Bible: history or fiction?

[Apotropaic]

I've always been taught at my Christian class that the bible is a work of history, and we study the events of the old testament as if it was one.

But every time we find an irregularity or a contradiction within the bible, we are told to draw only the biblical truths and not pay attention whether what is written is accurate or not.

I'm not talking about the creation of the world ****. I'm talking about stuff like why God was prejudiced between the city of Jerusalem (which he continually saves) and the city of Babylon or Philistia (both of which he continually uses as mere puppets).

There are many times though that I see people passing it off as history.

Well I'm just wondering if there is an official answer. Is the bible history or fiction?

[Adelheid]

Hello Apotropaic :)

Welcome to the Forum. It's good that the Forum is expanding. It's nice getting to meet with people from all over the world with different beliefs and questions. :nod: Hope you enjoy yourself here. :)

Well, regarding your question of whether the Bible is history or fiction, I really believe that the Biblical accounts can be fully justified by the facts that scientists are discovering everyday. We won't go into the creation or evolution part here, since there is a thread for that, and that is not what you're after.

You gave the example of God preserving Jerusalem and doesn't quite care about Babylon and Philistia (which was what I think you mean? I didn't quite understand that part fully, perhaps you may explain it to me again if what I understood was not what you meant.) So in short, you are accusing God of being biased, right? :) (no offence- that's what i think you mean)

What God says in the bible however, shows that it is not quite true. You see, he already told Abraham when he made the covenant with him that his descendants will have to serve in Egypt and be afflicted fr 400 years because the iniquity of the Amorites were not complete. What God was saying was basically that He could not drive out the Amorities from their land yet (as a judgment for their sins) because He was being merciful, and their "iniquity cup" had not reached it's limit to overflowing. So you see, His chosen people had to serve in bondage for 400 years, waiting for the Amorites to reach their limit. I would hardly call that biasness- would you? During that 400 years, if the Amorities repented, I'm sure that God would not have driven them out, but they didn't. Nowadays, the archaeologist are finding that there were a lot of abominable practices during that time. So God was "justified" in punishing them, isn't it?

It was the same with Philistia and Babylon. When Babylon and Philistia were "good" and the Israelites did not obey God, God allowed those neighbouring countries to take them captive and rule their land. When Babylon got proud and "didn't need God" than they would fall. That is God's way of judging the land.

I hope this helps somewhat to your confusion. :nod:

Also, the Bible has passed all three tests of an accurate document. It passed the internal, external and bibliographic tests. Historical scientists always apply Aristotle's Dictum for the Internal test. (i.e. that the document in question is internally consistent wih itself.) Aristotle wrote:

"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself."

It means that one must give the document some lee-way. If 2 passages seem to contradict one another, they are not to be counted as a contradiction if a legitiate explanation can b given. If you look at it closely, you will see that explanations can be given for "contradictions"

The next test is the external test. (i.e. it does not contradict any other work of history which has passed all three tests.) The Bible doesn't contradict. In fact, I think even the archaeological facts agree with the Biblical accounts!

The last test is the Bibliographic test (i.e. to be a reliable document, the work must contain either direct eye-witness accounts or second hand report BASED on eye-witnesses) this is hard, since there is vrtually no original documents from any truly ancient work of history. Nearly all of the documents of history we have now concerning the different countries are all copies of the original. We know if the copy follows the original IF, they are many copies made by different people, then we would know that there is very unlikely the original was modified.

The Bible did pass this test too. The new testament was supported by over 24,000 copies in less than 25 years after the original was written! the dead Sea Scrolls (of the book Isaiah) corresponded exactly with the already known Isaiah. every word was identical. 95% of the text were exact, the other 5% consisted of obvious slips of the pen, and variations in the spelling. The Old testament was copied faithfully too.

Thus you see, the Bible is QUITE accurate as a document of history.

[Whifflingpin]

"I've always been taught at my Christian class that the bible is a work of history, and we study the events of the old testament as if it was one.
But every time we find an irregularity or a contradiction within the bible, we are told to draw only the biblical truths and not pay attention whether what is written is accurate or not."

