What historical inaccuracies are there in the Bible?
There are people who claim it has never been disproven, and on a metaphysical level, maybe not. But are there concrete examples of glaring errors in historical accuracy?
>>382018
We have yet to find evidence of this big Jewish Empire that covered the levant that the OT keeps on talking about.
So far, all we can see is a city state around Jerusalem.
>>382018
>There are people who claim it has never been disproven
The same people claim the world started six million years ago.
>>382049
>six million
>>382018
I think most things concerning the trial and death of Jesus.
The various events surrounding the trial would require favoritism towards the Jews of which there is no evidence (Show-trial, getting to free a prisoner who is inexplicably named Jesus Son of the Father).
The trial is incredibly inaccurate to the laws used by the court (held at night, private residence, Jesus is given no warning for his blasphemy, Jesus is convicted with no evidence but his own confession, unanimous conviction is a success, Jesus is turned over to the romans).
There was no recorded rising of the dead and an eclipse can't occur on passover.
>>382024
I never understood why the Romans called the whole place Judea
If I was a Canaanite I'd be pissed off
>>382221
This is a very compelling answer.
Not historical, but if I remember correctly the Bible says that insects have four legs and that rabbits chew cud. Apparently God forget to double check.
>>382285
It also mentions four legged birds.
Well, to begin with you have two quite different creation myths consecutively, right there in the beginning. While it's not historical, it is a clear example how inaccurate and self-contradictory the bible can be at times.
>>382018
"The bible" is not a solitary book, it is a collection of books written by many authors, often over a long period of time. Sometimes these authors had knowledge of the other books and sometimes they did not.
In general, they were not concerned with historical accuracy in the way that we would think of it - they were more interested in writing history to suit their theological point of view. This means that there are internal and external contradictions all over the bible, but to read it looking for contradictions and not looking at the message each book is attempting to give is looking at it...I don't want to say wrong, but you're just sort of missing the point. It would be like reading Moby Dick when all you're looking for is mistakes Melville made in his description of whaling in the 19th century.
(Not even a Christfag)
>>382227
Because the Maccabees revolt against the Seleucids happened. Which placed all of Judea under Hebrew rule.
>>382375
Then why does John give a different date for the crucifixion than the Synoptic Gospels?
Physics and geology show Genesis to be wrong.
Achaeology has pretty comprehensively show Exodus to be wrong.
History has shown the claims about Jesus' birth in the gospels to be wrong.
Time has shown Revelation never fucking happened.
>>382018
Here you go OP
This should keep you busy for hours http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
>>382787
The person(s) who wrote John was likely trying to make Jesus a metaphor for the Passover lamb and pushing the date around meant he could do that, along with the following segment with explicit lack of bonebreaking and the side piercing.
The Synoptic Gospels also copy off of eachother so there's more overlap in how the story is told.
>>382818
>Time has shown Revelation never fucking happened.
Thus far. You might end feeling pretty silly.
>>382818
>Time has shown Revelation never fucking happened.
The genre of Revelation proves that. Apocalytpic literature isn't meant to be taken literally. It's one of the rules of the genre that it's written in metaphor. Most people have just forgotten that.
