Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2020
- Had some video issues and had to do some re-shoots. That's why the camera angle changes a couple of times and why there's a late upload, sorry!
Sources:
1. Hooray, you found the sources!
2. The “Mesha Stele” or “Moabite Stone”. More info here: www.ancient.eu/Moabite_Stone_[Mesha_Stele]/
3. The “Merneptah Stele” or “Israel Stele”. More info here: joyofmuseums.com/museums/afri...
4. The “Autobiography of Weni”. More information here: www.touregypt.net/inscriptiono...
5. Also the Mesha Stele. See citation 2.
6. Zondervan Handbook of the Bible pg26. See also these two sites: thebiomedicalscientist.net/sc....
And also: www.thoughtco.com/ancient-egy....
7. The “Ain Dara Temple”. More info here: web.archive.org/web/201107140...
8. Specifically the Testimonuim Flavanium. More info here: www.socinian.org/files/Testimo...
9. Tacitus Annals 15.44. More info here: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...
10. Pliny’s Letter to Emporer Trajan. More info here: www.thefaithexplained.com/blo...
11. Location: www.google.com/maps/place/Get...
More info: www.seetheholyland.net/gethse...
12. Now called el Araj. Some historians even think they’ve found the home of the apostle Peter! More info here: www.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
13. Paragraph 4, beginning in sentence 2, source: drive.google.com/file/d/1_2Ln...
Great video. Well explained and to the point. Also, i appreciate that you link the sources. I will be taking a deeper look into that.
Thank you for the great content.
Fantastic video.
How do you have so much alcohol in the background?
Other than the bottle of wine with my family name on it, it's all root beer! If you take a careful look, you'll see that every one is a different brand of root beer that I've tried over the years. I love it!
@@ThePracticalApologist Wow that’s really cool. Keep up the great work, I looked up ‘is the Bible historically accurate’ and this was the first vid to pop up. It was interesting and informative so thanks!
Hey man, great video. I'm a Christian, and can see myself using this Smithsonian point you mention. I can't find the source in the description, would you happen to have it on hand for me?
Dang, looks like the link has been 404'd. Here's a direct link to the PDF of the letter, and I'll change the link in the description as well. Thanks for letting me know!
drive.google.com/file/d/1_2LnewFzyQOi70Fr8q-heKbKfI87ayoD/view?usp=sharing
@@ThePracticalApologist Praise God! Thanks bro, keep up the good work!
I mean what point does it prove though ? So because everyone in the world recorded there was a flood so hundreds of years later the Bible says there was one too it makes the Bible true? No that’s just taking something the world already knew and putting it into a story in fact most historians piece together that the Bible was mostly constructed by Josephus flavius who was a Jewish Roman .. and took Jewish religion Egyptian religion and Roman religion and mixed it together to make Christianity. Even some of the battles that the Bible talks about is very very similar to the battles of the Roman Cesar Titus flavius who’s father died and he had parliament make his dead father a god so he would be know as the son god.
@@KingAries85 How did you come to that conclusion?
@@cameronclark447 I payed attention to ancient Roman Greek and Egyptian history
Just because some part of the Bible may be historically accurate doesn't mean it all is.
Your example of captain America hit the nail on the head. Just because it references real locations and events isn't proof that super soldiers exist.
My point there is that Captain America comics and movies aren't made with the purpose of being historically accurate, they're made to be fiction. In the same way, psalms and other Biblical works of poetry aren't made to be historical, they're made to be poetic.
But the historical books of the Bible have proven to be reliable time and again, to the extent that historians use them as books of historical reference.
@@ThePracticalApologist the same may be said of captain America or Harry potter 2000 years from now though. Especially if they were stories passed down for generations before being written down, then compiled and translated and edited to fit the need of people in power at the time...
There are a lot of people that would disagree with you that portions of the Bible are meant poetically and not literally. There are a lot of other people that require more proof than obscure references to believe in the supernatural.
This is why it's important to have third party histories, like Egyptian history during Exodus, or like Josephus in the time of Jesus. When several different cultures have histories that align, it shows accuracy beyond myth, fairy tale, or history written by victors.
