is the bible historically accurate?

Question

your opinion

Answer 1

The Bible and History

21 After Darwin's publication of his theory of evolution, the Bible's historical record came under widespread attack. Archaeologist Leonard Woolley explained: "There arose towards the close of the nineteenth century an extreme school of critics which was ready to deny the historical foundation of practically everything related in the earlier books of the Old Testament."17 In fact, some critics even claimed that writing did not come into common usage until the time of Solomon or afterward; and, therefore, the early Bible narratives could not be relied upon since they were not put into writing until centuries after the events occurred. One of the exponents of this theory said in 1892: "The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narratives treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing."18

22 In recent times, however, a great deal of archaeological evidence has accumulated to show that writing was common long before the time of Moses. "We must again emphasize," archaeologist William Foxwell Albright explained, "that alphabetic Hebrew writing was employed in Canaan and neighboring districts from the Patriarchal Age on, and that the rapidity with which forms of letters changed is clear evidence of common use."19 And another leading historian and excavator observed: "That the question should ever have been raised whether Moses could have known how to write, appears to us now absurd."20

23 Time and again the Bible's historical record has been substantiated by the uncovering of new information. The Assyrian king Sargon, for example, was for a long time known only from the Bible account at Isaiah 20:1. In fact, during the early part of the last century this Bible reference to him was discounted by critics as of no historical value. Then archaeological excavations produced the ruins of Sargon's magnificent palace at Khorsabad, including many inscriptions regarding his rule. As a result, Sargon is now one of the best known of the Assyrian kings. Israeli historian Moshe Pearlman wrote: "Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views."21

24 One of Sargon's inscriptions tells of an episode that previously had been known only from the Bible. It reads: "I besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it."22 The Bible account of this at 2 Kings 17:6 reads: "In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and then led Israel into exile." Regarding the striking similarity of these two accounts, Pearlman observed: "Here, then, were two reports in the annals of the conqueror and the vanquished, one almost a mirror of the other."23

25 Should we expect, then, that Biblical and secular records would agree in every detail? No, as Pearlman notes: "This kind of identical 'war reporting' from both sides was unusual in the Middle East of ancient times (and on occasion in modern times too). It occurred only when the countries in conflict were Israel and one of its neighbours, and only when Israel was defeated. When Israel won, no record of failure appeared in the chronicles of the enemy."24 (Italics added.) It is not surprising, therefore, that Assyrian accounts of the military campaign into Israel by Sargon's son, Sennacherib, have a major omission. And what is that?

26 Wall reliefs from King Sennacherib's palace have been discovered that depict scenes of his expedition into Israel. Written descriptions of it were also found. One, a clay prism, reads: "As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities . . . Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. . . . I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the katrû-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord."25 So, Sennacherib's version coincides with the Bible where Assyrian victories are concerned. But, as expected, he omits mentioning his failure to conquer Jerusalem and the fact that he was forced to return home because 185,000 of his soldiers had been killed in one night.-2 Kings 18:13-19:36; Isaiah 36:1-37:37.

27 Consider Sennacherib's assassination and what a recent discovery reveals. The Bible says that two of his sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, put Sennacherib to death. (2 Kings 19:36, 37) Yet both the account attributed to Babylonian King Nabonidus and that of the Babylonian priest Berossus of the third century B.C.E. mention only one son as involved in the slaying. Which was correct? Commenting on the more recent discovery of a fragmentary prism of Esar-haddon, Sennacherib's son who succeeded him as king, historian Philip Biberfeld wrote: "Only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esar-haddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition."26

28 At one time all known ancient sources also differed with the Bible regarding Belshazzar. The Bible presents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon when it fell. (Daniel 5:1-31) However, secular writings did not even mention Belshazzar, saying that Nabonidus was king at the time. So critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed. More recently, however, ancient writings were found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and coruler with his father in Babylon. For this reason, evidently, the Bible says Belshazzar offered to make Daniel "the third ruler in the kingdom," since Belshazzar himself was the second. (Daniel 5:16, 29) Thus the Yale University professor, R. P. Dougherty, when comparing the Bible book of Daniel with other ancient writings, said: "The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom."27

29 Another example of a discovery that confirms the historicalness of a person mentioned in the Bible is given by Michael J. Howard, who worked with the Caesarea expedition in Israel in 1979. "For 1,900 years," he wrote, "Pilate existed only on the pages of the Gospels and in the vague recollections of Roman and Jewish historians. Next to nothing was known about his life. Some said he never even existed. But in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition was working in the ruins of the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea. A workman overturned a stone that had been used for one of the stairways. On the reverse side was the following, partially-obscured inscription in Latin: 'Caesariensibus Tiberium Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae.' (To the people of Caesarea Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.) It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate's existence. . . . For the first time there was contemporary epigraphic evidence of the life of the man who ordered the crucifixion of Christ."28-John 19:13-16; Acts 4:27.

