How Much of the Bible is Based in History

[Changing our Schools]

The question I have is how much of the Bible actually happened and if some of it did happen, who's to say that everything else in there isn't also based off of something that happened.

This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.

An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.

So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?

 

[Abishai100]

Metaphor 101

Some of the passages in the Bible are so dramatic that they seem difficult to connect to real world events or social ideas.

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority" (Revelation 13 - KJV Bible).

What if we use Bible passages to create metaphors of real world events? What if the Biblical flood refers to the real Earth history Ice Age which changed the animalia landscape and gave rise to human civilization?

Sometimes metaphor citations feel like apocrypha, but it feels like they're the best tools we have to 'translate' the Bible into everyday language.

The comic book villain Sandman (Marvel Comics), for example, is an pop culture art avatar metaphor for adaptation and malleability anxieties and could be used as a literary symbol to discuss the Biblical AntiChrist.

Such notions reveal the social value of spiritualism-colloquialization Hollywood (USA) movies such as "Hellraiser" (1987).








Antichrist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously, there are a whole list of scientific reasons why the Flood was a myth.

It was probably based on earlier flood myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which in turn were probably based on oral traditions of flash floods that were common as the Ice Ages were coming to an end.

My problem with the flood has always been philosophical.

Mankind does not turn out the way God wants it to after he gives them free will and some angels go to earth and have some sex with human women. So God's go-to solution is to drown nearly everyone in the world, including all the babies.

Honestly, I have no desire to worship a sociopath, even if I thought he was real.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The question I have is how much of the Bible actually happened and if some of it did happen, who's to say that everything else in there isn't also based off of something that happened.

This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.

An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.

So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?

If it did, who wrote about it? Noah didn't, nor did any on-board the Ark. Presumedly everyone else died.

There have been numerous tsunamis and floods in the Mediterranean over the millenia, but none that correspond to the Great Flood in the Tanach. And the only global flood ever was billions of years ago before anyone was even around to know about it until modern times and science found out about it.

 

[PratchettFan]

The question I have is how much of the Bible actually happened and if some of it did happen, who's to say that everything else in there isn't also based off of something that happened.

This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.

An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.

So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?

There have been innumerable floods and all of them great for the people affected by them. When your entire world is centered in a small geographic areas (which is the situation with most ancient peoples) then a significant incident which globally is very restricted will seem to involve the whole world.

That being said, another reason for the myth would be finding fossils of fish on mountains. If you didn't understand the nature of plate tectonics, you would of course assume the oceans once covered the mountains.

This is not to say there is no historical significance to the Bible. Of course there is. But even relatively modern history can be impacted by myth. Washington cutting down the cherry tree or throwing the dollar across the Potomac, Lincoln walking miles to return a penny, etc. The older the history, the more likely the story is embellished.

 

[RandomVariable]

The question I have is how much of the Bible actually happened and if some of it did happen, who's to say that everything else in there isn't also based off of something that happened.

This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.

An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.

So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?

So you are asking that the Bible be evaluated as a historical reference. You give the flood as an example of a possible historical event which the Bible references. Before you do anything else you must reach a conclusion about the flood itself. So what do you say was the historical reality of the flood? Only after that can we look and see how well the Bible reflects that reality.

 

[Hollie]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

 

[RandomVariable]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

But the Biblical tale is not about a flood. It is the tale of a man, and his boat, and a lot of animals, a whole lot of animals.

 

[Hollie]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

But the Biblical tale is not about a flood. It is the tale of a man, and his boat, and a lot of animals, a whole lot of animals.

It's about a serial mass murderer who found his "creation" to be a disappointment. So, wipe em' out and start over.

 

[RandomVariable]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

But the Biblical tale is not about a flood. It is the tale of a man, and his boat, and a lot of animals, a whole lot of animals.

It's about a serial mass murderer who found his "creation" to be a disappointment. So, wipe em' out and start over.

So you do believe in him.

 

[Meathead]

There are several legends and theories about ancient floods. The flooding of the Black Sea is tied in by some to Atlantis, Noah and the diaspora of the original Indo-Europeans. There usually is a grain of truth to these oral traditions (like Troy) and it is certainly only an hypothesis but nonetheless fascinating.

Was the Black Sea Deluge the Flood of Noah

 

[Hollie]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

But the Biblical tale is not about a flood. It is the tale of a man, and his boat, and a lot of animals, a whole lot of animals.

It's about a serial mass murderer who found his "creation" to be a disappointment. So, wipe em' out and start over.

So you do believe in him.

No.

 

[Meriweather]

Obviously, there are a whole list of scientific reasons why the Flood was a myth.

