How historically accurate is the Bible?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

Almost nothing in The Bible that dates before about 1000 BCE can be considered historically reliable, with many major biblical events identified as purely legendary. The Bible confidently states that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign, or approximately 1444 BCE, and that 40 years later they proceeded to invade Canaan, destroying city after city. Yet the Amarna letters, an important archaeological find in Egypt, prove conclusively that the many petty kings of Canaan continued to rule everywhere well into the following century, with no external threat and no military incursion. From the beginning of the first millennium BCE onwards, the Bible becomes gradually more reliable as it moves towards the Common Era.

There is circumstantial evidence for the existence of David, but modern scholars believe he was probably only a warlord who ruled part of what was to become the southern kingdom of Judah. The first Israelite king for whom there is any evidence outside the Bible is King Omri, who ruled during the ninth century BCE. That does not necessarily mean that the kings listed in the Bible before Omri were non-existent, just that we do not know. Scholars are now re-evaluating the biblical narrative about the period of the monarchy (See link Redating the Bible for an example of the painstaking research being done in this area; the preliminary conclusion is that archaeological material that had, based on the biblical narrative, long been dated to the beginning of King David's reign around 1005 BCE may be redated to around 890 BCE).

Although the principal persons listed in the Bible are generally accepted as having existed, at least from the period of the divided kingdom forward, the events portrayed can be open to doubt. For example, archaeological finds that were until recently considered to be evidence of the kingdoms of David and Solomon are now confidently dated up to a hundred years later. Similarly the conflicts described in 1 Kings 20,22 and attributed therein to King Ahab may now be relocated by some historians to a period around fifty years later. The Book of Daniel and the book of Esther should both be regarded as novels written centuries after the events they portray.

To the extent that it mentions persons and events from history, even the New Testament can not be considered accurate. Luke's Gospel says that Jesus was born at the time of a census conducted by Quirinius as governor of Syria, but also during the reign of King Herod in Judea; Quirinius is known to have become governor of Syria in 6 CE, some ten years after the death of Herod. On this, Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says the best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately. The gospels say that John the Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas well before the end of Pontius Pilate's rule as governor of Judea and apparently in Galilee, but Josephus places his death several years later and in quite different circumstances.

Answer 3

If you believe that archaeology gives the best picture as to what is historically accurate as concerns the Bible, there are three categories of stories that the Bible has in terms of archaeology:

1) Personal Stories -- such as the life of Abraham and his children in the Book of Genesis -- These types of stories do not leave any significant archaeological evidence and are, therefore, unverifiable. It does not mean that the stories are true or false, but that we cannot know.

2) Large Historical Events without Corroborating Evidence -- such as the Exodus in Egypt -- These types of stories should leave significant archaeological evidence because they are national and politically relevant stories. Therefore, when we find practically no evidence of these events, it means that they are more than likely historically inaccurate.

3) Large Historical Events with Corroborating Evidence -- such as the invasion of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah by Assyria -- These types of stories should leave significant archaeological evidence because they are national and politically relevant stories. Therefore, when we find corroborating evidence of these events, such as parallel accounts from neighboring civilizations or artifacts, it means that they are more than likely historically accurate (or as accurate as other sources from the same time period).

So, any event that falls into the third category, such as the Invasion of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah by Assyria, the conquest of Judah by Babylon and the Babylonian Captivity, the Return of the Jews to Judah under King Cyrus of Persia, are generally considered historically accurate. The majority of the Bible, unfortunately is either made up of non-stories (like the Psalms and Proverbs, which are poetry) or personal stories, for which a truth value cannot be assessed.