Church vs Bible, What to believe?

Do you believe that Homer's Oddesey is historically accurate? It also mentions real kings and kingdoms, in between stories of mythical legends.

If you are saying that any religious text is historical....than at least you aren't being completely inconsistent.

I don't know. I've never looked into what historians think of the historical aspects of the story.



I am saying that.

It's true "The Bible contains a lot of accurate history"
The Bible writers were also meticulously accurate. After analyzing the Bible in the light of history and archaeology, writer Werner Keller said in the introduction of his book The Bible as History: “In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, . . . there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: ‘The Bible is right after all!’”

This is the same pattern all over again.

You start with something you want to be true. Then you search for things to support it and ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preexisting beliefs.

What evidence would change your mind and get you to accept that the bible isn't historically accurate (any more than any other mythological text)? I have already given you several examples of inaccuracies from well after your limit.

I've yet to see any contradictory evidence.

If I do see contradictory evidence, I will not ignore it.

That doesn't mean I will find it convincing. But if I disagree with it, I will provide a good reason for that disagreement.



Well, you could produce reliable information that the consensus of historians and archeologists is no longer that the Bible's history is reasonably accurate back to about 900 BC.

I'd also be interested in reliable information as to what the new consensus is, and why they changed their minds.



Hold on here. I acknowledge that other ancient texts contain good history as well.

As one example, the fact that Egyptian hieroglyphs babble on and on about "sun gods" and the like doesn't change the fact that they also contain a wealth of historical information and insight into ancient Egypt.



You made a vague reference to getting the order of kings wrong, and referring to battles that you claim do not exist.

On the surface those seem to be minor errors (if they are errors at all), but I'd have to know specifically what you are talking about in order to know for sure.

I have yet to receive any clarification as to what exactly you are referring to.



As best I can tell without receiving clarification as to what you are talking about, you are referring to writings from well after the Israeli kingdoms ceased to exist.

It is hard to see how such inaccuracies, if they exist, impugn the history that came from the Israeli kingdoms.

Of course, different books of the Bible were written by different people for different reasons. You can read scholarly analyses of any one. If you are going to claim one is historically accurate, you will have to tell me which one.

Take Daniel for example (fully on the time period you establish). The book of Daniel makes historically claims that are clearly factually wrong.

- They invent an invasion of Jerusalem that never happened (we know this because we have detailed records from the alleged invaders).

- They get the orders of kings completely wrong, and are wrong and inaccurate claims about historicall figures we know about.

You can find similar errors in other books especially Isaiah.

If some future religious texts say that Jimmy Carter was the son of Donald Trump, future historians will be able to know this is wrong simply by looking at other historical sources.

The official history of the Kingdom of Judah is represented by Joshua/Judges/Samuel I+II/Kings I+II.

I believe that most if not all of the post-900 BC history will be found within Kings I+II.

There are some earlier fragments of truth in this official history. It's not as if everything before 900 BC is inaccurate. For example, the stories of King Saul and of David as a bandit chieftain are reasonably accurate. Also, Shiloh is accurately depicted as being the center of the Jewish faith in pre-monarchy times.



Daniel was written after 167 BC, as the author is aware of events that happened that year.

How do you know that the myth of Saul and David as bandit chieftain was accurate. Were you there? I don't believe there is any corborrating evidence for this mythology.

And... The fact that Daniel was written after the events described, and still got the facts wrong (as shown by real historical documents from the time) is exactly my point.

It is not a history, it is religious mythology most likely invented (according to scholars) for political propaganda.

I don't know if you have actually READ these books, Oralloy,

- Joshua has a day where the Sun and moon stood still (presumably this meant the Earth stopped rotating... a scientific impossibility. It has a city wall brought down by the sound of trumpets (followed by a genocide where God orders His people to kill women and children).

- In Judges you have angels in flame appearing, and a guy who lost his supernature strength when he got a hair cut,

- In 1st and 2nd Samuel you have a prophet with the power to control the weather, and people being struck dead by God.

- 1st and 2nd Kings you have people raised from the dead. A prophet controlling the weather and calling down fire from heaven. You have people talking to animals, and summoning animals to feed them and strike down their foes.

You have people being cured of leprosy, a hand is whithered and then restored, angels fight battles and kill enemies. metal tools are made to float. And a guy is swept away in a flying chariot of fire.

These are histories. They are mythology.

Egyptian hieroglyphs have all sorts of nonsense about "sun gods".