@@ThePracticalApologist Josephus did not live in the time of Jesus. He was born a few years after Jesus' time wrote about Jesus about 60 years after he was crucified. He's not a firsthand witness.
@@israellara89 yes there are many scriptures of the Bible where they were written several 100s if not thousands years after christ that makes it hard to prove that it did exist and idk what evidence there is cause most of it has been dismissed in fact evidence of thw Bible being manipulated there is proff of that and scripture being not added in the Bible or physically changed
I really thought you would be giving supporting evidence
Were the citations listed not precisely that?
I meant in the video
@@ThePracticalApologist he doesn't like to read probably
@@zicoriley8702 ummm, he gives over a dozen in the details…. And quoted about 100 more in the video..
Smh.. it’s all there if you want it.
@@DariusGheghesan no he likes to read
I can walk among the ruins of the Greek pantheon too but that doesn’t make Zeus and Poseidon real.
Yes, but history debunks the dozens of myths of the Greek pantheon. On the other hand, archeology and other historical writings have supported the writings of scripture.
@@ThePracticalApologist strong hard facts !!!
Almost on a daily basis, archeological proofs are unearthed, confirming names, tribes, people groups, places, cities, events etc…..
God is amazing !!
If other historical accounts “reference the Bible”, in what way are they building on an objective body of evidence that the Bible presumably reflects?
Optimally, historical accounts do not reference one another, they reference reliable evidence of historical fact. Using the Bible as proof of itself is a logical fallacy.
Two parts to this:
First, there are many historical sources that are not Judeo/Christian that confirm the events of the Bible. Not referencing the Bible, just confirming the historical account of the Bible by covering the same events.
Second, if we were to eliminate historical sources that reference other historical sources, we would be very short on ancient history. Much of what we have are historians that are just referencing other historians. It's just the reality of ancient history that some sources will be references of references.
@@ThePracticalApologist First, I do not think it’s a compelling argument to question whether the Bible is right about anything at all, and I am doubtful that anyone actually does. No science fiction or fantasy story puts you in an entirely unrecognizable world.
But your second argument seems to defend your position that an account which references another earlier account is credible in its own way. It is not. If every person agreed that two and two make five, they would not make one another’s claims more accurate.
It is dubious to me that this would be a topic for an apologist to confront. Your response seems to imply that because the Bible contains things which are true, it must be true in any number of other ways. This strikes me as another circular attempt to use a source to verify itself.
I think you'd be surprised how many people think the Bible is an entire work of fiction!
But I think you might misunderstand what I mean when I say that there are non-Christian sources that confirm events in the Bible. I don't mean that they write about general things happening at the time, I mean that they write about Jesus of Nazareth, that He performed miracles, that He was crucified, and that His body went missing later, and that His followers claimed He had resurrected. Or similarly specific writings.
These are not general writings of history, these are very specific historical writings of very specific events.
Second, I want to be clear that this is not just *my* stance. This is the stance of ancient historians. We simply don't have a lot of first hand ancient writings of history. So we have no choice but to take second or third hand writings. If this isn't sufficient for you, that's your decision to make, but you would also need to dismiss plenty of other ancient history, like Alexander the Great, or the Trojan Horse, or many other ancient events.
You would also be holding ancient writings to a more strict standard than ancient historians.
@@ThePracticalApologist I spend a lot of time in atheist circles, and I engage fairly frequently with apologists and the ilk. What I don't see: atheists relying on the argument that the Bible is wholly fictional. What I do see: straw man arguments from apologists contending that Nazareth actually exists, etc. While it would be presumptuous and disrespectful to contend that you deliberately poised such an argument out of bad faith (in the figurative sense), it is nevertheless a position that, among earnest atheists and anti-theists, is not a point of contention and does nothing to address the more salient arguments in play.
