How accurate is the bible?

You do realise that the only evidence that you have that any of these people actually lived is in the Bible? You constantly use the Bible to prove the Bible, this is circular reasoning.You should be asking yourself why there is no evidence outside of the Bible that any of these people existed.Oh, and 24 000 copies of a fairytale still makes it a fairytale.Brian.

In historical research no historian will ever claim that we know for certain that anything happened, that isn’t how ‘history’ works. Anyway, to take one source as being completely accurate and not using anything at all to support that one source wouldn’t pass a primary school class test. The only people who think that the Bible is one hundred percent accurate, and who use the Bible to ‘prove’ the Bible, are 5 year old children and people who have newly converted to Christianity as the result of some kind of personal experience. I am not sure which one you are, for all I know you may be both. What on earth are you on about here? More complete ignorance. Are you saying that the tens of thousands of Egyptian texts that are in museums and universities don’t exist, or the Ebla tablets, the Alalakh tablets, the Nuzi tablets, the Amarna letters, or the Vedas, or the tripitaka? All these texts are much older than the Bible, which is relatively young if we include the New Testament. Why do you think it is, because you are probably the only person on the planet that believes this. Maybe you should actually try reading a history book sometime, then compare it to the some Bible passages, say Joshua 1-12 and Judges chapter one, then note the differences. Not ‘some guy’ but schools of ‘guys’. You don’t think that the authors were unaware of each others work do you, or that certain authors, such as the chronicler, didn’t simply copy and/or rework extant texts do you? If you are using the Bible as an historical source then the Bible has a very poor track record. From Genesis to Judges almost everything in it has either been disproved or no reasonable evidence has been presented that would make us consider that there is a possibility that these events happened. The manuscripts aren’t circular, the Bible isn’t circular, it is the fruitloops who employ circular reasoning. If we applied your approach to the Bible to every book of faith there is then they would all be true! Some parts of it could be called accurate, some parts have external evidence to support them. However, the primary history books of the Bible have been proven to be a collection of folk tales, ancient myths and outright propaganda. One of my favourite sayings is that ‘anyone who think that the Bible is 100% accurate simply hasn’t studied the Bible’. A large amount of the events mentioned in the Bible, if true, would HAVE to leave at least a ‘fingerprint’ in the archaeological record, most of the epic events are invisible. When a source is as consistently inaccurate as the Bible has been shown to be then we need to start rethinking the way in which we read it. That 70 people can become 2 and a half million in 430 years, as the Bible claims, is impossible, so we need to reinterpret what the text in the Bible is actually saying. The same goes for the majority of the primary history books of the Bible. God’s word is a fairly young ‘history’ book, there are hundreds of thousands of older texts. If you think that the Bible is the oldest book that attempts to outline how the universe and life originated then you are in severe denial, or severe ignorance. LOL, this fantasy was abandoned about 70 years ago. For example, why were Jericho and Ai uninhabited when the Bible claims Joshua was conquering them, how could the Israelites encounter the Edomites and the Moabites on the Exodus if there were no Edomites and Moabites in that area for at least 150 years after the Bible’s dating, why s there no evidence of a settlement at Kadesh-barnea before the 11th century BCE, why does the archaeological evidence form Palestine contradict the conquest narratives? Such as?Brian.