Is the bible a "historical" document

[Paradoxical]

Throughout my life, I have heard devout Christians refer to the bible as a "history" book. They use the term "historical accounts" matter-of-factly as if humans were carefully reconstructing what happened at the Battle of the Bulge or WW11, or some other "historical" account that students are taught in history class. In this manner, humans are made to read the bible AS IF what is written is an honest and factual account of what happened, like someone there filming it. Additionally, this presupposes that none of the writers had an agenda or preconceived notions, would embellish, fabricate, guess, plagiarize the writings of others, write about prophecies after they happened, etc.

Fast forward to modern times and we have what we call reporters or "NEWS" people who many just accept are reporting the news accurately and without error, fakery, embellishment, omissions, and outright lies because they have an agenda if they are liberal or conservative. The news is going to be flavored based on their own political thinking. You can take almost any story today but let's take the Pelosi matter. If the liberals get to fashion the news, the attacker was a right winger, but there are many questions and it really appears he was a leftist. If they write "history' the attacker will always have been and remain a leftist if no one else gets to examine the available evidence or the video footage, which they are keeping under wraps. And, this is just one of the hundreds of examples of how the public is duped here in modern times. The claim that Trump colluded with Russia had millions of people believing he did and it is only because of new evidence he was set up by Hillary and Perkins Coi and the FBI that people no longer believe. If that had NOT come forward, tens of millions of people would still believe a lie and here we are in TODAYS times where we have TV, the internet, and other means to check. If we didn't, history would show "Donald Trump colluded with Russia"

Go backward in time to 1900-2000 years ago when all we have are the writings of people with an agenda, religious people in a time when superstition ran rampant, visions were readily accepted as fact, gods were everywhere, fear was running wild and people yearned for a savior just like a liberal wants the government to save them. WHY do we want to consider the writings as "historical" documents? Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Loulit01]

The Bible is not a history book. For example, no Jews were present in Egypt during the Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built. Moses was not floated on a raft down the Nile. He did not part the Red Sea. Jews simply weren't there.

 

[Daisy]

Go backward in time to 1900-2000 years ago when all we have are the writings of people with an agenda

OR go forward in time 1900-2000 years, to now, when all we have are the writings of people with an agenda...lol...

 

[Paradoxical]

OR go forward in time 1900-2000 years, to now, when all we have are the writings of people with an agenda...lol...

Shows you have no clue as to what I am saying.

 

[Daisy]

Shows you have no clue as to what I am saying.

lol...I know exactly what you are saying...you have an agenda...

 

[Paradoxical]

lol...I know exactly what you are saying...you have an agenda...

OK, I do. How does that show that the unknown writers of the bible did NOT have an agenda??

 

[Jkca1]

The Bible is not a history book. For example, no Jews were present in Egypt during the Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built. Moses was not floated on a raft down the Nile. He did not part the Red Sea. Jews simply weren't there.

I beg to differ. The oldest pyramid, the Pyramid of Djoser, dates back to around 2670 BCE. The origins of Judaism go as far back as the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age period lasted approximately from 3300 BC to 1200 BC so Jews could definitely have been present during the Old Kingdom.

 

[Dragonfly]

WHY do we want to consider the writings as "historical" documents?

Because if you consider it fiction, fable, or myth the message really starts to fall apart doesn't it?
If the message falls apart it's much harder to convince people to join your cause.
No people, no money.

 

[Individual]

It's a historical record of beliefs held and stories told to promote such beliefs, with some basis of facts to assist in making the fantasy more believable.

Hinduism, IMO, seems to be more reasonable historically as it dates the Earth to be about 4,320,000,000 years old.

I'm amazed by what some people can be led to believe by stories which the factual evidence in the stories has nothing at all to do with the supernatural claims inserted.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Bible is not a history book. For example, no Jews were present in Egypt during the Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built. Moses was not floated on a raft down the Nile. He did not part the Red Sea. Jews simply weren't there.

You cannot possibly prove such a statement.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It depends, the Bible is a collection of dozens of different documents, some of which are historical, some are fictional, some are prophetic, and some are allegorical.

This is like asking if my library is a historical document.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Because if you consider it fiction, fable, or myth the message really starts to fall apart doesn't it?