30 Modern discoveries even substantiate minor details of ancient Bible accounts. For instance, contradicting the Bible, Werner Keller wrote in 1964 that camels were not domesticated at an early date, and, therefore, the scene where "we meet Rebecca for the first time in her native city of Nahor must make do with a change of stage props. The 'camels' belonging to her future father-in-law, Abraham, which she watered at the well were-donkeys."29 (Genesis 24:10) However, in 1978 Israeli military leader and archaeologist Moshe Dayan pointed to evidence that camels "served as a means of transport" in those early times, and hence that the Bible account is accurate. "An eighteenth-century BC relief found at Byblos in Phoenicia depicts a kneeling camel," Dayan explained. "And camel riders appear on cylinder seals recently discovered in Mesopotamia belonging to the patriarchal period."30

31 Evidence that the Bible is historically accurate has mounted irresistibly. While it is true that secular records of Egypt's Red Sea debacle and other such defeats have not been found, this is not surprising since it was not the practice of rulers to record their defeats. Yet, discovered on the temple walls of Karnak in Egypt is the record of Pharaoh Shishak's successful invasion of Judah during the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam. The Bible tells about this at 1 Kings 14:25, 26. In addition, Moabite King Mesha's version of his revolt against Israel has been discovered, being recorded on what is called the Moabite Stone. The account can also be read in the Bible at 2 Kings 3:4-27.

32 Visitors to many museums can see wall reliefs, inscriptions and statues that verify Bible accounts. Kings of Judah and Israel such as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Omri, Ahab, Pekah, Menahem and Hoshea appear on cuneiform records of Assyrian rulers. King Jehu or one of his emissaries is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser as paying tribute. The decor of the Persian palace of Shushan, as the Biblical characters Mordecai and Esther knew it, has been re-created for observation today. Statues of the early Roman Caesars, Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, who appear in Bible accounts, can also be viewed by museum visitors. (Luke 2:1; 3:1; Acts 11:28; 18:2) A silver denarius coin, in fact, has been found that bears the image of Tiberius Caesar-a coin Jesus asked for when discussing the matter of taxes.-Matthew 22:19-21.

33 A modern-day visitor to Israel familiar with the Bible cannot help but be impressed with the fact that the Bible describes the land and its features with great accuracy. Dr. Ze'ev Shremer, leader of a geological expedition in the Sinai Peninsula, once said: "We have our own maps and geodetic survey plans, of course, but where the Bible and the maps are at odds, we opt for The Book."31 To give an example of how one can personally experience the history presented in the Bible: In Jerusalem today a person can walk through a 1,749-foot-long tunnel that was cut through solid rock over 2,700 years ago. It was cut to protect the city's water supply by carrying water from the hidden spring of Gihon outside the city walls to the Pool of Siloam within the city. The Bible explains how Hezekiah had this water tunnel constructed to provide water for the city in anticipation of Sennacherib's coming siege.-2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30.

34 These are but a few examples that illustrate why it is unwise to underestimate the Bible's accuracy. There are many, many more. So doubts about the Bible's reliability are usually based, not on what it says or upon sound evidence, but instead upon misinformation or ignorance. The former director of the British Museum, Frederic Kenyon, wrote: "Archæology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge."32 And the well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck said: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible."33

Answer 2

There are many instances where archaeology has confirmed the bible. Note I am not suggesting that archaeology has proven God's existence merely that the places and historical battles are with merit. The writer of the book of Luke has been considered a first class historian. At one time they questioned some of his territorial boundary suggestions only to later have them verified by new findings. They have also found the place where Pilate ruled and the pool of siloam that was mentioned in the gospel. Many many findings have confirmed these places which stands to reason. People would Know if they made up a bunch of places and people that they never existed. Now the book of Mormon can't prove any of the places mentioned in them ever existed and is filled with historical inaccuracies such as claiming that there were elephants oxen horses and other items at a period in time before they were known in the America's. These animals and items weren't introduced into this hemisphere until the Europeans started coming over.

Answer 3

Historically accurate is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs fiction.

The Bible can not be recognized as historically accurate because only a few of the historical clues given can be prooven with today's understanding.

Of course, I personally believe that the Bible is truth, by deffinition, it can not be considered a historical document.

