How do we know the Old Testament books are historically reliable?

Question

There are many liberal scholars that would say that many of the Old Testament prophecies were written after the event that was prophecied took place. I am trying to come to grips with the reality of the Old Testament prophecies and believe so to speak, but this is just something that I have to know. What proof is there that validates the Old Testament books being written before the prophecied events took place. Please don't give me an answer like,"Well just believe." I just can't at this point. Faith is an important aspect, but I have some mind barriers that need to be cleared before the Truth can get to my heart :-). Help me out here guys. Thanks.

Answer 1

They're spiritual scripture . . . not historical documents. They are not reliable from a historian's point of view.



For instance, "historically" speaking, Moses was supposed to have written the first 5 books (Pentateuch) of the Bible, which includes the Torah ("the law"). But we now know that these books were actually written by 4 anonymous authors -- each with his own style and approach. The books of the Torah are composed of diverse source materials that were then edited together by the 4 anonymous authors.



As for the books of the prophets, they represent the poems, prophecies, and thoughts of those prophets but it's not always clear whether a particular book was written by the prophet himself or by one of his disciples. A common view among scholars is that, in most cases, the original work was revised and reorganized later, before inclusion in the Bible.



Crisis seems to precede the appearance of most prophets. Their messages were directed at their contemporaries and focused on religious truth, and renewal more than on predicting the future.



Prophecies often help in dating specific prophetic books. If a prophet mentions a historical even in the present tense, it's pretty easy to know the year of authorship. If he speaks in the future tense about a historical event, then the date is either earlier than that event or it may show that authorship was after the event, but backdated -- depending on other evidence.



Scholars tend to discount prophecy. Certain prophetic references, such as the succession of kings, is deemed to be post-dated. In addition to obvious internal evidence, scholars base their dating on linguistic analyses of the words and their style; as well as on comparisons to archaeological findings.



Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Abraham, Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (seventh century BC). As far as archeologists can tell, neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt and Assyria, have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC. This is pretty good corroboration of the professors' theories.



Biblical Traditionalists have a vested interest in maintaining the scriptural veracity of Bible authorships and dates. However, more objective scholars and archeologists find lots of evidence which does not agree.



Expat4Cebu



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rational-Debate

:-)

.

Answer 2

There is plenty of tangible evidence that shows the Old Testament of the Bible is indeed very reliable. For example, chariot wheels have been found on the bottom of the Red Sea, where it was said in the Bible that Moses parted the water so God's people, the Hebrews, could walk across on dry land and escape Pharoah and the Egyptians.



Although not proven with an actual picture of the boat, the remnants of Noah's Ark are said to be located on top of Mount Sainai (I think it was). Interestingly enough, the size and description of this ship is said to be very similar to how the Bible described it! Coincedence? Pretty awesome. It is proof that rain did fall for 40 days and 40 nights to flood the Earth and land the boat there, although no proof as to whether it was really God exists. However, I choose to believe that such an event as this could only be from God.



Another reason strengthening the validity of the Old Testament is the hundreds of documents that retell the events of the Bible. Those accounts of what happened have stayed generally similar to each other, even after thousands of years. So, the first-hand witness accounts of the Old Testament events have been passed down the generations, and they have not been altered significantly. In fact, they all tell the same story, the same very true story.

Answer 3

Well I am going to take a different angle then you are probably looking for concerning the historical reliability of the OT.



Prophecy's primary function is not future telling.



Anyone who tells you otherwise, has not studied prophecy to any level of understanding its role as it places in the OT.



Prophecy's primary purpose was to provide a message for the immediate listeners to get them through the immediate difficulty. For example, prophets who lived during the time of the exile were talking about the kingdom being restored. Why? To give hope and teach truth about God's love and consistency and his faithfulness to His people.



I think when you understand this about prophecy you begin to see how your question takes a different angle. There is some OT texts that belong to the prophetic genre that were in fact written after the fact. But that doesn't invalidate the text or the OT. If you have a proper understanding of the role of prophecy in the OT.



