Why is the Bible any less a credible source than other historical books describing historical events?

Question

Many of you say you can't believe something because the Bible is innacurate or full of contradictions (very few can find any true contradictionis). Why though is it less credible than your average History text book, or the writings of Pliny the Elder. The Bible seems to be the most scrutinized of all books, yet has NEVER been proved to either false or inaccurate. What gives?

Crystal Red... I am a Christian, and have read the Bible, I'm just interested in people's opinion as to why they think it's not credible, I do believe the Bible wholeheartedly, judge not...

Again a lot of you claim "inaccuracey" yet none of you cite any examples or manage to give details...

Answer 1

It probably has to do with the idea that most Biblical stories cannot be explained by our scope of logic or science alone. It is human nature for people to be egotistical and to think that they have "advanced science/technology/knowledge" by the 21st century; when in reality, we have only discovered a small "chipping-away" of science. There are many Biblical storie about the origin of life that cannot be easily explained by science, so people would rather stay narrow-minded and think that it cannot exist, than humble themselves to realize that perhaps there is still a lot in the universe that is unexplained.

Another reason could be that many people view the Bible in more of a metaphoric sense than a literal sense. For example, I hold the belief that some of the Bible stories didn't outright occur, but have been written to symbolize the underlying moral or lesson. I believe that the stories were written symbolically so that they would be more entertaining and easier to comprehend, so that children and others could easily understand the message. After all, it is the moral that counts.

A third reason why the Bible may not be considered a "credible" historical source, is that there are many religions with many different beliefs(yet similar underlying concepts). How could a history class choose one religion's "guide" over another's? Plus, the United States went through a long movement of separating church from state, so that a specific religion's beliefs were not presented as "the facts," just in case there were people of other religious beliefs present.

Answer 2

Actually the use of the Bible as an "objective" source is what is being called into question. Almost all religious works skew information to prove that their "god" is superior to everyone else's "god." I recall a historical census that was taken prior to going to war with the canaanites. That the census takes place is not in question. That there were over 100,000 able bodied fighting men is also not in question. But the exact number of warriors differs between the two stories -- if the Bible is infallible, how could this occur? It happens because the Bible was written by men to further a cause. And it is because of that twisting of facts that causes a serious student of history to question the absolute authority of the Bible (or any other religious work.) The Bible is a great place to start for many archealogical endeavors, but to rely soley upon it (or any one book) is scientific folly.

Answer 3

In 1890 the surgeon general of the US said that smoking caused cancer. Yet to this day there is not any US accepted evidence that it is accurate. The powers that be do not want you to know. The bible HAS been proven false many times, but there are people in power that do not want you to know that and keep it from becoming a well know fact. That is why the guides at the Grand Canyon have been told they are not to tell people that the Canyon is millions of years old because the powers that be are idiots and it can not be more than 6000 years old. If they stay in power too long it will become an accepted fact since they will not let the truth out.

Answer 4

I think its claim that bats are birds quickly solves the question of whether or not it is false or inaccurate.

The bible IS a history book. It's very helpful in some respects and it's the single most important evidence for the existence of Jesus. You show your ignorance about the nature of history though by comparing it to a history textbook. Textbooks are a completely different thing. The writings of Pliny are comparable, and it's true they are considered with equal critical scrutiny.

However no historian looks at one book, ever, and just accepts its contents. History doesn't exist without verification. It's important to have different sources confirming the same story for it to be verifiable - unfortunately the bible proves itself very poor at offering cross-verifiable evidence (unlike Pliny). Even the existence of Christ (who I personally accept probably existed) is open to doubt, because the Gospels are written by people with an agenda, long after the event, and the people who wrote about Jesus in different sources got their information from people with an agenda, long after the event. Independent eyewitness evidence is non-existent.

Likewise, to use the bible as a historical text as evidence that a burning bush once talked to someone is unverifiable by evidence about burning bushes and disembodied voices. Please, believe what you like - but there's no value in claiming that the bible is a reliable historical text - it just isn't.

Answer 5

When we look at the historical writings of old, they are always read with a grain of salt. These men were still story-tellers and the idea of recording events in a numb and neutral way was just being invented. When we read Herodotus, we are seeing the world from a Greek point of view, its not the same as a writing of what happened at Tienemen Square from a journalist. Nobody accepts Herodotus as truth, nobody believes what is written there as it is written, we see it as grains of truth in a cloud of story. The same goes for the Bible, it has grains of truth, but most of it is just a good story. The problem is that this attitude bothers Christians who think its truth.

Answer 6

Er.

Other historical accounts are not accepted wholesale without verification, either.

In works far more recent than the OT, in journals of explorers of the 14th and 15th and 16th centuries, for example, there have been faithful descriptions of headless monsters and all sorts of imaginary beings. These are described as if they existed, as if they were experienced by the persons writing these journals. These are, supposedly, "eye witness" accounts.

Would you consider it intellectually honest to simply accept these accounts? if you question those accounts (of headless humans and suchlike), does this throw other, more reasonable sounding, accounts of things in those same "historical" writings into question?

One of the things that has to be taken into consideration whenever one examines "historical" accounts is what the writer has as an agenda. The others are corroborating testimony/evidence, and provability.

Answer 7

reading the bible it also states that the disbelief is also part of the truth according to the bible. The bible is accurate, current, and foretells the future of life. The truth hurts and it points out liars, so to avoid being expose people scrutinize the truth so U won't find them out. Read Your Bible. PEACE

Answer 8

nbever proved to be false or inaccurate? where do you get that idea? it has 2 creation stories, which contradict each other. clearly both cannot be true, so one must be false, and we're only 2 chapters in.

probably time you grew out of believing in magical zombies and the tooth fairy

Answer 9

The Egyptians were meticulous (nearly obsessive) record-keepers. Not one reference to Hebrew slaves has ever been found! The Egyptian documents from that era tell us Egyptians built the pyramids themselves!

Answer 10

i am all for the bible, so im not saying this is what i think, but some might think that since it was writen by men who werent historians, ppl might not find it credible.

just an idea...