible. This is true of everyone. If everyone on the planet claims that god doesn't exist, it still does not make it so, nor would it make it so for everyone to believe that god does exist.

Answer 11

Because it was never meant to be a factual account of "what really happened." The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. In some cases, the Bible recounts actual historic events, but it is not a newspaper account describing these events in detail.

To take one example: On Easter morning, who discovered the empty tomb? Matthew 28.1 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16.1 says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke 24.10 says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women. John 20.1 says Mary Magdalene alone. Obviously, only one of these could possibly be historically accurate; it's likely none is.

I do happen to believe that the Bible is a "truth" book, in that it truthfully describes for us the relationship between God and God's creation. But to attempt to use the Bible for any other purpose is to deny your own faith in God.