I will agree that sources for bronze-age history are quite scant and unreliable, and for this reason the default position of any historian worth their salt is one of incredulity. You mention Alexander the Great, and it reminds me of the writings of Caesar Augustus and how my history student friends are steadfastly cautioned by their instructors about taking those accounts at face value. It's a biased viewpoint, obviously. For certain questions, you simply cannot rely on the words of those directly involved for definitive answers, especially when those historians are making claims to super-natural phenomena.
@@Bingbangboompowwham Interesting. I see that you concede the amount of historical manuscripts we have on ancient history, and I see that you do, therefore, hold it to a higher standard than most ancient historians.
Which actually brings me to a different question: do you post similarly doubtful comments on other accounts of history? Do you share your doubts on videos about ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the like?
If not, it shows a lack of objectivity, which could sway one's opinions on what is and is not historically reliable.
Religious authorities were not happy to dispense with the Old Testament altogether, since it had supported and kept them together throughout their history. In the interests of preserving what they thought to be valuable in the old dispensation, they suppressed any description of the "person" Jesus was.
Religious authorities built their own edifice of "sacred beliefs" on what they wanted to preserve from Jesus' life and teachings. They only taught and consolidated what they deemed to be valuable to people.
Consequently, they distilled what they could use and they "let go" most of what Jesus termed the "secrets of the Kingdom of God" for they never understood them. Nor found them desirable in the creation of a new perception of the Divine, the Father.
To preserve the belief in "salvation from punishment for sins" by means of sacrifice, the "person of Jesus" was adopted as the "supreme" sacrifice who had paid for men’s sins by his crucifixion.
It gave Jesus' death on the cross a valid and heroic reason. It proved to the people that Jesus was the "Son of God" who had carried out a specific mission to the very end of his life.
This belief also proved to be of great comfort.
Consequently, it was greatly comforting to hear that "Jesus Christ" had overcome death and retained his body. Too much human thought, life was not possible without a body. Therefore, life after death could only mean the resurrection of the body.
It also kept Jesus' name constantly alive in the minds of people. Jesus was the "historic figure" who had valiantly died to ensure that men should be freed of all fear of hell and damnation. Providing they believed in "Jesus," they could walk as "freed men."
Gnostic nonsense. Those mystic beliefs didn’t make it into scripture , is because this was the exact heresy, the early church fought against.
Look into the early church fathers, they show what the true and pure teachings of Christ were. These are the same church fathers that learned DIRECTLY from Jesus’ apostles…. For example, Clement of Rome, learned directly from Paul the Apostle. If you read Clements letter to Corinth, it is exactly the same Jesus’, Paul and the rest of the apostles preached .
Then you have Ignatius, the first Bishop of Antioch,who learned at the feet of John the Apostle. The same goes for Ignatius and those whom he ended up transferring the gospel to , such a PolyCarp…..
ALL THEIR WRITINGS PREACH THE SAME JESUS AND REJECT GNOSTICISM !
Follow the chain of evidence.
Go to the oldest source and work your way through history.
@@dfacedagame
Jesus knew He was one of the Father’s gift of salvation to the world, NOT as we supposed and taught down the centuries, salvation from the punishment meted out by the wrath of God; BUT to save us from the daily repetition of the same mistakes in wrong thinking - wrong thinking which created our misfortunes, poverty, sickness and misery.
Because Jesus Loved the human race so deeply, Jesus was prepared to teach and heal in defiance of religious authorities. Jesus was prepared to die on the cross for what He had truly seen in the desert, knew with all His heart, and wanted to share to the last drop of His ability to do so.
THIS IS THE TRUTH BEHIND JESUS' CRUCIFIXION AND ALL THE REST WE’VE HEARD IS MAN-MADE CONJECTURE ARISING OUT OF THE JEWISH PRACTICE OF BURNT OFFERINGS IN THE TEMPLE.
Jesus was a gift from the Father to humankind to help us surmount our ignorance of the LAWS of EXISTENCE, and to find the true PATH of LIFE leading to the joy, abundance and perfect wholeness of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Oh look, someone found theosophy. How original.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness
Christians do not know when spiritual insight and progress is taking place in the minds of those who may appear to be very humble and of no account socially.