The historical books of the Old Testament may be described as history told from a particular racial and religious viewpoint. If you are primarily a historian, you will evaluate the facts, and try to ignore the bias, or, better still, recognise it and learn from it something about the writers. (Any history book is written from some kind of bias, and you should always remember this when reading.)

In your Christian class, you are taught the Old Testament largely from the same viewpoint as the writers. To them the events are not mere occurrences; they are, more importantly, lessons or signs.

I'd say that it was up to you how far you go along with the writers' interpretation of the events that they describe. Their attitudes to war, conquest and God, for example, may not agree with yours, especially since your beliefs are, presumably, derived from the New Testament rather than the Old. Where your views disagree with theirs, feel free to disagree, respectfully, allowing the possibility that they may be expressing truths that your experience does not yet allow you to appreciate.

(Edit: If you think that the writers are portraying an unjust, vindictive God then you have at least four options: 1) Believe that they are wrong; 2) Acknowledge that you may have misunderstood what they are saying; 3) Accept that they are right; 4) Use what they are saying as evidence that God does not exist. I only include this last option, because, although it is totally invalid, it is the sort of argument that is often presented.)

.

.

[Theshizznigg]

Every modern scientist that has tried to disprove biblical fact has often done the complete opposite.
Like when David took Jerusalem by storm, the passage made reference to his movement where a secret stream flowed. And later the found tunnels in Jerusalem used as a spring for the palace.
If someone who was walking atop of the lime, bashed his staff down, those that were tunneling could hear what direct to go in.

Also the existence of the Hittites, and such all go to prove that the bible is historically accurate, even to the fact that it is more accurate then most modern, or even ancient histories.

I do believe that the bible is the most profitable book for any person to read, becuase it is not only a book, but a manual for following Gods wishes, and how he would like us to live.

Thanks, Shizz.

"A recent dicovery of the first few pages of the bible have been discovered and scientists are working round the clock to date the actual pages, if they are real then they might turn out to belong to the original manuscripts.
They read, 'to my loving wife, for all her support. All characters in this book are purely fictional, and any relation to those dead or living are purely by coincidence."
- Red Dwarf.

[silence782]

If a work of fiction references historical facts, that doesn't make it any less fiction.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

If a work of fiction references historical facts, that doesn't make it any less fiction.

That's what people need to realize. Catholics make a big deal about "The DaVinci Code" because it references historical events. So it has to be truth, right? Woohoo, that means it's free to be ripped apart, right? WRONG. It's historical fiction, just like the Bible. Sure, it mentions historical events. But some of it is just out there...You want examples? Read the whole thing, because it's mixed in at every book of the Bible.

Honestly, Catholics who bash the DaVinci Code piss me off. "Hey pot, did you know you're black?"...."No kettle, I did not, but you are black as well." Yup, that's what's going on here. A religion that can't be proven is accusing an author of being false. :brow:

In any case, people will say what they want. Let's all watch the bull**** meter and hope it doesn't get TOO high.

[Stanislaw]

Er, it is not just catholics who bash the davinci code...many other christians do to, and I wonder if dan browns book would be so popular if it was pro christianity, or if it was anti muslim, buddism, or even the sikh religion?

The bible is an interesting thing, in that it is believed on the concept of faith, and if the sole basis is that it can't be concretely proven, than I wonder how you get by on a day to day basis, considering human existance cannot be completely proven, nor can any of the "facts of science" be concretely proven. In reality you and I take different things on faith...since neither can be proven.

[blp]

considering human existance cannot be completely proven, nor can any of the "facts of science" be concretely proven.

But these things are right here in front of us. Titanium is lighter than aluminium. If you put a seed in the ground, it grows. Milk curdles due to the introduction of certain kinds of bacteria. Human beings have sex, an egg is fertilised, a zygote is formed and another human comes into existence.

Science doesn't accept anything as fact until its been tested over and over again. That is not taking something on faith. Within the perceptual system we're all operating in, we exist and some things are empirically provable. A large part of the history of science, very much including Darwin, is the history of people discovering things that didn't fit their assumptions and that, in some cases (Darwin again) they would have preferred not to be true.