Having mythological claims does not prevent a source from having historical value.

Saul:

There are tenth century archaeological ruins right where Saul's kingdom was supposed to be. And there are no other explanations for what those ruins might be.

Further, the Pharaoh Shishak/Shoshenq I conducted a famous invasion of the area late in the tenth century, right at the time when those very archaeological ruins were abandoned. The Bible claims he looted Jerusalem (and claims that Saul's kingdom was much earlier).

Shoshenq I's own Egyptian records of his invasion show that his main focus was conquering those very sites where Saul's kingdom was supposed to be located, and which archaeology shows were suddenly abandoned right at that time.

Those same Egyptian records take no notice of Jerusalem. However, the Biblical story of Saul's death at the hands of the Philistines says that David cut a deal with the Philistines so that he was not a target.

The Philistines would have been allies with the Egyptians, and Shoshenq I's invasion would have passed through the Philistine cities on their way north, so it is possible that the Egyptian invasion was recast as a Philistine aggression by the Biblical author who tried to rewrite history and place Saul's kingdom in an earlier century (to make room for the myth of the united monarchy).


David:

There are stone inscriptions which recognize the House of David. This proves that David was a real figure and did found Judah's ruling dynasty.

Further, the stories of David as a bandit chieftain can be dated to the 10th century BC because the author is clearly familiar with the 10th century BC world. In particular the author is familiar with Gath as a powerful city state.

Stories about David written by later authors are clearly different. Even if they try to describe David's world, they are not familiar with the 10th century BC world and are instead familiar with the world as it is in their own century. No author from later centuries refers to Gath as a local power when they write stories about David.



The history that was written during the actual monarchical period has a much more accurate depiction of that monarchical period.

The only way to have a meaningful conversation about this kind of stuff....IS TO STOP USING THE WORD "BELIEVE" during the discussion. If some of the questions proposed here were changed from "Do you believe such and such..." to (what is actually being asked) "Do you guess without any proof at all that such and such..."...

...perhaps a more productive undertaking could be had.

I believe you may have a point.

Oops.

People can disagree about what is historical, what is hyperbole, what is metaphor, etc.
But if any of that distracts from the story told between the lines, you might as well burn it rather than read it.

I think that is one of the better proofs of the book, at least for me. If the message did not require an honestly questing mind to reveal it, the many attempts to ban or destroy the message would have succeeded.

Or so I believe.

Oralloy, you are being silly. This is another example where you start with something you want to believe and ignore anything that suggests it isn't true.

You have provided evidence that someone named Saul existed, and that there is an inscription with the name David on it. Actually, most secular (i.e. unbiased) historians dispute even this)

Based on that you accept a story that includes Giants, Witches, the magical ability to control the weather and people who can talk to ghosts.

This is mythology, not history.

I hope you also realize that the Story of David was invented in about 350BC. They weren't written by people who actually lived during the time.

These were legends written in 350BC or so to convince people in 350BC to support a political theocracy.

Interesting. I am reading more about what scholars (i.e. the archeologists and people who actually study history) say.

Apparently Judaism was formed around 585 BCE. There was what scholars call "the YHWH cult" a couple of centuries before that.

There is evidence that someone named David existed, it is not clear that he had very much power over more than a single city.

However, David would have existed before God had been created. David would not have known anything about the deity we now know as God. This part of the myth was backfitted by people 500 years later who were trying to support a theocratic political movement.

So I guess I can skip addressing your previous two posts and just address this one.

If you want to read more, I recommend books by an archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein



I suppose it depends on how you define Judaism.

It was certainly a different form post-monarchy than it was during the monarchy. It also underwent changes during the monarchy.



Egyptian records place the Hebrew deity in the southern Levant as early as 1400 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu#Shasu_of_Yhw



Let's go with "bandit chieftain".

I'm not sure that I would describe 10th century Jerusalem as a city.

Perhaps we could call it a town, so long as we include the caveat that it was not a large town.

He did found Judah's ruling lineage however.



Note the Egyptian records that I linked above.

Interesting, I didn't know about the Shasu. That is interesting. I was wrong about when YHWH was invented.

You have provided links that someone named David existed, and someone named Saul. You have not provided any evidence of the banditry, or the war of succession or the existance of giants, or of men with the supernatural power to control the weather.

It is quite possible that there was a King Author. No one believes that these legends (with magic and dragons and fairies bearing swords in lakes) represent history.

Your faith is strong, Oralloy.