how much of the bible would be left if?

Question

you removed everything that was not backed up by historical evidence from archeology or other confirmed ancient texts?

oh and please provide your sources so that i can check what you say.

i see a lot of answers saying that it would all be intact, but no references to support that statement.

absolutely, as evidence is found back in it goes.

scientific theories are the accumulated informatin gained by hypothesizing, testing retesting and if that test fails the theory is revised.

this, unfortunately is not the case in religion.

Answer 1

Very little is actually true - like any good novel it is make belief.

Answer 2

I really do understand where you are coming from. Roman record keepers have records that document many things including The death of Jesus Christ. But how do you authinticate those documents? that is the next agrument. Right? I have fought both sides of this. So I know when you have decided there is no God, No Jesus, and Christians are selfish, bigots, who want to control your life. Your not really looking for proof that the bible is true. You just want to argue. At least that was the way I was. There is alot of Logical evidance to suggest that there is A God. Then if you Logically go thru each Claim of each religion, Not its followers but its core teachings. you find that the Christian God is the most Logical choice. It is a belief system founded on Faith. However once you seek with an OPEN mind and Heart. God will show you he is there and ready to Accept you. Believe it or not.

Answer 3

The entire thing is ancient texts. Historical evidence supports much or all of the historical books. The Gospels would be considers as support for one another, from a historic perspective, the reason this is only commonly believed is that they are together as one, and often "mystic" in nature.

Good?

I use the Bible itself, an Oxford Bible commentary, and experience with such questions...

Answer 4

The idea that we can find sufficient historical evidence to prove without a shadow of doubt that Cicero wrote his de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum on Ethics, that Pliny's account of his times is an accurate testimony, that Mary Queen of Scots incarceration was not part of a plot by Catholic hierarchy to dethrone a Protestant Queen, that Tony Blair colluded with the US to manufacture a case for war in Iraq, in view of the fact that incriminating documents never see the light of day, that the legends surrounding Aristotle written down by writers who were themselves dubious in character can be trusted as historical evidence?
Historical evidence is a delusion because the only way to be absolutely precise about anything, even as close as the 1900's, is to call up the dead and interview everyone involved in the 'story'. Even then, people will lie or exaggerate a little, or modify, titivate, elaborate and generally give a very subjective account of the 'story'. Not even journalists are entirely objective, always slipping into their narrative a personal political slant

All this hype about evidence is really tomfoolery, tweed jacketed raconteurs ventilating their a priori belief in the non-existence of God by presenting a narrative of fragments of history strung together and packaged as critical analysis. Often their case hangs on assumptions about the past that no man is in a position to attest or prove as an unreliable primary source of knowledge.Its all flim flam theory driven by zealots anxious to wipe out the idea of God. The idea of a higher authority is repugnant to humanism because it pushes man off the throne. An activity that has been going on for thousands of years while an exponential growth in births continue.

To know God, you have to be born again. Atheism based on flannel and woffle adds nothing to knowledge. Knowledge is gained by repentance. You are fooled if you think you can simply think you way into knowing the truth.

Answer 5

The understanding of the revealed Word of God means that it is not dependent upon historical evidence from archeology or other confirmed texts. If it were, it would not be revealed. It would only be what someone had found and made it into a bible.

Answer 6

Well, I know that Jesus was referred to in some extrabiblical documents, so anything connected to Him would stay. He wasn't noted everywhere simply bc He never traveled very far and so not many ppl heard about Him until the disciples started speaking about Him. In addition, there are some prophecies that were fulfilled, one in Daniel talked about Alexander the Great. It was a symbolic one, and so you'd have to think about it and do some research. Then there's prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled yet, referring to the End Times.

Anyway, what you're doing is placing man's interpretations of the past in archaeology and other texts in higher authority than the Bible. What makes some historian's document more reliable than the Bible? Is your sole reason that the Bible mentions God? That isn't good enough. In any case, if the Bible is inspired by God, you should be taking its word over other documents, since God doesn't make mistakes.

This whole question is about authority, who do you trust over others. God, or men?

Answer 7

Check out the new Jeffrey Archer book: "The Gospel According to Judas: By Benjamin Iscariot"

It's all the new testament, without the parts which can't be proved by other historical texts or archaeology.

http://www.jeffreyarcher.co.uk/gospel.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-According-Judas-Benjamin-Iscariot/dp/0230529011/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-4482116-8066000?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184277383&sr=8-1

Answer 8

i dont think i'd take anything out, just like, for example, i wouldnt take the whale and the blue fairy godmother out of pinocchio. i dont expect a book of stories full of allegories and myths, written by people with a political agenda to have to be based on fact.
so ... the only thing i'd take out is the bit that it's all truth given by god... wich is something i never considered truth to begin with.

Answer 9

and what if some historical evidences where found later would you put stuff back into the bible.?

Answer 10

A better way to ask this is --- How much would be left if you took out the opinions of the New Testament authors ?

Answer 11

i no theres been scientific evidence there was a great flood along time ago, so that matches up with the noahs ark adventure,