what does "biblical evidence" mean??? how can the bible on itself be evidence of historical accuracy??

Question

yes but you have to compare it to other works...on itself it has no power to grant "historical accuracy"

do you really know what an oxymoron is?

Answer 1

The archaeological evidence continually bears witness to the reliability of the Biblical record. This is merely one corroborating source.

Answer 2

When you say that "you have to compare it to other works...on itself it has no power to grant "historical accuracy"
you are partially right and partially wrong.

While it is best to compare ancient writings with other ancient writings and with archaeological evidence so that we can try to get a better picture of how a certain record may have been distorted by the author due to personal bias or misinformation there are many ancient writings that have far less support than the Bible which are taken to be our best records of past events.

The Bible, rightly so since it is a book that claims to have a divine author, is held to a higher standard than other works. But here are some comparisons for you to consider.

1. Compared to the amount of other ancient writings in existence, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting its reliability and accuracy of translation than all other classical writings combined. In particular, the New Testament manuscripts also stand apart from other ancient literature in regard to their close proximity to the time of original composition.

a. Caesar's Gallic War (written 58 to 50 B.C.)---There are only ten good copies, and the oldest was made 900 years later than the original!

b. The Roman History by Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.)---Only 35 of the 142 volumes in this history still exist, in a total of 20 manuscripts. The oldest is from the 4th century A.D.

c. The Histories of Tacitus (100 A.D.)---Of the 14 volumes, only four and a half have survived. Of the 16 volumes of his Annals, only 10 survive. These come down to us in only one manuscript each, one from the 9th century A.D. and the other from the 11th century A.D. ---700 to 900 vears after they were written!

d. The History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.)---Only eight manuscripts survive, the oldest about 900 A.D., except for a few papyrus scraps from the 1st century A.D. The complete manuscripts are from 1300 years after they were written!

e. The Plays of William Shakespeare---In every one of Shakespeare's 37 plays, there are probably a hundred passages still in dispute as to their original text, a large portion of which materially affect the meaning of the passages in which they occur. (Not so, the New Testament, written 1500 years before Shakespeare was born!)

Answer 3

--WHAT KIND of history have you discovered that it can't be found in book form and have accuracy to it?

If you possibly might be open to historians view of Bible History you might indeed learn what an amazing library the Bible IS & the accuracy it contains of true science, history, geology, biology, astronomy, zoology, etc. etc. ........

--DO YOU NOT have any knowledge that the Bible writers span some 1500 years of their own writing: From Moses to John--
--Historically it makes reference back in history to trillions of years and more--with the forming of the Universe!

--HERE IS SOME support just for the 6,000 years of human history:

The New Encyclopædia Britannica calls the Bible “probably the most influential collection of books in HUMAN HISTORY(my caps)"

*** km 1/97 p. 1 par. 4 We “Preach the Word” ***

. The English author Charles Dickens wrote concerning the Bible: “It is the best book that ever was or will be in the world, because it teaches you the best lessons by which any human creature who tries to be truthful and faithful can possibly be guided.”

*** w96 12/1 p. 17 par. 10 Youths Who Remember Their Creator ***

. The German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted: “The greater the intellectual progress of [a people], the more fully possible will it also become to employ the Bible both as the foundation and as the instrument of education.” Yes, a study of the Bible will better equip you for life than will any other education!—Proverbs

*** w92 5/15 p. 3 Is the Bible Really a Gift From God? ***

The 19th-century British statesman William E. Gladstone stated: “The Bible is stamped with a Specialty of Origin, and an immeasurable distance separates it from all competitors.” Along similar lines, the 18th-century American statesman Patrick Henry said: “The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

PS--AS FAR AS CHRIST'S REALITY please note:

*** gt The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived ***

A Historical Person

Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived—that he is, in effect, a creation of some first-century men. Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

--Don't any of your answerers who have little respect for the Bible do any reasonable thinking or reading?

Answer 4

Biblical accuracy can come in many forms. It is the only book that writes "history in advance" which I have chronicled in the study in the source below.

There is another kind of Biblical accuracy, and that is in actual historic events. It is so accurate that the Smithsonian uses it as a reference book to find archealogical sites.

