Jump to content

Historical Innacuracies

Recommended Posts

Alright, I have a few books that seem to only touch on the subject, but really don't list sources or anything of that nature. After being in a debate where some idiot dismissed everything I said because it was without source or varification(I can't, it's just general knowledge past down to me and I'm repeating) of scholars that say so, yet he keeps saying archelogical scholars unanamously accept the bible as historical fact and has a fleet to site. I've come to find myself more deficiant in that knowledge. If anyone can help I'd appreciate it;

Weblinks, books, lists of scholars who disagree with the 100% myth, and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most archaeologist don't believe the bible to be remotely accurate in regard to history: we've discussed it on this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...cal+archaeology


a great book on biblical archaeology is Gosta Ahlstrom's The History of Ancient Palestine. As part of his methodology he specifically ignores the Bible and relies only on material culture.


Miller and Hayes' A History of Israel and Judah is also good.


Gospels/New Testament: The Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities, Samuel Sandmel's The Genius of Paul,


history of theology/other "bibles": Klauck's The Religious Context of Early Christianity: a guide to Greco-Roman Religions, Charles Hartshorne's Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes, Bentley Layton's The Gnostic Scriptures (the Nag Hammadi Library), Geza Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls


philosophy/general religion: Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, James Livingston Anatomy of the Sacred , Friedrich Nietzsche's The Antichrist


many others have also recommended reading on this thread:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible And Why" By Bart D. Ehrman explains a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zarathustra

Bart Erhman's the New Testament, which is a CD/DVD course from the Teaching Company (teach12.com). I've given it to several people. The comments to me afterwards were "I never knew the binble was so unreliable" and "I cant believe I almost fell for that [bible] shit." Highly recommended for analysis of the who, why, when and where the new testament was written. However, it doesn't discuss the old testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned that folks who argue that the Bible is backed up by the archaeological record (which certain parts of it are) are using the argument to assert that because it's backed up to some degree, therefore everything in it is true.


The logical falsehood should be obvious there; but in the event that it isn't (and it usually isn't with nobs who think that way), I like to make the comparison between the Bible and the Iliad.


The city of Troy has been found. (Michael Wood's "In Search of the Trojan War" documents the process of its discovery in a very user-friendly way, and has a great bibliography for more scholarly reading.) What's left of it exists as a rather untidy heap of rubble in the northwest corner of Turkey, near the coast. Does its existence prove that the events that happened in the Iliad are 100% true?


Of course not. It shows that there was a real city, that it was subject to war and earthquake at around the time of the supposed Trojan conflict, and shows that Homer knew about the area pretty well, either from having been there, or from earlier oral tradition - but it doesn't prove that there was a hero named Akhilles on one side, or that Helen existed, or that the course of the war happened exactly the way it was written down some centuries later. Nor does it prove that there was any supernatural intervention in what happened, either. There's no evidence whatsoever that any deity ever appeared on the battlefield to injure someone, or whisk their favorite away from harm, or slaughter the children of a prophet who dared speak up against the gift of the Trojan Horse.


The Bible is exactly the same way. Archaeology has demonstrated that certain cities and peoples mentioned in its pages existed, but that is NOT "proof" that the Bible itself is 100% absolutely true. It is even less "proof" that there was any supernatural intervention going on at the time, only that the writers of the OT believed there was.


The Bible is just like any other historical novel. It's just like the Iliad or Gone With the Wind or Girl With the Pearl Earring. Archaeological and/or historical support does not equate to absolute truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.