aiki
Regular Member
You're making many assumptions here about the Bible and the stories recounted in it. Among texts of its kind the Bible is extraordinarily factual/historical. There have been many instances now where the Bible was thought to be in error about historical claims it made only to be eventually proved to be quite correct. One article on the historicity of Scripture points out:Myths are incredibly powerful, just because something is not literally true, does not mean that it is worthless. Consider the state of the world during the time the bible was written, for the most part it was a pre-literate society, so how were knowledge and information passed from one person to the next? The answer is, through stories, and to make those stories have more of an impression on us and to make the lessons more memorable, things are exaggerated and made fancier. Every culture has it's folk tales, and while they may be written as if they are factual, they all contain things that sound like magic, or talking animals, or something that is inconsistent with what we know of the physical world.
[FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva]Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva] In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva]fact[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva], not [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva]fantasy[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva],[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, geneva]is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.[/FONT]
Another article lists a number of the instances where persons and places mentioned in the Bible were proved to be quite historically accurate:
The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep” in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
- The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
- Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
- It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
Clearly, the Bible is not merely a collection of fanciful tales meant only to communicate principles and moral lessons. The Bible communicates historical fact, which is something archaeologists have relied upon now for many, many years.
Well, you may need to read more carefully. The Bible is quite distinct from other religious texts in its level of historical accuracy.When I read stories in the bible, I can't help noticing how similar they are to the myths of other cultures.
This is a form of begging the question. You impose naturalistic presuppositions upon the biblical narrative and therefore assume the supernatural accounts of the Bible must be fiction. It seems to me, though, that supernatural/miraculous events would quite naturally mark the actions of God. It would be bizarre for Jesus to proclaim he was divine and then act in a perfectly mundane way. Such a claim to deity would necessarily require proof! And Jesus produced such proof again and again. This seems perfectly plausible to me...So when I read that Jesus turned water into wine, rather than trying to somehow convince myself that God can transform one element into another, the logical explanation is that this is an exaggeration, or a bit of fiction added to the story to make a certain point or to explain a lesson we are supposed to learn from the story.
Only when the context indicates that I should.So I guess I am suggesting that you are reading it wrong if you are taking everything in the bible as literal truth. Certainly you don't take everything in the bible as literal truth, do you?
Selah.
Upvote
0