Do you believe that the Bible is an actual historic account?

1. 60

   anancelesteposted 11 years ago

   Do you believe that the Bible is an actual historic account?
   
   From Genesis 'till Revelations.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 79

   mtroutsonposted 11 years ago

   Although there are sections which are corroborated by contempories, such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Polybius, the bible is at best an accurate description of events, made innacurate by countless translations and the passage of time, and at worst a work of pure fiction. The creation story in particular is almost certainly false, as both the timescale provided and the world created are incongruent with reality. That is to say that the universe is much older and far more diverse than this myth caters for. Note that I am not commenting on the bible's efficacy as a moral guide or it's tendancy to indocrinate, but rather on the historical veracity.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent points, but on creation, could it be instead that the account may be right, but that interpretation is dead wrong? What if the "6 days" were zero time and the 7th day 13.7 billion years? With humility you can find a hidden wisdom.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @lone77, you are very wise indeed. The Bible plainly says that 1 day to God is as a thousand years, so six days may well be 6 thousand or six million years...His In Service

      replyreport
   3. 0

      ViolinByCourtneyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The theory of universal expansion can explain the time discrepancy in Genesis. The order of creation clearly models the fossil record. Personally, I subscribe to literal interpretation, but one can find faith and logic in figurative interpretation.

      replyreport
3. 72

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   That's a bit like asking if the entire library is an historic account. I'm sure much of it is. And I think all of it may be. Revelation, of course, was a vision of the future, and it appears that some of that "future" has already occurred. The rebirth of Israel was part of the required events (1947). The "great star" named wormwood spewed its pestilence (1986). And the Rockefellers have already started talking about implementing their "mark of the beast" which will be required for all commerce (RFID chip implanted in every citizen). We've also had the Abomination of Desolation raised into the new WTC tower (Aug. 2, 2012), signed by the "dark prince" himself.
   
   There is a great deal about the Bible that may be metaphor hinting at some real event that may have happened in some other form or fashion. Take the fall from grace in the Garden, for instance. That was purely a spiritual event and the descriptions of physical things might merely have been for the benefit of the audience. Adam and Eve died on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit, but then Adam ("them," "him" and "her") lived for 930 years, according to Genesis 5. But Genesis 5:2 speaks of Adam in the plural. Were all of the early patriarchs also eponymous tribes?
   
   Could Numbers 14:34 be a clue that we need to multiply the ages of those patriarchs by some factor or set of factors to arrive at the correct timeline? Could the "days... were... years" wording repeated throughout Genesis 5 be another clue to this requirement?
   
   I'm in the process of writing a book and trying to get funds to speed up the finishing of it to get it published this year. Stop by and give your support:
   
   http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-b … /x/2790782
   
   The timeline discovered in Genesis is compatible with those of science. Imagine that! After all this time, the rift between science and religion was more about ego and interpretation, rather than fact (biblical or scientific).
   
   And creation? The six days may merely have been God's "mental image" of what he wanted to create. The 7th (day of rest) was the perfection of that creation -- all 13.7 billion years of it. After stumbling upon the mechanics of creation, I was only slightly surprised that Genesis 1 and 2 had them all along.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ViolinByCourtneyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Israel has not been reborn, at least not as foretold in the Bible. It is supposed to occupy all of the original land of Canaan, of which it currently owns only a fraction; the temple is to be rebuilt; and the Jews are to be regathered and at peace.

      replyreport
4. 60

   CertifiedHandyposted 11 years ago

   Biblical Archaeology has discovered much of what the Bible relates and is still uncovering ancient artifacts. The Bible is actually an historical primer. It is God's communication to us across the ages and an outline of His creation, the works of creation and  a strategy for the future. There would be no "history" without it... His In Service

   replyreport
5. 73

   manatita44posted 11 years ago

   Much of it is. Historians know that the men like Jesus lived, as well as the Buddha and Krishna long before him. Some of the earlier figures did too.
   
   Much of the stories of modern saints are full of humour and embellishment. There is a certain amount of necessary and unecessary myths in all faiths. They have their purposes. The true saint never rushes anyone. He/she knows that when the devoteee is ripe, he/she will understand what is needed to know, and as such will march Godward, leaving these questions behind.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ViolinByCourtneyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What Bible are you reading? Buddha and Krishna are not in mine.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      manatita44posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Violin,
      You are the greatest book that ever was and ever will. That which does not exist, can never come into existence. And so if you were not here, of what use will be a book to you? Be a good Spirit. Contribute to life. Do not hinder it.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @Violin, Jesus lived "as well as" Buddha and Krishna. He is not saying or implying that Buddha and Krishna were written of in the Bible, just that like Jesus, Buddha and Krishna were historical figures who actually lived... His In Service

      replyreport
6. 0

   paxwillposted 11 years ago

   No.  And most research that claims to corroborate the Bible is funded by religious groups.  Can you trust that their results are free of bias?  I can't. General historical information found in the Bible is true, as are some accounts of rulers and conflicts between different groups. But the specific details, accounts of specific people, and the supernatural stories have yet to be confirmed by impartial secular researchers. There's no consensus on whether or not Jesus actually existed.  The Bible is as historical as the Illiad and the Odyssey, or the Mahabharata.

   replyreport