if the Bible was made up, why do historians use it as primary source material?

Question

hey all. i'm not saying they use all of it as primary source material, but much of the new testament narratives offer significant insight into the cultural norms of the day, in addition to the origins of a movement that changed the course of the world. secular historians agree that this thing called Christianity had a major influence on history, so much so that years are still measured by it.

Answer 1

Correct..The Bible is a historical document and used by Historians as documented evidence of how the Jews, gentiles, protestants..eceteraa lived in those days. Yes still people try and debunk it. Shame shame shame.

Answer 2

Historians use mulitple sources in an attempt to validate their data and to minimize their sources subjectivity or bias. For instance, Stephen Ambrose, in his book, "To America," talks about how, America in the 1940s and 1950s viewed Theodore Roosevelt as an imperialist, and this is what everyone was taught - that Teddy was a bad guy. Nowadays, he's viewed in a different light, espcially when WWI and WWII are compared. Theodore helped bring our country into the 21st century by expanding on the Monroe Doctrine and was, until President Clinton, set aside more land for conservancy that any other president, including Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. He's now a visionary, instead of a loudmouthed bully with a stick. I'll leave a, prehaps, more intersting case for your own looking into. The Battle of Thermopylae, recently brought to us as the Hollywood movie "300." Frank Miller is definitely not a reliable source, but our early info on it was primarily from Herodotus, who over the years has been concerned disruputable and then reputable. Now though, we're forunate to have a whole slew of ancient historians who've commented on it as well as more modern historians who've done a lot of digging into things to have a more complete picture of things, including any significance this battle really had. I hope this helps.

Answer 3

It's still used as a measurement of time because of convenience. Changing the system of year numbering is always rather problematic.

Historians are very sparing in their use of the Bible as a primary source. If you're talking about Christian belief it makes a fine source. If you're talking historical timelines, the Bible is used much more sparingly and generally only when other primary sources agree with it.

Answer 4

Primary source of material. For what historians? I believe that many places and events in the bible are true. I do not believe that god, was the reason.

Answer 5

To study how people acted during the time the bible was written.

Real historians do not look in the bible to find actual history. They know that it is a fictional book.

Answer 6

They use it to study past and present culture in the world, and the root of it. But they don't use it as a history book. They also use the Koran as a sourse of material for the same reasons.

Answer 7

This is the history proves theology argument. Careful where you go with this. You'll be forced to accept some things you won't like. You'll be making a great argument for the existence of Greek gods.

If people with limited knowledge of the world were to write about a place what would you expect them to write about? I've never met anyone who argues the places and many of the mundane events in the bible aren't true.

I would be much more impressed if they had written about New Jersey.

Answer 8

most people use the bible for references because it is the only book in history to predict so many things that have come true. now this is my opinion so don't hate me for it but i believe in the bible. but thats just me. everyone has there right to there own opinion and i'm not saying anything bad about them.

Answer 9

They still use it because every place and event in the Bible has been proven to exist, be true and to have happened. I don't think you meant that the Bible is made up, you are just trying to prove a point.

Answer 10

The research and archeology is done about history, the more the there are inconsistencies.

History keeping in the past wasn't the greatest. You have to take what you can get.