The point I think is being made here about religion is that it asks us to believe a lot of things that aren't right in front of us and can't be tested at all. Its proponents veer from saying, when it suits them, proof doesn't matter, it's all about faith, to seizing on any bit of possible proof that does come along like starving people grabbing at crumbs. And they are starving in a way. Religion is belief derived from subjectivity - from a desire to believe rather than from science's desire to know, which is objective. Religious people seem desperately to want their religion to be true. They're hungry for it to be. Scientists are simply trying to figure out what actually is true.

[Stanislaw]

But these things are right here in front of us. Titanium is lighter than aluminium. If you put a seed in the ground, it grows. Milk curdles due to the introduction of certain kinds of bacteria. Human beings have sex, an egg is fertilised, a zygote is formed and another human comes into existence.

Science doesn't accept anything as fact until its been tested over and over again. That is not taking something on faith. Within the perceptual system we're all operating in, we exist and some things are empirically provable. A large part of the history of science, very much including Darwin, is the history of people discovering things that didn't fit their assumptions and that, in some cases (Darwin again) they would have preferred not to be true.

The point I think is being made here about religion is that it asks us to believe a lot of things that aren't right in front of us and can't be tested at all. Its proponents veer from saying, when it suits them, proof doesn't matter, it's all about faith, to seizing on any bit of possible proof that does come along like starving people grabbing at crumbs. And they are starving in a way. Religion is belief derived from subjectivity - from a desire to believe rather than from science's desire to know, which is objective. Religious people seem desperately to want their religion to be true. They're hungry for it to be. Scientists are simply trying to figure out what actually is true.

I believe that science and religion are two mutually exclusive entities.
Besides, warwin was in fact not anti-religiouse, and if you read the origin of the species, he states that life was breathed into these organisms, a clear allusion to the biblical account of genesis.
It seem that in todays age there is a sort of counter-inquisiotion taking palce, where the group who was persecuted, is now trying to perscute the descendaents of the persecutors of yore.

However, in science, nothing is proven, only theororized, because, scientist do not believe anything to be true, just mostly true untill a better explanation comes around.

[blp]

I believe that science and religion are two mutually exclusive entities.
Besides, warwin was in fact not anti-religiouse, and if you read the origin of the species, he states that life was breathed into these organisms, a clear allusion to the biblical account of genesis.
That was my point. Darwin theorized evolution in spite of his religious convictions.



It seem that in todays age there is a sort of counter-inquisiotion taking palce, where the group who was persecuted, is now trying to perscute the descendaents of the persecutors of yore.
It's interesting that you say this, because this is fits my impression of a lot of religious people now. They feel themselves under attack and marginalised by secular society. I'm sorry you feel like that, but to some extent, please, get some perspective. Atheists are not trying Christians at courts where they're forced to wear white dunce caps and they're not burning any of you at stakes. The theory behind secularism is tolerance of both belief and non-belief. You can worship as you please can't you?



However, in science, nothing is proven, only theororized, because, scientist do not believe anything to be true, just mostly true untill a better explanation comes around.

I believe I've heard a few Christians mention this point before. It's not, however, the same as your original point, which was that science was just as much a faith system as religion and it doesn't answer my refutation, which was that science is not a faith system since it constantly attempts to work with empirical evidence for its theories and tests them rigorously. Anyway, according to the point you're making now, science never insists on anything being true, despite whatever evidence it has, whereas religion insists on its ideas being true despite having no evidence, which would really seem to demonstrate that science is not a faith system.

But I refuse to take the argument further. If you're impervious to proof, there's no point is there? And if you continue the argument yourself, I'll have to assume you're not impervious to proofs and that, therefore, you lack faith. But since that's a sort of proof too, perhaps it won't mean much to you.

[Geoffrey]

jesus could walk on water = jesus was a really great swimmer

its mostly stuff like that.

[silence782]

Human existence cannot be proven? That argument is rather sopmoric. If you and I can't agree on the idea that we at least exist inherently of each other, there's no point in you continuing the discussion. After all, I could just be the a voice in your head, following your line of logic.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Human existence cannot be proven? That argument is rather sopmoric. If you and I can't agree on the idea that we at least exist inherently of each other, there's no point in you continuing the discussion. After all, I could just be the a voice in your head, following your line of logic.

