The Bible's knowledge, What makes it a reliable source of information? Options

[hilaryhashandcuf...]

I took a Bible as literature class last year and I have to say, I was not impressed by my teacher's going on about how good a historically accurate source the Bible was.

I myself am not a Christian, but instead consider myself Gnostic (meaning "seeking truth" )

My question is, since the bible is so religiously biased, what do you guys think on the issue of using the bible as a historical document to find information?

[MissHygienic]

Whoever said the Bible was a historical piece of information? Who the hell uses Bible for history? The definition of history is a study of past events that are not static. History changes all of the time. How do we find any historical document to be the truth? The Bible is more or less prose fiction based on very loose historical content.

The Jewish Bible, as far as I'm concerned, is for people to have something sacred to hold dear to them what they think is something that dates back to their ancestors in Israel. Especially since they learned that places/buildings can't always be restored (e.g. the Babylonian invasion) so they came up with a sacred text. Every episode is something to be learned about man's unruly nature, perilous and imperious individuality.

The sketchiness of the known historical materials allows considerable latitude for interpretation of the divine plan. Authors of the Bible all had invent interior monologue for his characters. To ascribe feeling, intention, and motive to the characters.

Anyone who seeks the Bible for historical context is missing the entire point of the Bible.

[brooklyneast05]

i think using the bible as a historical text is a pretty awful idea for obvious reasons.

[missnh]

I took a Bible as literature class last year

Your teacher may be biased, but the fact is, you were still learning about the Bible in a literature class, and not using it as a reference in a history class. Obviously, any source can be inaccurate, especially considering how many variations of interpretations there are on the Bible.

[jesusisthebestth...]

I am a Christian. And I use the Bible oftentimes, but only for certain historical purposes. And not because it isn't accurate. Though I do use the Bible from time to time to learn about religion and history combined, but not all aspects of history are connected to religion. And therefore I can see why you might say that the Bible is not a useful historical text.

[*Steven*]

I am a Christian.

[Mikael]

This post has been edited for security reasons.

[jaeman]

I think it's been proven vaild, just because of the consistency between the stories told amongst a large number of people. It's a collection of stories, put together, seeing the consistency of it deemed it to be accurate and valid. In my opinion, of course, I hold no facts to be true, at the moment.

[Kontroll]

There is alot of history in the Bible. Just because it's in story form doesn't mean it's not history.

I can't name any off the top of my head, but if you really research it there is definitely history in there.

Jesus Christ for starters. Whether divine or just purely human, he is apart of history as recorded in over 150 other books of that time.

You're not going to get alot out of the Bible if you're hearing it from a secular source. Yeah, they have their own opinions, but a Christian is the best person to hear it from. You wouldn't ask a Buddhist to tell you why Christianity is a valid religion, would you?

If you're going to criticize the Bible, and any other religious work with out really researching it, then go burn in hell. Ignorant bastards.

[brooklyneast05]

Whether divine or just purely human, he is apart of history as recorded in over 150 other books of that time.

lol
i hope you'll go into more detail about those 150 books of that time. as far as i know all writings that aren't christian writing of jesus come well AFTER the alleged life of jesus. not to mention a good number of them have been disproved as frauds with mentions of jesus added in well after the actual document was written. which really sucks, because by the church doing sneaky little things like that and getting caught they've only made it worse on themselves.

the jewish histories josephus is the earliest non christian account of jesus as far as i know. his birth is well after jesus' crucifixion, so the earliest accounts are of course not eye witness. just even moer information that's pretty much hearsay.

the majority of all these supposed outside sources don't name him as jesus either i don't think. apologists see the name christus, or chrestus and that's good enough to say we have to be talking about jesus.

it would be great if we had the roman record that recorded pontius pilot actually executing a man named jesus, but of course we don't. we don't have anything that isn't written years and years after his death. there's probably plenty of debate about that though.

but if you know of 150 books of that time that record him then i wanna know, because i'm apparently way off in my research.

it's so strange to me that a man supposedly this great and this well known is a complete mystery and his life is debatable. it's amazing to me what people didn't write about him in his life time. i'm not saying i necessarily disbelieve that he existed as just a man, but i think people would be justified in that belief probably.

[NoSex]

There is alot of history in the Bible. Just because it's in story form doesn't mean it's not history.

I can't name any off the top of my head, but if you really research it there is definitely history in there.

No more history than there is in the Qur'an, the Vedas, or the Pali Canon. In either case, none of these religious texts serve as legitimate sources of historical information. They may help as starting references - forming a hypothesis in the social sciences - but they are certainly no authority in of themselves, and anyone who treats them as such is a damn fool.

Just off the top of my head (since you couldn't think of anything that definitely happened, I'll consider a few things that definitely didn't happen):

The flood, mass Roman murder of children, Israelite exodus from Egypt, men rocking out before their ancestors, the tower of babel as the foundation of variety in ethnicity and language, etc. etc.

Jesus Christ for starters. Whether divine or just purely human, he is apart of history as recorded in over 150 other books of that time.

Way to pull a number out of your ass; try one, mother f**ker. f**king one measly non-biblical record. The piece, Josephus's Antiquities , is the only non-biblical record, that appears in the first century, that even insinuates Jesus Christ and the text doesn't even directly mention a "Jesus." And, even that is argued to be an inauthentic addition.

Christ is just as much a part of history as Beowulf of the Geats is - barely, if at all.

You're not going to get alot out of the Bible if you're hearing it from a secular source. Yeah, they have their own opinions, but a Christian is the best person to hear it from. You wouldn't ask a Buddhist to tell you why Christianity is a valid religion, would you?

Kind of like how the best testimony on a murder case is delivered by the accused murderer?

If you're going to criticize the Bible, and any other religious work with out really researching it, then go burn in hell. Ignorant bastards.

I guess the same goes for anyone that's trying to substantiate and or defend the Bible, huh? You ignorant bastard who also happens to now be burning in hell.

i'm not saying i necessarily disbelieve that he existed as just a man, but i think people would be justified in that belief probably.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...74&hl=Jesus