However, God and the religion he created is not fictional so you’re starting with the wrong premise

If the message falls apart it's much harder to convince people to join your cause.
No people, no money.

Pffft

Any time you see someone claim Christianity is a money making scam you can be pretty much guaranteed they’re selfish people

 

[Loulit01]

You cannot possibly prove such a statement.

Yes, I can

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes, I can

No, you cannot.

There is no evidence proving there was no Jews in Egypt.

If there were never Jews in Egypt exodous would not have been written.

What is really happening is you are hostile the Bible and so you will demand unreasonable amounts of proof to corroborate it, except you will set the burden you will accept so high as to never accept it.

 

[tosca1]

The Bible is not a history book. For example, no Jews were present in Egypt during the Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built.

Here is a very long article:



The problem is with the way modern scholars have constructed their chronology of Egypt. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information. With so little to work from, archaeologists have had to make copious assumptions. And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.


All this has turned these wonders of the ancient world into something of an enigma. If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures? If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world? Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood. The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary. In other words, the reigns were concurrent with each other. Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.


It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham (Genesis 10:6, 13). That’s why, at the first dynasty, there bursts on the scene a people of culture and skill who already possessed a form of writing.



The Jewish historian Josephus wrote concerning the Israelite slaves in Egypt, “They [the Egyptian taskmasters] set them also to build pyramids.”3 Most archaeologists dismiss this statement on the grounds that all the pyramid building had ended before the Israelites arrived in Egypt.

However, by the shortened chronology the dates of the early dynasties would be reduced and the Israelites would have been in Egypt during the 12th dynasty.
Also, that would be consistent with the type of pyramids evident in that period, i.e., mud-brick.
According to Exodus 5:7, Pharaoh told the taskmasters, “You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick as before. Let them go and gather straw for themselves.”
It seems it is the archaeologists who have erred rather than Josephus.




When we take the history and chronology of the Bible as written, we find that it makes eminent sense of the archaeological evidence.
The pyramid builders were not people who had evolved from animals over millions of years.
Rather, they were once part of an advanced civilization which built an imposing tower that soared over the plains of Babylon (Genesis 11), a people descended from a family that disembarked
from the 15,000-ton ocean-going Ark (Genesis 6–8).

We still do not know exactly how they accomplished all their engineering feats in ancient Egypt, but we can be sure that a people who were less than 30 generations from Adam had incredible intellectual skills.

The Pyramids of Ancient Egypt

Critics of the Bible say the pyramids were built long before Noah's Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair, not global.

answersingenesis.org

 

[ihealyou]

I beg to differ. The oldest pyramid, the Pyramid of Djoser, dates back to around 2670 BCE. The origins of Judaism go as far back as the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age period lasted approximately from 3300 BC to 1200 BC so Jews could definitely have been present during the Old Kingdom.

The purely historical (Bible aside) evidence we have nowadays about the Jews in Egypt date their first appearances back to the Ptolemaic dynasty, which lasted from 305 BC to 30 BC. That's a difference of about 2,000 years from the Old Kingdom.

The fact that Judaism was a thing back in 2670 BCE (date of the Pyramid of Djoser) doesn't really prove that they were in Egypt. They could have been, certainly, but we don't have any evidence of that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The purely historical (Bible aside)

This is the trick atheists play, they create the presumption that documents in the Bible must be made up unless they have another source outside it. In fact if Exodous were analyzed the way another other document in antiquity was it would be considered very reliable evidence of the existence of Jews in the old kingdom.

evidence we have nowadays about the Jews in Egypt date their first appearances back to the Ptolemaic dynasty, which lasted from 305 BC to 30 BC. That's a difference of about 2,000 years from the Old Kingdom.

So?

The fact that Judaism was a thing back in 2670 BCE (date of the Pyramid of Djoser) doesn't really prove that they were in Egypt.

Exodous does

They could have been, certainly, but we don't have any evidence of that.

Genesis and Exodous

 

[ihealyou]

This is the trick atheists play, they create the presumption that documents in the Bible must be made up unless they have another source outside it. In fact if Exodous were analyzed the way another other document in antiquity was it would be considered very reliable evidence of the existence of Jews in the old kingdom.

So?

Exodous does

Genesis and Exodous

Genesis and Exodus are not sources. They're bullshit.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Genesis and Exodus are not sources.

