2007-11-11 10:44:47 · 19 answers · asked by John Galt 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is because most of it is based on earlier myths and legends. There is some stuff in the Bible that is historically significant, because it reflects what some of the people in the day thought. However, people in those days weren't really concerned much with writing accurate histories. They were into writing stories that bolstered earlier myths and "prophecies". At most, there are just some passing references to historical figures.
2007-11-11 10:46:43 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Have you read it? Lots of repeated 'history' but always different stories. The timeline doesn't really make much sense.
Carbon dating disproved the bible's version of the age of the earth of about 6000 years to a couple of billion.
The bible does give some insight into historical events, but not accurate
2007-11-11 18:48:18 · answer #2 · answered by Mee 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beats me. There have been people who tested the Bible against History and have found no errors. One man set out to prove that the Bible history was wrong and found out just the opposite.
2007-11-11 18:48:26 · answer #3 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they look at the letter of the law not the spirit.
2Cor:3:6: Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The bible is great for history but its main purpose was to lead us into truth and a relationship with Jesus.
2007-11-11 18:49:41 · answer #4 · answered by Free Thinker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible contents were decided by a committee led by Constantine and then re-jigged in Medieval times. There's lot's of stuff been left out.
2007-11-11 18:50:33 · answer #5 · answered by Del Piero 10 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because a great deal of it was told through second and third had sources (and that's only the Old Testament). The New Testament was mostly written centuries after the people the stories were about had died.
2007-11-11 18:47:54 · answer #6 · answered by BostonCollin28 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's not. It mentions things out of order in some places and things that can be shown to have not happened in others.
For example: Herod's slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by any extra-biblical source, dispite being one of the most well documented eras. Moreover, Herod's rule ended years before Jesus was supposedly born.
2007-11-11 18:48:20 · answer #7 · answered by Dashes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible was not written with intelligence in mind. Any book that teaches the earth is only 6000 years old is not reliable as history.
2007-11-11 18:47:16 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just goes to show what theologians (those who study God) know.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
2007-11-11 18:56:05 · answer #9 · answered by realchurchhistorian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because for the most part it is. Archeologists and Historians would agree. It has several accurate protrayals of larger scale conflicts and migrations, but aside from that the whole thing is rather hazy when compared to known facts...
2007-11-11 18:48:23 · answer #10 · answered by Rafael 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