The Bible said that Pilate was tetriarch of Judea. No one believed it because there were no records of Pilate in Rome. Then they found the stone in Caesarea that confirmed it.

No records of a King David. They just unearthed a stone marker dedicated to him.

The BIble spoke of a people that dwelt within the rocks. No one beleived it until they discovered Petra.

Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point. Workers repairing a sewage-pipe break uncovered the Pool of Siloam in Old Jerusalem.

Modern archaeology has made numerous discoveries which confirm events recorded in The Bible, including bricks without straw at Pithon. Lower levels had good quality straw, middle levels had less (including much which was torn up by the roots, as someone in a rush to meet a quota would be inclined to do), and the top levels had no straw at all.

Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites and that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy in Turkey and uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture.

Critics claimed that the Babylonian captivity did not take place. The Bible gives specific details about the captivity of Judah by the armies of Babylon early in the 6th century B.C. Scholars have said it’s all just another Jewish myth. However, between 1935 and 1938, important discoveries were made 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem at a site thought to be ancient Lachish. Lachish was one of the cities recorded in the Bible as being besieged by the king of Babylon at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7). Twenty-one pottery fragments inscribed in the ancient Hebrew script were unearthed in the latest pre-exilic levels of the site. Called the Lachish Ostraca, they were written during the very time of the Babylonian siege.

There are many more, but that should suffice for this question.

Answer 5

Biblical evidence is in definition what all "evidence" is: something that helps confirm what it says to be true.

The Bible references many "non-biblical" events, cities, geology, geography, etc.

There are many historical and archaeological evidence that has been found to help confirm the Bibles validity.

The problem Christians have is when you talk about anything to do with millions and billions of years old, no one was there but we are to take your "evidence" and believe. I can do the same but when mentioning the Bible or God it isn't considered evidence. I don't personally believe that you can just say the Bible is evidence in itself. It is for believers, for non believers I can show you evidence upon evidence that has just as much backing as earth is millions of years old theory, just no one will listen b/c of religious fanatics and people are scared to see the truth.

God Bless

Answer 6

Biblical evidence is generally a constant.

I have a text book from college that SAYS uneqivically that PLUTO IS A PLANET. It's written by Dr. Fred Hoyle.

DO you know what they are going to say about Science students in 1,000 years.

ONCE UPON A TIME THEY FOOLISHLY VIEWED PLUTO AS BEING A PLANET.

They're going to make fun of University Educated Fools from the 1900s.

They are going to paint a picture of HOW DUMB WE ARE.

Now, whose FAULT IS THAT, we the people or THEY the educators!

Think about that one. Your decendents will look at you like you had an amoeba brain because you once thought the Earth was Flat, the Earth was the Center of the Universe and Pluto was a planet.

WHO makes MEN look like fools. Men or the people who teach us with their books of many changes.

WE only believe what THEY tell us and if THEY tell us wrong why should WE be made to look like fools.

Scholars and scientists perpetrate myths just as well as anyone else!

Answer 7

There are many people who believe and have been taught that the Bible's stories have been borne out by archaeology and other historical records.

They're wrong, unless you count the actual existence of this city or that city. Many real cities are mentioned in the works of Homer as well, but that doesn't mean his myths actually happened.

There isn't even any proof that Jesus ever lived. All the "independent proof" that the Christians offer (the writings of various ancient scholars) are based on the supposed writings of a particular man that have long been known to be forgeries.

Answer 8

According to renowned Israeli archaeologist, Professor Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, the archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom, and at worst nothing but a myth.

Answer 9

AH! Finally, the truth comes out! There is not one tiny shred of evidence in the Bible except that Egypt, Babylon and Rome were once great empires, Israel was an ancient eastern Mediterranean kingdom, and that the Jews got their a$$ kicked every so often by greater military powers. That's it. The Bible isn't concrete evidence for squat! Not even Jesus since the Church screwed with the original manuscripts!

Answer 10

The problem is, at least SOME parts of the bible are more then likely true.

But people link those parts (ie, certain kings that may have ruled and are listed in the bible) with other parts (jesus walking on water) and say that if some of its true, all of it is.

Its childish logic, but what can ya do.