Yes they are.

They're bullshit.

Blah blah blah. Ones bigotry is not an argument

 

[ihealyou]

Yes they are.

Blah blah blah. Ones bigotry is not an argument

Both Genesis and Exodus are full of contradictions and I could spend hours & hours listing them for you. So how do you pretend we believe the whole Jews-in-Egypt bullshit is true and take whatever's written in a ultra-millenary book for true?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Both Genesis and Exodus are full of contradictions and I could spend hours & hours listing them for you.

Ok. Let’s do that then

So how do you pretend we believe the whole Jews-in-Egypt bullshit is true

You can’t prove it’s not other than vague claims of “contradictions”

and take whatever's written in a ultra-millenary book for true?

Ok

 

[ihealyou]

Ok. Let’s do that then

You can’t prove it’s not other than vague claims of “contradictions”

Ok

In Genesis 20:11-12 and Genesis 17:15-16 God blesses Abraham's incestuous relationship. In Leviticus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 27:22, however, God deliberately claims incestuous relationships to be "wicked" (“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22), (“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17).

Genesis 1:11 claims plants were created before humans. Genesis 2:4-7 claims plants were created after humans.

Genesis 1:20 claims animals were created from water only. Genesis 2:19 claims animals were created from air only.

Genesis 3:8 claims God does not have a body, but multiple verses in the Bible claim otherwise.

The Fifth Chapter of Genesis (Genesis 5) shows how God "took with him" multiple people without having them die, yet later on multiple verses in the Bible claim that everyone dies.

Genesis 6:3 claims ALL HUMANS will live 120 years. Do I even have to comment on that? Oh, and that figure is changed later on throughout the Bible.

Would God ever repent? Logically, no, why would one repent to himself? Yet he does in Genesis 6:6-7.

Throughout Genesis 22 ( this video explains other things wrong with it as well), God explictly tempts Abraham into killing Isaac and admits of doing that. However, James 1:13 clearly states: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;".


And I'm not even done. Do you want me to do this with Leviticus as well or is this enough?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In Genesis 20:11-12 and Genesis 17:15-16 God blesses Abraham's incestuous relationship. In Leviticus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 27:22,

The law of Deuteronomy doesn’t apply to Abraham because the convenant was made long after Abraham’s death

however, God deliberately claims incestuous relationships to be "wicked" (“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22), (“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17).

Yes, that’s mosaic law, it was given to the Israelites after leaving Egypt

Genesis 1:11 claims plants were created before humans. Genesis 2:4-7 claims plants were created after humans.

Genesis 2 refers to the creation of Eden, not the universe broadly

Genesis 1:20 claims animals were created from water only.

No, it doesn’t.

Genesis 2:19 claims animals were created from air only.

We can ignore this because the premise is patently false

Genesis 3:8 claims God does not have a body, but multiple verses in the Bible claim otherwise.

Multiple versus not cited, and likely not in Genesis

The Fifth Chapter of Genesis (Genesis 5) shows how God "took with him" multiple people without having them die, yet later on multiple verses in the Bible claim that everyone dies.

Genesis 6:3 claims ALL HUMANS will live 120 years. Do I even have to comment on that? Oh, and that figure is changed later on throughout the Bible.

No, Genesis 6:3 does not claim that. It means in context of the chapter that humans will no longer live longer than 120 years. Given the oldest people known to have lived make it to around that point it seems pretty accurate

Would God ever repent? Logically, no, why would one repent to himself? Yet he does in Genesis 6:6-7.

Throughout Genesis 22 ( this video explains other things wrong with it as well), God explictly tempts Abraham into killing Isaac and admits of doing that. However, James 1:13 clearly states: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;".


And I'm not even done. Do you want me to do this with Leviticus as well or is this enough?

I mean just the arguments I can refute quickly all show you either being wrong about the verse or trying to claim the covenant made with Israelites through Moses is a contradiction. Very silly. You should spend as much time reading the actual Bible as you do about the perversions of Nero

 

[Loulit01]

Here is a very long article:



The problem is with the way modern scholars have constructed their chronology of Egypt. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information. With so little to work from, archaeologists have had to make copious assumptions. And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.