Dammit! Will these voices never shut up and leave me in peace? :lol:

[silence782]

I agree with the idea of secular government. Be cause a democracy serves the peope, not just the christians. If we allow things like the ten commandments to be hung in courthouses, it excludes people's of other religions. At the same time, we can't possible allow each and every religious denomination to hang the laws of their faith, ther'd be just toom many. Not to mention how they would conflict with one another. (Just imagine verses from the satanic bible next to the ten commendments...) Church is the place for faith, court is the place for law. Allowing the two to become intermingled destroys them both.

[bhekti]

However, in science, nothing is proven, only theororized, because, scientist do not believe anything to be true, just mostly true untill a better explanation comes around.

I thought, it was until a better falsification comes around..?

[bluevictim]

Within the perceptual system we're all operating in, we exist and some things are empirically provable. I think this is begging the question.

Atheists are not trying Christians at courts where they're forced to wear white dunce caps and they're not burning any of you at stakes. I agree with this, but I have some problems with this:

The theory behind secularism is tolerance of both belief and non-belief. You can worship as you please can't you? I can't worship my god by bombing a church, for example.

[bluevictim]

It's historical fiction, just like the Bible. I think this statement is a bit specious. A writer of historical fiction intentionally makes up events that he doesn't believe to have happened and doesn't expect his audience to believe to have happened. This is not the case with the Bible. The Bible isn't any more fictional than Hesiod's Theogony or Herodotus' Histories.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I can't worship my god by bombing a church, for example.

And that is how you wish to worship is it? WHo said morality came from religion - sheesh!

[bluevictim]

And that is how you wish to worship is it? Pretty much, except on leap years the ritual changes to clubbing baby seals. Actually, I'm talking about the stricter form of worship; the kids these days just watch violent movies and, on leap years, eat fish.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

hmmm... Sounds like a religion I'd be interested in. Do you eat kittens by any chance? ;)

[blp]

I can't worship my god by bombing a church, for example.

My remark about Stanislaw being able to worship as he chooses was in response to his suggestion that he was the victim of a sort of atheist anti-Christian inquisition. As far as I know, even given that you can make the Bible say pretty much whatever you like, there's nothing in Christian doctrine that promotes bombing churches.

Still, you've got a point. Religionists are only persecuted in secular societies to the extent that their capacity for persecuting others is curbed.

[bluevictim]

My remark about Stanislaw being able to worship as he chooses was in response to his suggestion that he was the victim of a sort of atheist anti-Christian inquisition. I agree that my example was a bit far-fetched in that context. My apologies for being thrown off (I wrongly took the sentence "the theory behind secularism ..." to indicate that you were generalizing). However, I do think there are ways in which Christians might legitimately say the secular state hinders their ability to freely worship, beyond merely being curbed in their ability to persecute others. This is completely off-topic, though, for this thread, and also with respect to your main point that Christians can hardly say they are persecuted (in the West, at least), which I pretty much agree with.

[Whifflingpin]

I don't know how many secular states there are in the West. The only example I can think of at present is France, where there certainly are restrictions on harmless religious expression.

[bluevictim]

hmmm... Sounds like a religion I'd be interested in. Do you eat kittens by any chance? Ah yes, elourodacism. The old tradition was to hold the next eloureortia (a cat feast) in p weeks, where p is the next prime number after the number of weeks since the last eloureortia. Unfortunately, the intervals between eloureortiae became so long that it became too hard to keep track of the intervals, and the tradition was forgotten.

[beer good]

I don't know how many secular states there are in the West. The only example I can think of at present is France, where there certainly are restrictions on harmless religious expression.
Depends on what you mean by "secular". If you mean that there is no state-sponsored church, well... most of them. Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church#Established_churches_and_former_state _churches_in_Europe) for your convenience. As to the significance of that state sponsorship... well, my country only abolished the state church in 2000, but I certainly wouldn't say we were a very religious people before then, either. Not the ones in the state church, anyway.

[blp]

I agree that my example was a bit far-fetched in that context. My apologies for being thrown off (I wrongly took the sentence "the theory behind secularism ..." to indicate that you were generalizing). However, I do think there are ways in which Christians might legitimately say the secular state hinders their ability to freely worship, beyond merely being curbed in their ability to persecute others. This is completely off-topic, though, for this thread, and also with respect to your main point that Christians can hardly say they are persecuted (in the West, at least), which I pretty much agree with.

