How can the Bible be historical if it is fiction? The word, "historical", implies factualness, So how can it..

Question

Be both "historical' and fictional?

The Ha'Debar Elohim (the Bible) is geographically accurate, chronologically accurate, and is, if the supernatural aspects are excluded, historically accurate...

Archaeologists use the "Bible" as a means to find sites to dig.

There are many things in the "Bible" that are highly accurate and that modern science is just now finding out...

People used to say King David was a mythological figure until they found overwhelming evidence of his existence...It is the same for many people in the "Bible"...so please refer to the original question...

This is a response to Humbert Humbert's question about the bible being the greatest piece of historical fiction ever written....

Answer 1

The bible is a wealth of historical information that has been backed up by other sources both religious and non-religious. While one would be hard pressed to say every word or every story told in the bible is true. The fact is Jesus used parables as a way to convey a meaning to his disciples and others. While the story was not true it had a significant meaning in it. I know this is somewhat not exactly what your asking, I just thought I should point that out. Many will argue the idea that the bible is face due to the various descriptions listed in it regarding the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. Well my professor who I took Roman history under (4 class all together) Used this exact issue to show and prove 2 points. This man is considered an expert on Ancient History and even more so on Roman history. So this was not some 3rd rate professor at some little college. We read each account and were looking for the Roman Legal System in the accounts. So we read them and wrote our papers noting the differences in each account. He then explained why, it is like having 4 people from various backgrounds witnessing the same event. Each one would consider some facts or events more important than others would. If each of the accounts of Jesus' death were almost identical, well then you would know something’s wrong. It is the differences in the accounts and the way each saw it happen that add to the credibility of the accounts. Yes we are finding more and more proof that the things the bible claims to have happened and the people who it claims to have lived did in fact exist. This is becoming much more difficult now. Many of the areas of great interest are located in Muslim nations. They do not and will not allow anything to go on in the looking for and retrieval of biblical artifacts. The more we find and the stronger we show the bible holds facts the less credible they feel their religion becomes. So not only to we have time working against us but also governments like Egypt, Palestine, and other Islamic nations. When they do find any biblical artifact they tend to destroy it, or dispose of it. So yes we are seeing more and more truth to the bible thanks to science, archeology, and my area, history. The thing is can we get to the important finds before the ones who will destroy them forever? I hope so! Sorry this is so long but I thought it would show you why and how what you said were right. =)

Answer 2

It is because it is Not a Bible teaching. All three beings are individual entities. You have the Almighty God, Jehovah, his Son Jesus Christ, and his active force or his power, the holy spirit. That belief has caused confusion all accross the world. A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. There are Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, such as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14. However, neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God

Answer 3

I noticed that the more evidence they found on David, the more the secular historians wanted to alter his influence on the world around him as being different from that in the Bible. So once they found they could no longer deny David's existence, the attempt to alter the Bible's rendition n him.

Some people will never want to accept the Bible- even if shows them the truth.

Answer 4

logical fallacy time!
"historical" implies that some fact was used to create fiction.

for example, there is a book that is considered historical fiction called "A Wolf by the Ears" It is a story told from the perspective of a bi-racial daughter of Thomas Jefferson. The character was a composite of people that were proven to exist. However, the exact events that happened to her and the exact things said were mostly suppositin and extrapolations from facts about the time period.

this expalins how the bible has some factual elements to it, such as descriptions of geographic locations and names of historical figures. However, the exact actions of these people and the events that occurred in these places are not empirically supported. There is no way to know that these things are fact.

Answer 5

to be fair, it is one thing to verify that a denarus was a real coin, or that a king actually lived---but did David actually kill his "thousands and ten thousands?" did a donkey talk? Did Moses bring a plague of frogs on the Egyptians just because we know that there was an Egypt and they had Pharohs and frogs? Did Moses see a burning bush just because we know that bushes existed there? Did Soloman have hundreds of wives? and if so, how did he keep them all happy? We know that the dimensions of the Ark in the Bible made it extremely stable and seaworthy---does that prove that he lived to be 900+ years old?

Answer 6

What ever gave you the idea that calling something "historical" gives it any kind of credibility? I prefer that word to "factualness", a word which doesn't exist.

Every historian writes from his own point of view and edits content to support that view; that is fact. But even if some facts in the bible are true, which I concede, most of it amounts to no more than myth and as literature does not even compare to The Iliad and The Odyssey; also part history, part myth.

Answer 7

eh hmmm Historical fiction is a sub-genre of fiction that often portrays alternate accounts or dramatization of historical figures or events. Stories in this genre, while fictional, make an honest attempt at capturing the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the person or time they represent with attention paid to detail and fidelity. Historic fiction is found in books, art, television, movies, games, theater, and other media. One good example of historical fiction A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

Answer 8

I don't think it being geographically or chronologically accurate is unreasonable--it was written by people of that time. But you answered your own question when you said, "if the supernatural aspects are excluded.."

So it is historical because of the time it was written, but it is not historically accurate.

Answer 9

Wouldn't the Illiad, or greek mythology be historical fiction? There is definately some history but it is also fiction.

I think it may be stretching it just a little to say that King David was proved. One piece of pottery that had house of David on it hardly constitutes proof.

As for the rest being historically accurate I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. Once you get into the prophets it does seem to have more historical validity as far as the people actually having lived ( I won't comment here on their prophecies) . The genesis, exodus and Noah's flood off the top of my head come to mind as items that have no historical accuracy.

I am sure that many of the stories of the OT (or whatever title you use for it) do have a kernel of truth to them but they have been made into bigger myths for many reasons. Some to prove that "our god" is more powerful than "your god", some to refute other creation stories. For example the flood story originates with the epic of Gilgamesh, the genesis account specifically refutes the teachings of the Enuma Elish. Babylonian mythology as well as Egyptian and Zoroastrian had very heavy influences on the original Jewish mythology.

One of the stories (slips my mind which one at the moment) speaks of the philistines and domesticated camels 500 years before there were philistines or domesticated camels.

I think if more people did cross cultural studies they would see more clearly that religion has been evolving and borrowing from earlier religions for millienia.

Answer 10

I would really love to see some of these sites that are claimed. It is surprising how little of the bible is anywhere near correct. The only part that comes close is Ezra, and even Ezra lied about what happened with the Babylonians.
Most of the places the bible claimed to be great cities did not even exist when the bible says they did.