Sorry, whichever 10 of you are going to give me a thumbs down, but, it's the truth.

Answer 4

If you understand to read Daniel and Revelation together to help interpret the meanings of symbolism, then it most certainly is the most historically accurate book available. If there is a word used like "Beast" in Revelation, you might have to look at how the word "Beast" is used in Daniel to better understand what it means. (IE: Daniel plainly says that Beasts represent governments or kingdoms- Revelation does not give this information)

As for the History of Creation, I believe it is accurate. The reason I do, is simply because of reading Daniel and Revelations, which are prophetic books and were written long before any of the governments it speaks about existed. These prophecies were fulfilled exactly as they were foretold. Since the Bible prophesies were accurate, I would have to believe that it's historical accounts are also accurate. It is easier to write history than it is to tell the future accurately.

Side note: Alice- the question was for YOUR Opinion not a cut and paste of someone else's opinion

Answer 5

PARTS of the bible are historically accurate. For instance, many of the people mentioned in it really did live, and the things that happened to them are merely metaphors for world events at that time. You have to read the accounts of a guy named Josephus to get all the dots connected properly, but the bible isn't a complete farce as some people like to assume. Sure, there's little to no evidence that people lived hundreds of years, but while they were alive, they really did fight wars and pass laws, which are part of the bible history.

And most university-level history majors can tell you that they do at some point study the bible as part of history.

Answer 6

No.

First, you have to define what you mean by 'the bible.' There were many books of the original body of work expunged by the Catholic hierarchy in the first centuries after Jesus. The ones they didn't include were labeled as heresy and are called the Gnostic Gospels. One of these is the Gospel of Thomas, reputed to be the closest extant text to the words of Jesus. Why did they exclude it? It was considered dangerous to the Church power structure. There are many more texts like this.

The Catholic Bible contains fewer books than the KJV. The KJV was deliberately altered for political purposes. One of the most damaging changes was when they changed the phrase "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" to say "Witch" - about 12 million innocent people, 80% of them women, died horrible deaths because of that one. The lines used to decry homosexuality are largely mistranslated as well.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. Not one writer living and writing at the time he was supposed to have lived ever mentioned a messiah or a guy claiming to be the son of "god." Though there are many myths about grails, crosses and shrouds, there is no physical evidence that Jesus ever lived. The bible was not assembled until long after the supposed death of Jesus. Some writers of the bible, like Saul/Paul, never knew Jesus and made substantial changes to his teachings as represented in earlier texts.

Most of the references to Satan in the bible refer to rulers of other lands, Nebudkanezer (sp?) being the primary target.

Noah never existed. That myth is derived from several sources, including the story of Gilgamesh and the story of the Chaldean rain Goddess Nuah who came down in the arc of the crescent moon to save the animals from the flood. It pre-dates the Noah version by centuries.

One thing in the bible is true - where the Jews tell Moses that their lives were better when their women burned incense to the Queen of Heaven. The Golden Calf is a symbol of Hathor, an Egyptian Mother Goddess.

I worship the Queen of Heaven, the Goddess known by many names, not because I haven't studied Christianity, but because I have studied it. I have nothing against Christians, though, but I do think they should know exactly what it is that they claim to believe since they're willing to kill and torture because of it. How that squares with the Prince of Peace, I don't know.

Answer 7

Does it matter if the bible is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE or not? It does not mention the actual dates of what happened from the time of Creation of Man up to the Death and Resurrection of Christ. It just states that those events written in the books from the Genesis up to the Revelation happened to be written by men of God, not historians.

Answer 8

No.
Some of it is historically accurate, and where it is meant to convey history it is usually quite reliable. But many parts of the Bible that are traditionally read as history were probably never intended that way. Most of the book of Exodus, for example, was written as a satirical attack on the religious reforms of King Jeroboam of Israel.

Answer 9

In my opinion the answer would be no. To prove that all you have to do is ask three eye witnesses of any given thing and you will get three different answers. I guess the only way to know if it was accurate would be to actually have been there.

Answer 10

well, no. like many myths and legends there's some historical coincidence within the stories but geological and archaeological surveys haven't uncovered any evidence of the worldwide cataclysm that certainly would have occurred had the Sun and the Moon actually been halted in the sky (IE the Earth had stopped spinning on it's axis). in fact, had that actually occurred history, you and i and every other living thing wouldn't exist right now.

Answer 11

atheist here-short answer is yes-if you take out all the god stuff is seems to be fairly accurate-i am speaking only of the old testament------smile and enjoy the night