It was probably based on earlier flood myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which in turn were probably based on oral traditions of flash floods that were common as the Ice Ages were coming to an end.

My problem with the flood has always been philosophical.

Mankind does not turn out the way God wants it to after he gives them free will and some angels go to earth and have some sex with human women. So God's go-to solution is to drown nearly everyone in the world, including all the babies.

Honestly, I have no desire to worship a sociopath, even if I thought he was real.

Philosophy can reach a different conclusion than the creator is a sociopath. It is man who wrote the story, and therefore man's statement he had gone astray. It is normal, after any disaster, to take stock and recognize that during the good times we might not have valued them as much as we could have. We could have been better.

Consider, too, that there are alternate translations about angels having sex with women. Men of power were having sex with common women, using them as mere playthings. Common women deserve better, do they not?

Consider the possibility that God was giving signs that a natural disaster was at hand...and one of the people who took note was someone known to be close to God, and a good person. My thought is that more than one family survived that flood, but Noah's story may be one of the most well-known.

 

[RandomVariable]

The biblical flood tales are nothing more than reiterations of earlier flood tales. The end of the last Ice Age, 15,000 to 12,000 years ago and rapid snow, ice, glacier melt would account for the flood tales that exist in many cultures. The stories are embellished as they are past down from generation to generation.

But the Biblical tale is not about a flood. It is the tale of a man, and his boat, and a lot of animals, a whole lot of animals.

It's about a serial mass murderer who found his "creation" to be a disappointment. So, wipe em' out and start over.

So you do believe in him.

No.

If he was someone who spread love and sunshine all around would you believe in him then?

 

[Steven_R]

I'd be more apt to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity than one that builds a world, destroys it because His creations were doing things He didn't approve of (and yet couldn't prevent during the designing of existence), then claims that He really loves His creation and won't ever destroy it again...at least until the end of the sequel.

And that's before we get to the whole dooming people for using the gift of free will He gave them and will demand a blood sacrifice of Himself to Himself to assuage His anger over the use of free will He gave us in the first place, lest we be damned for eternity by Himself.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Obviously, there are a whole list of scientific reasons why the Flood was a myth.

It was probably based on earlier flood myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which in turn were probably based on oral traditions of flash floods that were common as the Ice Ages were coming to an end.

My problem with the flood has always been philosophical.

Mankind does not turn out the way God wants it to after he gives them free will and some angels go to earth and have some sex with human women. So God's go-to solution is to drown nearly everyone in the world, including all the babies.

Honestly, I have no desire to worship a sociopath, even if I thought he was real.

Your philosophy is skewed. God's go to solution was to preserve mankind. There wasn't some sex with women, There was sex with and offspring from every woman and most animals on earth, save 8. So He saved 8.

We applaud abortions to get rid of Down syndrome babies, and instead of science class we have abortion class now, but you want to blame God for getting rid of nephilim monstrosities? Supporting abortion classifies you as a worse sociopath than God. What God did preserved man for future generations. Supporting abortion, even up to delivery, so you don't feel uncomfortable in the presence of a challenged individual is just plain wicked.

 

[The Irish Ram]

To address the OP, there is an easy way to confirm history from the Bible, go see if the Kings in the book, were actually Kings of long ago.

This is interesting:
They're Digging up Bible Stories

 

[JoeB131]

Your philosophy is skewed. God's go to solution was to preserve mankind. There wasn't some sex with women, There was sex with and offspring from every woman and most animals on earth, save 8. So He saved 8.

We applaud abortions to get rid of Down syndrome babies, and instead of science class we have abortion class now, but you want to blame God for getting rid of nephilim monstrosities? Supporting abortion classifies you as a worse sociopath than God. What God did preserved man for future generations. Supporting abortion, even up to delivery, so you don't feel uncomfortable in the presence of a challenged individual is just plain wicked.

I'm not even sure where to go with this batch of crazy.

besides thinking Nephilim were a real thing, how does saving 8 people save the human race. YOu'd have serious inbreeding problems within a couple generations. Not to mention that when they got off the boat, they really wouldn't have anything to eat. All the plants would have died from being underwater for a year. most of the aquatic life would have perished when salt water mixed with fresh water.

Now, for your bit of crazy about abortion, here's the thing with that. I don't "support" abortion, i just recognize that if a woman wants something out of her body, she's going to find a way to make that happen.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We are all entitled to our own beliefs.
And you do support abortion if you pay taxes. Removing a penis from her body would be more responsible than removing a life. Let her find her way to a store and buy a contraceptive.

 

[Judicial review]

See liberals hate the Jews.