Well, I expressed myself pretty badly, so i'm not surprised you misconstrued.


I've always been taught at my Christian class that the bible is a work of history, and we study the events of the old testament as if it was one.

But every time we find an irregularity or a contradiction within the bible, we are told to draw only the biblical truths and not pay attention whether what is written is accurate or not.

I'm not talking about the creation of the world ****. I'm talking about stuff like why God was prejudiced between the city of Jerusalem (which he continually saves) and the city of Babylon or Philistia (both of which he continually uses as mere puppets).

There are many times though that I see people passing it off as history.

Well I'm just wondering if there is an official answer. Is the bible history or fiction?

To get back on topic, no, of course there's no official answer since we can't even agree on the existence or non-existence of God. However, I think what you're experiencing is the perpetual knot of illogic religious people will always end up tying themselves up in in order to maintain a nonsensical structure. As I said above, when observable facts accord with their beliefs, observable facts are great. But when they don't or something is just logically inconsistent, proof becomes irrelevant in the face of the god's mysterious ways. It's good that you're questioning it.

[silence782]

If his existance or non existance cannot be proven, how is he relevent then?

[Kashkin]

"A writer of historical fiction intentionally makes up events that he doesn't believe to have happened and doesn't expect his audience to believe to have happened. This is not the case with the Bible. The Bible isn't any more fictional than Hesiod's Theogony or Herodotus' Histories."

We don't know that this isn't the case with the Bible. We can never really know. The author(s) may have simply thought, "If I had a saviour, he would have to be able to walk on water." And yes, I know that's blatant crap, but even still, we can't know how much of it is factually based, and how much isn't. And so perhaps Athiests can be said to assume that most of it is fiction, while Christians will believe that it is all historically valid.

On a seperate note, I'd just like to say how enjoyable it is to watch discussions between people like blp and bluevictim.

[Geochelonian]

The Bible is a wonderful concoction of real history, folklore, mythology, poetry, wisdom literature, moral philosophy, and many other things. It's not a book of science, nor does it pretend to be. One should simply take it for what it is and try not to make of it what it isn't. However, it's effect of Western Civilization cannot be doubted, and I think it's a great disservice to young students that the Federal Courts have, ineffect, banned it from our public schools.

I have the advantage of teaching in a private school, so I can incorporate the Bible into some of my lessons. I never teach it as religion, but as literature.

So many people think they know what's in the Bible, or what the Bible says, yet I find that most are woefully ignorant of what it really says.

[Apotropaic]

Thanks everyone for the opinions.

The Bible is still weird, but I'll live with that.

History or fiction... it's not that important anyway.

[alter-native]

I think science proves the presence of an all powerfull being or God, after all wasnt it
science who stated the "cause and effect", theory? I mean look around us, there must
be a cause for all things happening flawlessly.

[Shield&Sword]

Salam all, long time i didnt log in, and i see alot of new users and also interesting subjects.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
As u see this link refer to the Times newspapers, i think its enough known to most of u. But the interesting thing is the article in this page, and the tite is-Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.
And it contain sayings of priests about bible, and the accuracy of Bible. Check it.
Studying religious books is so sensible, and when we say that this book is word of God, and as we know all people who believe in God accept the idea that God doesnt mistake (i believe in that too), so when we study religious books first thing we check is the accuracy of the book (for example there are alot of other vangles not accepted by christians, and we saw lately in news the scripture of Judah- not accepted by churchs). Finding even a little mistake in a book that a grou says its from God force us to cancel the idea that God doesnt mistake (and no one accept to cancel such idea about God), or to accept that this book is not pure (mean that its NOT ALL GOD WORD, and there are chainges made by human).
Here we arrive to the question- how much is the accuracy of the book? why i should accept these verses , perhaps these also are chainged? and so on with questions.
One of the most interesting cases in bible and it's accuracy is the APOCRYPHA. The catholic church say ITS WORD OF GOD, also other church say that, but other church deny it and say its not word of God (the interesting thing that people who refuse them as part of bible say there are mistakes located in it, and cant be word of God) like Protestant.
The contraddiction between verses and the hestoric events written in these books (the accuracy of these events, and existence of mistakes) and the contraddiction between verses and facts known by science are the basic things in order to check the accuracy of the religious book, and if one of these 3 ways are located in a book that claimed to be from God then the book is refused as God Word. There are also another ways like the teaching of the book and language and other things, but for accuracy the 3 above r the most important.

