Is the Bible's history true

Answer 1

That depends on your definition of "true".

• Some groups would say that, it being The Bible, it is the word of God and therefore perfect and therefore must be true.
• Others would say that its literal claims are not denied by modern science, or even that science supports the Bible's account. This is certainly not entirely false; many events have been independently verified. However, others have been falsified and this is where clashes occur.
• Others still say that the Bible is not literal history. Rather, it provides a metaphorical account, with events recorded within it being representative of subjects such as creation, early history and Jesus' ministry.

AnswerNow looking at the biblical history in a little more detail, in an attempt to provide a less qualified answer to the question. The biblical story of Abraham can not be historically true because, for example, it mentions the land of the Philistines, who really only arrived in the Levant around 1250 BCE. The Book of Genesis was only written during the first millennium BCE, by which time the people thought that the Philistines had always been there. For similar reasons, the stories of the other patriarchs are not really true.

The Hebrews did not really spend 430 years in Egypt and there was no Exodus from Egypt, led by Moses. Egyptian record contain no reference either to a large community of slaves or to a sudden catastrophic loss of economic power. Egypt continued to be masters of Palestine throughout the period of the Exodus and the Amarna letters show that even in the middle of the thirteenth century BCE, Palestine consisted entirely of a number of petty Canaanite and Philistine states, with Egypt in absolute control as the colonial power.

Scholars are divided on whether Kings David and Solomon really existed, but say that if they did, they would have been more like tribal chieftains than kings. The respected Israeli archaeologist says that there never was a United Monarchy, and that the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were always separate, with different customs and even different dialects of the Hebrew language.

The biblical history of the divided kingdoms seems to be at least moderately reliable, as is the history of the Babylonian Exile and return. The Books of Daniel and Esther contain too many obvious historical errors to be considered historical.

As for the New Testament, the epistles believed to have actually been written by Paul (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemonand Romans) are regarded as true accounts. Acts of the Apostles contains so many discrepancies against the epistles that only one report can really be true, and most scholars prefer the epistles. The four New Testament gospels do contradict each other to the extent that some of the material must be inaccurate. Even the conservative Jesus Seminar accepts that many of the works and sayings of Jesus did not really happen.