Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is the bible really the most reliable historical text?
and is it really the longest surviving historical document?

Every time I get in a discussion with someone about the bible, I hear the argument that the bible is the oldest reliable written text.

I usually think the bible is as reliable as a modern comic book or literature that is written in a particular city or time and is only reliable in certain details.

Now I am not sure about who has the longest history in the world but I often assumed places like China and India could have reliable written text and oral stories that might exceed the 1st written known Hebrew script.

According to jewish tradition, the bible was revealed to moses in 1312 BC. That is "revealed" in the oral sense, because there wasn't a standardized written version of the tanakh until like 200 BC. So that right there should be setting off warning signs as to its historical value. On top of that, the oldest actual written copy that exists is 150 BC at most.

India's oldest text the vedas go back to about 1500 BC... but again mostly as an oral tradition, so, there is inherent unreliability.

I would say the bible is about comparable to the Illiad. Loosely inspired on real events but with gods and magic and monsters added all throughout.

hello! guys!!

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=553409&pagenumber=1#post13486620

I have a feeling I posted that one in the wrong thread.

I think it is since it is was written a long time ago.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think it is since it is was written a long time ago.
But the hindu scriptures are actually even older. So why aren't they the real religion?

Mahabharata:

"Whatever is here, is found elsewhere. But what is not here, is nowhere else."

no on both. why would any1 begin to think either?

Because people have a messed up sense of the burden of proof.

If I took 100 of the best selling books off the self and sent them 2000 years into the future, they could examine the books and deduce a lot of accurate historical information. However, that does not mean everything is true.

They may conclude that many teens and twentysomethings were so desperate for fame they became vampires. That, or that Oprah was the real Second Coming, and we were too busy trying to destroy ourselves with corpse-animating viruses, to notice.

IMO, the Bible's main purpose was not to be a historical document. Therefore it should not be seen as "most historically reliable."

Originally posted by Mindship
They may conclude that many teens and twentysomethings were so desperate for fame they became vampires.

That, or that Oprah was the real Second Coming, and we were too busy trying to destroy ourselves with corpse-animating viruses, to notice.

It would be even worse if there was really more books and a future council of nicea were to pick only 100 and burned the rest.

The works of Josephus would be pretty accurate for that time period of the NT