[Scheherazade]

The contraddiction between verses and the hestoric events written in these books (the accuracy of these events, and existence of mistakes) and the contraddiction between verses and facts known by science are the basic things in order to check the accuracy of the religious book, and if one of these 3 ways are located in a book that claimed to be from God then the book is refused as God Word. There are also another ways like the teaching of the book and language and other things, but for accuracy the 3 above r the most important. If, during a lecture, students make mistakes while taking down notes and misquote the Professor, is it the students fault or the Professor's?

[Shield&Sword]

Well if the professor good and want to give his students all clear as he know they can mistake, he can simply give them copies (will be original).
Once here i when i was in a lecture, we were few students, and when some students were taking notes others couldnt write directly from professor, so they were copying from student near them, when the professor saw this this thing he got angry and said dont copy from your partner PERHAPS HE WILL WRITE SOMETHING WRONG SO AND U, ask me any thing u dont understand.
This is a good professor, he want the good of his students even if he shouted it was for thier good, and then i knew that she put first copies in copies centre. Good professor no?
And remeber if ur partner have notes, and u discovered that he mistaked in them i think u will search for other notes from another source (source without mistakes, lets say an updated source) u cant go in exam and say to professor if u respond wrongly that these things are written in my partner notes.

[Scheherazade]

Well if the professor good and want to give his students all clear as he know they can mistake, he can simply give them copies (will be original).I don't think HEAVENLY MAIL does any direct deliveries to this world!

:D

[Shield&Sword]

Well, i think i was talking about professor not mail, only if u define giving something to some one by hand is a mail deliver, then we can say that when Moses pbuh got the stones from God, it was a mail deliver.
Here the problem is in the students, not the professor or the way of delivering. I know a person here in university, others told me that he have another brother in another city and he is so bad, they told me that he once gave to other students notes but he didnt give all notes to them, he was bad and wanted that his friends get fail and he did wht he did, and all knew he is bad and never took notes from him. For sure here we cant say that professor must do something, cos he want the good of students in his class, and he make all he can so they get the information right, but outside he cant do any thing, but we cant say such thing about God, that he only cared about people who was in a specific place and time and then people who come after will get info wrong, but as we saw in scriptures that God gave to people there r mistakes; so can we say that God left us or God mistake? the answer is NO, coz God wanted to be existed people like the student above who chainged notes bad and want to distract people, and there is only one way to give the infromation again-by sending it again, and he decided that the last scripture to be saved and no one can chainge and in IT's ORIGINA form, God decide if his words remain on earth or not and for how long and which words will be preserved and which wont.
My parteners of that bad student knew that notes r chainged by checking the notes, and didnt trust any note givven by him, its logic not to trust other notes, and the most i,portant they knew they should search for new notes, a trsuted noted, that will pass the exam of controlling them.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

So how do we know that Mohammed wasn't a bad student that changed bits of the notes? Because the book that he wrote says he isn't? Is that enough for you?

[Bandini]

Well - I've just been deleted. Strange. I've made many similar comments in relation to Christianity - is there a shibboleth here? Probably wrong choice of words in the circumstances!

[Shield&Sword]

If u read my first post u will see the ways that people use to know if a scripture is from God or not, there r 3 ways u can go backto my first post to know them. About good student and bad student, if u look to my last post u will see how partners of that student knew he is bad. They checked the notes not the student. Beside talking about bible, the writer of Samuel is not known, even a student here we dont have.

[rachel]

Well - I've just been deleted. Strange. I've made many similar comments in relation to Christianity - is there a shibboleth here? Probably wrong choice of words in the circumstances!


don't know for sure but you tend to not see a lot of Ephraimites posting on such threads! sh sh sh, keep practicing! :lol:

[Bandini]

sit!..................