answersLogoWhite

0

Answer 1

It's a fictional book based on events that might of happened. Like an old Davinci code.

Answer 2

Bible is historically accurate. The modern archeology further proves this. Bible has detailed information about many historical figures like Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon. Bible also contains many non-Jewish history too. New Testament has many historical proofs than Old Testament. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus are historically accurate.

Answer 3

Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of Archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

  • The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
  • The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
  • Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
  • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
  • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as co-regent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago

What else can I help you with?

Related Questions

Did Sir William M Ramsay attempt to disprove the Bible when he was a young archaeologist?

The short answer is ... Yes and no. He questioned the historical accuracy of the bible. In his quest to point out inconsistencies of Bible through archaeology, he discovered archaeological evidence to support the Bible as historically accurate.


What discoveries in Mesopotamia prove that the Bible is an accurate historical book?

No discoveries in Mesopotamia prove that the Bible is an accurate historical book, otherwise modern scholars would have to regard it as such. Most modern scholars accept accounts in the Bible as historically true only so far as they are confirmed by extra-biblical sources. They see the Bible as true in parts, but not in total.


Could the Bible be better described as the book of wives tales?

No. There is much wisdom and sense in the bible, as with most religious texts. Though not historically accurate and often self contradictory there is still much to be said for all such works.


Was Cheyenne Autumn historically accurate?

yes


Is “The Passion of the Christ” historically accurate?

Bob


What are the release dates for The Historically Accurate Story of Thanksgiving - 2011?

The Historically Accurate Story of Thanksgiving - 2011 was released on: USA: 23 November 2011


What are the release dates for If Disney Cartoons Were Historically Accurate - 2013?

If Disney Cartoons Were Historically Accurate - 2013 was released on: USA: 20 May 2013 (internet)


Is the movie Brigham Young historically accurate?

yes


Is the New American Bible copyright in 1970 an accurate Bible?

Yes. Most modern translations are accurate.


Is The Bible scientifically accurate?

no


Is the battle of Thermopylae what 300 was based on?

Yes , but the film is not historically accurate .


Why is the Bible a big load of crap?

The Bible is considered sacred text by many people around the world and holds religious significance. It is important to approach discussions about beliefs and religious texts with respect and open-mindedness. It is okay to have differing opinions, but it is important to express them in a respectful manner.