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.
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.
The original manuscripts
It could be the N.I.V. version.
The tora was written 700 years after the crucifiction of Christ.The bible was written only 30 years after the crucifition.So which one would be more accurate
I would say because their minds are shut to the truth. They believe that the Koran is accurate, while Christians believe that the Bible is accurate. They think that they are right. They want to convert us over to their false religion. The truth, though, is that the Bible is the Word of God. It has been proven again and again by science, archaeology, etc.
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.
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.
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.
yes
Bob
The Historically Accurate Story of Thanksgiving - 2011 was released on: USA: 23 November 2011
If Disney Cartoons Were Historically Accurate - 2013 was released on: USA: 20 May 2013 (internet)
yes
Yes. Most modern translations are accurate.
Yes , but the film is not historically accurate .
no
The play 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum' is historically accurate, in the way that it is based on the comedies/farces of the ancient Roman playwright, Plautus.