Because, the men who wrote it were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God abd therefore contains no mistakes, something that can be said of no other book.
Yes it is. Scholars and other people have studied it and compared it to other records and things and all the history in it is true. Whether or not you believe some of the things that happened are true is up to you, but the history is correct.
1 Kings and 2 Kings are part of the series now known as the Deuteronomic History and are moderately reliable in their history. The Deuteronomic History consists of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings.1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles are also considered history books, but are possibly less reliable than the Deuteronomic History on which they are based, because that original source was amended without reliance on any other known source.
Go to any (liberal) Christian bookstore and get a copy of "The Apocrypha". It is by definition the books "not included in the bible".
A good deal of it is contained in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) and the Talmud. Non-religious sources such as Josephus have additional material but are not considered reliable to one who wants the traditional viewpoint. An excellent traditional source is Behold A People (Miller).
Yes, the Bible is connected in a major way to the history of the human race. It is a compilation of religious texts and stories that have shaped the beliefs, culture, and values of numerous civilizations throughout history. The Bible has had a profound influence on literature, art, politics, and the development of Western civilization.
There is no completely accurate record of ancient history. Anywhere. Ever. Anything written by humans will always be subject to human biases. Also, ancient history is a very broad term, and no one book talks about all of ancient history. For parts of "ancient history", humans did not even have complex (key word being complex) spoken language, and certainly not written language.
"Reliability" is a function of the translation, not the function of whether certain books are included or not. "Reliability" might also depend on what particular aspect of the Bible you were concerned with at a given time.
Paul J. Kissling has written: 'Reliable characters in the primary history' -- subject(s): Bible, Criticism, interpretation
Yes, this software is very reliable. It is reccommeneded for both beginners and very serious Bible scholars. It is safe, and reliable to use for all levels of interest.
There would be few adults who were unaware of the Bible, or its equivalents in other cultures. Whether any adult considered that source to be a reliable fount if knowledge is up to the individual. Remember, the Old Testament was the collection of legends, history, knowledge and myths of one particular race. The name Bill Nye has no meaning to me - it is possibly of your local culture.
A:I do not think there are any reliable statistics of the religion of historians. This probably reflects the fact that there is very little interest in knowing the religion of historians. Of course, there are many Christian theologians who use the Bible as a primary source of history, but they would not regard themselves as historians in the true sense.
Bible-Recent estimate=6 billion+ Koran-that one is a tough number of find,some claim around 800 million but I could not find much of a reliable source.