All this has turned these wonders of the ancient world into something of an enigma. If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures? If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world? Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood. The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary. In other words, the reigns were concurrent with each other. Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.


It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham (Genesis 10:6, 13). That’s why, at the first dynasty, there bursts on the scene a people of culture and skill who already possessed a form of writing.



The Jewish historian Josephus wrote concerning the Israelite slaves in Egypt, “They [the Egyptian taskmasters] set them also to build pyramids.”3 Most archaeologists dismiss this statement on the grounds that all the pyramid building had ended before the Israelites arrived in Egypt.

However, by the shortened chronology the dates of the early dynasties would be reduced and the Israelites would have been in Egypt during the 12th dynasty.
Also, that would be consistent with the type of pyramids evident in that period, i.e., mud-brick.
According to Exodus 5:7, Pharaoh told the taskmasters, “You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick as before. Let them go and gather straw for themselves.”
It seems it is the archaeologists who have erred rather than Josephus.




When we take the history and chronology of the Bible as written, we find that it makes eminent sense of the archaeological evidence.
The pyramid builders were not people who had evolved from animals over millions of years.
Rather, they were once part of an advanced civilization which built an imposing tower that soared over the plains of Babylon (Genesis 11), a people descended from a family that disembarked
from the 15,000-ton ocean-going Ark (Genesis 6–8).

We still do not know exactly how they accomplished all their engineering feats in ancient Egypt, but we can be sure that a people who were less than 30 generations from Adam had incredible intellectual skills.

The Pyramids of Ancient Egypt

Critics of the Bible say the pyramids were built long before Noah's Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair, not global.

answersingenesis.org

Tell me about The Tower of Babel part. I never really got that.

 

[Paradoxical]

In reading some of the comments here it is interesting that I am seeing that nothing has changed or ever will change with regard to those that believe the bible is somehow God-ordained, inspired, or even breathed into the human that wrote it. Other than some of the events being true or at least not being able to be shown as false because of the passage of time, there really is no evidence that any "God' inspired any of the writings. The only thing you find in the OT is a few passages that claim something to the effect "Thus Sayeth the Lord". This is like Brian Stelter or Don Lemon or any other media hack talking about events that happened yesterday or last week and contending that what they say is true because they are news reporters and would never lie, omit, fabricate, or embellish or watching a movie about some important person or event in history and thinking that every single thing in the movie happened the way the movie shows it.

When one admits that the bible is wrong in any area at all that calls into question whether or not other parts are. Very few question things that could or would happen such as a huge flood, or wars but to conflate those things that we know are scientifically possible and even probable with outlandish things like talking snakes, a resurrection, walking on water and a God, as God, was sent here by himself as a sacrifice is where it gets crazy. Those events go against common sense, nature, and probability and those are the things that should not be and cannot be accepted as true unless those making the claims prove it. You can prove a flood, an earthquake, war, famine, and even Jesus's lineage and none of that would prove he was any savior.

In any and all things, we have to use common sense and rationality and not believe something just because it gives us solace, comfort, or peace of mind and that it was passed down by our tribal chieftains (priests, bishops) over the ages as true. We cannot ask for special pleading on "our' holy book while dismissing other holy books, and gods that have been conceived over the millennia, of which there were thousands. Even with Christianity, there are hundreds of different denominations and each one insists its interpretation is correct. Was Mohammed really a prophet and did he fly to heaven on a winged creature? Every Christian here would scoff at that as being irrational because Mohammed and the winged creature would die from exposure and lack of oxygen and the notion is preposterous. Yet to a Christian it is not preposterous for THEIR savior to rise from the dead and for people to rise from their graves and walk through the town and not one single account of that by any of the townspeople at the time?

In conclusion, we all pretty much believe what we want to believe and are told to believe, and we all walk around with many beliefs dancing around inside our heads that we think are true because of where we were born and to which parents we were born to and which friends we choose and which books we read. We just think we have the truth and this applies to Republicans, Democrats, atheists, the religious, and everyone in between. It is impossible to believe something you think is false. Try it. Over time someone can realize that previously held beliefs are false but until that time they will carry beliefs that are crazy and for no reason other than someone else told them it was true and not because the belief makes any rational sense. Things like if we just taxed the "rich" more we would be just fine, or that people commit crimes because they are poor, or that only the politicians on their side are honest.