Red_Pyramid

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 and I can't find too much here that takes biblical history specifically(unless I'm looking in all the wrong places). 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; Other than searching the forums here, what
weblinks, books, lists of scholars, and the debunking of biblical history claims, and so on should I go to...
And is it true that 85% of the bible is historically inacurate, and if true where did this claim originate???

Roller

If I may suggest, for a start, to avoid sources that are set on debunking something from the outset.

Stickied thread has several very good book on this topic. IIDB favorite is The Bible Unearthed that deals specifically with the Old Testament History. I would suggest The Old Testament World by Philip Davies. Althougt Davies' book, in my opinion, is more of a book that gives you the context of the Old Testament world rather then occupy itself with the historical accuracies.

Another good one is Archeology and the Bible by JC Laughlin.

Sven

First, welcome! :wave:
Second: BC&H Recommended Reading & Reference - consolidated

Third: I never heard this claim. And I doubt it's true. Although many things are historically inaccurate (especially in the OT), I would say it amounts to about 50% in total.

Amaleq13

I don't understand why you eliminate searching the forums but you could start at the top of this one with this sticky thread:

BC&H Recommended Reading & Reference - consolidated

The one book that would have repeatedly appeared if you did decide to use the search engine is The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

ETA: Sorry for the cross-posting.

Julian

I would also like to add the person you were debating was right to dismiss your claims when they come without a credible source. When making claims, especially claims that could be viewed as controversial, it is essential to be able to back up such claims with factual research and knowledge.

Julian

Malachi151

I would also add that the New Testament is MORE INNACURATE than the Old Testament. The New Testament is also easier to verify, though it makes less important claims from a truely historical perspective, meaning that the NT doesn't really tell us anything about history like the OT does, which goes into information about the existance of various tribes, wars, kings, important locations, and cultural events, etc.

The NT is just a small story about one figure and it pretty much just covers a period of about 3 or 4 years in detail, though it also covers a little bit of the time of the supposed birth of Jesus, and also some info from the Acts of the apostles, and then a little bit of relavent into the various epistles, but overall, the NT doesn't contain much of interest in the grander scheme of things.

Red_Pyramid

Oh I'm going to search the hell out of this forum, I'm just saying "other than doing that" or "besides doing that"...

Roger Pearse

From the other side of the fence, may I endorse this comment whole-heartedly? Nothing is more irritating that a weenie who is absolutely certain about things that no scholar knows, and asserts that all scholars endorse what in fact he merely half-remembers from somewhere.

As an example: If someone tells me that in the 17th century a manuscript of Josephus existed that did not contain the longer passage about Jesus, that is interesting to me as a manuscripts buff, and I am irritated if I find that the person saying it clearly merely read it somewhere, he knows not where, and can't or won't say. BUT if this person goes further, and is saying this in order effectively to say, "this proves Christianity is untrue" -- or something equally controversial --, but still has no idea whether it is so, most people are not irritated: they simply call him a liar, and his remarks are merely defamatory. No-one is served by this.

(NB: no such manuscript seems ever to have existed, although the myth-makers refer to Isaac Voss knowing about it. The utter certainty with which some people assert that it did, based on a bit of nonsense online, is breath-taking!)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Red_Pyramid

My sources are "The Encyclopdia of Biblical Errancy" and Biblical Nonsense", and they write a lot about genesis, noah's ark, tower of babel, the exodus, and the inacuracies regarding the gospel of accounts of christ and his trial all according to what they say is historical fact. Both of which fail to give anything beyond generalizations, they don't point to any crucial scholars or sources...

fta

This was discussed here, it would be interesting to learn if andrewcriddle has done any further research.