Christians, cease your criticism of other religions because you do not know the heights of spiritual knowledge, insight and enlightenment their adherents may have attained.
Christians, realize that you, yourselves, are only as spiritually advanced as is your personal perception of Reality.
If you have no perception of what lies beyond the veil of the material world - you may be a believer, but you do not have a spiritual consciousness.
This is the true ideal, the true aspiration, the highest goal - to understand and experience the Reality behind and within all things giving them their individual being.
You may call the Reality - "God," "Allah," "Jehovah," "Infinite Intelligence," "Divine Mind" or "Divine Consciousness," or the "Tao." All these names mean the SOURCE of BEING - the CREATIVE ORIGINS.
YOU CAN HAVE NO HIGHER ASPIRATION THAN THIS - to understand and experience the Reality behind and within all things - giving, maintaining and sustaining all individual beings.
This was the goal presented to us by Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, etc.
They all shared the same vision, the same realization and understanding. Such teachers were held in high esteem, but most of their followers misunderstood what they were being taught. Each follower placed their own interpretation on the words of their teacher. Each interpretation arose out of the personal conditioning and bias of the follower.
@@edgarmorales4476 ah yes, the modern “we understand the ancient religions better than the immediate associates of the founders of those religions themselves” people. No one in any of these religions believed that 1,000 years ago. I’m more interested in what the ancients actually say (even if limited to their scribes’ writings) than modern coexist bs.
So are there 1000 year old proof of jesus weeping?
No and lots of people had the same names back then. No fisical proof today or jesus besides one book
Good job speaking a lot and not saying much....
Is the Bible historicaly accurate? No. Next video.
If I say that I've actually typed my reasons to believe in Jesus's existence (which should prove God's existence), would you like me to share them here?
@@nataliahalim9267 don't need reasons. Need evidence. And the Bible is not evidence.
@@mikelake4681 I think that there are 2 types of reasons: subjective and objective - subjective reasons can't be evidences, but objective reasons sure can be. Example of subjective reasons: "If it's true that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, nobody comes to the Father except through Him - then as a sinner, not accepting Him might be suicide. But if it's not true, believing in Him is still nothing to lose - so I'd prefer safe than sorry." Example of an objective reason: "There are many religions in this world, and most of their beliefs contradict each other - but there's one thing in which they agree; they all agree that Jesus exists. It can't be that they've had a collaboration with each other, because they're surely not friends, since they often had conflicts with one another. If I try to do more researches, might it turn out that Jesus exists?" - this isn't my only objective reason though. If I compare this example to the reasons I've typed, this is surely less than half (I don't know exactly how much this is, but surely not a lot). Anyways, I think that objective reasons sure can be evidences, since they contain facts which form the conclusions. However, people often call those reasons 'opinions,' since they contain conclusions - even though those conclusions are from facts. Anyways, those reasons do give me quite a conclusion that Jesus exists - but if they shouldn't, then you might be able to show me where my mistakes are, which is what brought me to the wrong conclusion, right..? Well, it's fine if you don't want to, but I'd share them here if you want me to.
@@nataliahalim9267 very well written. But, still nothing you said is or can be considered evidence. I think that a man( and I'll stress that) named Jesus possibly existed. Even though I think the evidence is flimsy at best. But as to his having supernatural powers. No, that would take verifiable evidence. And that still would not prove the existence of a supernatural being. Of which there has never been and credible evidence.
@@mikelake4681 about Jesus's existence, I haven't actually given you the reasons I've typed though (what I sent in my previous comment was an explanation of how my reasons to believe in His existence could be evidences, but they're not the reasons that I've typed). So, about the reasons that I've typed, do you want me to share them here with you, or do you think that you've now have enough reasons to believe in Jesus's existence already?
About how Jesus's existence should prove God's existence, it's because of His divinity and reliability - not everyone believes this though (not everyone believes that Jesus is divine and reliable). However, I've actually also typed my reasons to believe in Jesus's divinity and reliability. Would you like me to share them here?