Is the Bible historically accurate

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

The Bible is in no way historically accurate.

Lester L Grabbe (Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?) makes the following comments on biblical accuracy, based on the consensus of modern historians and archaeologists:

• On the whole, the biblical text is problematic for Iron I (and the earlier periods). Its picture of a massive exodus and rapid unitary conquest do not match either written records or archaeology.
• There is nothing in Egyptian texts that could be related to the story in the Book of Exodus. He says that despite the efforts of some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the biblical text as a description of a historical event.
• Not much can be found in the Book of Judges that can be supported.
• The bulk of the DtrH's text [Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings] is not of great value for historical events, though it can be of use for sociological study and of course for literary, theological and other non-historical disciplines of the Hebrew Bible.
• In some cases, material has clearly been inserted for theological reasons.
• There is a gradual increase in reliability the later the DtrH narrative progresses. In the last years of the kings of Judah, when there are times that we know what was happening year by year, the biblical text can be remarkable accurate.
• Prophetic stories do not generally make good historical sources.
• Stories in the Book of Daniel about Nebuchadnezzar seem at least in part based on legends rising out of the reign of Nabonidus. This was first recognised by W. von Soden but confirmed in a startling way by the discovery of 4Q Prayer of Nabonidus. This last is a Dead Sea scroll, the text of which is intermediate between Babylonian texts and Daniel, thus showing one of the fictional sources used by the author of Daniel.

Grabbe provides a catalog of biblical errors, one of which is a reference in 1 Kings 21 to a Ben-Haddad who was active in the time of Ahab, yet we know that the king of Damascus at this time was Hadadezer. An explanation that has become widely accepted in scholarship is that 1 Kings 20-22 contains material from the later Jehu dynasty (e.g. 2 Kings 13) which has been mistakenly been assigned to the reign of Ahab.

Robert P. Carroll (The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Prophecy and society) says that with regard to the biblical text we can never be sure how much of the story of the prophets is propaganda and the manipulation of information and how much was untainted by editorial control.

Andrew D. H. Mayes (The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Sociology and the Old Testament) says that it is becoming clear that the presentation of Yahweh as the only God of Israel in the pre-monarchic period is a late construction which runs up against great historical difficulties.

Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) says that the whole of Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament 'book of history', is a work of propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians. Hans Joachim Schoeps writes that Acts has been "believed much too readily."

Answer 3

Yes, as archaeology and other sciences are proving pages of the Bible as historically accurate each and every year with new discoveries. What were once considered myths by many of the Enlightenment during the period of 1600-1800s are now being proven to be facts of history - the proofs of the Hittites existence, King David being real, Baruch the Scribe working for the prophet Jeremiah and many, many more. Indeed, “no archaeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture” ( The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 1979, Vol. 1, p. 31).

Some 'errors' or 'inconsistencies' are formed from a lack of knowledge of the translation person/team. This was the case in 1 Samuel 13:20-21 when the King James translators came upon this strange term they had never seen before. It was the Hebrew 'pim.' Well after considerable debate, they decided it meant 'file' and thus translated it as such.


But finally, in the last century, Archaeology came to the rescue with a discovery. Digging in various sites like Gezar, Timnah, Ekron and Ashdod, they found small stone weights with the word 'pim' on them. They quickly realized these were small weights (about 8 grams silver) used in monetary transactions. So it took about 300 years before the true translational meaning of the term was known. Biblical inaccuracy or human bad guessing. In any event, this helps add to the proofs for the historicity of the Bible.

Answer 4

Yes