However, there are many cases where the Bible does speak of things and they are in fact fulfilled. Many of the Biblical prophecies had two fulfillment's. An immediate fulfillment within the lifetime of that generation and an ultimate fulfillment as is seen through Jesus.



For more question/discussion. Feel free to EMAIL me. This is a great question and topic. And is best addressed with regular correspondence.

Answer 4

I am a devout Christian, and a member of one of the world's oldest and most conservative denominations. I believe that the Bible should be studied within the context of modern secular scholarship. Anything less is offensive to the Bible itself. Do not hang your beliefs on the Bible - traditional Christianity values the Bible, but not because of its historical value. If there was any principle of interpretation applied by the Church down through the centuries (until the Reformation), it was this: Read the text as symbolic, unless the context demands a literal reading.



Many prophesies were written after the events that they "predict." But they were not meant to deceive anyone. Every prophesy was written and published among people who knew that it was written after the fact. The writings were not meant to predict future events, but to offer commentary on those events.



The best way to study the Bible is to read what modern, peer-reviewed scholars have to say, and to compare the writings in Scripture to other literature produced near the same era. This will help to gain a much better understanding of the text itself, as well as the intentions of the authors.



I recommend that you go to a library and check out volumes of "The Anchor Bible." It offers a current translation, and presents academic theories on the dates, authorship and contemporary context of each book. Study Redaction Criticism and the Documentary Hyposthesis.

Answer 5

Here is what you need to realize about the bible. The old testament was not written for you. It was written for the Jewish peoples in BCE as a way to keep the ideas of Judaism alive while the Jewish peoples were in slavery. Any other interpretation is incorrect.



As for whether the stories are historically reliable, I would say the places where the stories happen are real. As in any story, in order for it to be believable, the reader must recognize something familiar to them. Whether the actual events ever took place is open to debate.

Answer 6

Historians, with no evidence from other sources to support the Bible, raised questions as to the reliability of Biblical history. Scoffers pointed in scorn to stories of men and nations that they claimed never existed. Militant skeptics shot their arrows of unbelief, thinking that they could inflict a mortal

wound on God’s living Word. If the Bible record of Israel and the nations were true, why was there no other record of the same happenings? They asked. And they boldly assumed that because the Bible record stood alone it was most likely false. Furthermore, they said that the art of writing was a comparatively modern art; therefore, the supposed records of Moses, for instance, could not be reliable, for the simple reason that people did not know how to write in Moses’ day-fifteen hundred years before Christ, or some thirty-five hundred years ago. So they set later dates for these writings. They had particular objection to the book of Daniel, claiming

that it was written long after the time of Babylon and Medo-Persia.



Read on....

Answer 7

You can't, it's not, and it isn't....



These are just the reasons why it's not reliable I can think of from the top of my head....



-Language Translations

-Hand written copies before the Printing Press

-Hundreds of Years worth of alterations

-Limited Education

-We have also never found any actual scientific nor historical proof of the validity of the Old Testament or the New Testament for that matter....



In the end it all boils down to faith and how much logic you've thrown out the window....

Answer 8

Realistically, the better we get at historical dating of artifacts, etc, the more scientists have come to believe that events in the Bible were written down after much oral retelling, but based somewhat on actual events.



For instance, there was a HUGE flood around the black sea thousands of years ago which would have appeared to anyone who got around on horseback as if the world had flooded. Maybe this is the origin of the Noah story.



However, there are several things in the Bible which just are not credible ... the planet is certainly more than 6000 years old, etc.

Answer 9

I don't know which liberal scholars you are referencing, so I can't address that, but the fact that you said "liberal" scholar would make me question their intellectual honesty and motivation.



But all the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ were written well BEFORE Christ came, and Christ fulfilled those prophecies perfectly.

Answer 10

A BIG part of it is archaeological findings. I am currently listening to a podcast that is addressing these issues. Go to www.liquidchurch.com and find the podcast regarding The Da Vinci Code. So far it is an excellent series, and has answered some of my questions. I hope this helps :).



--Edit--



Also, the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were manuscripts of the Old Testament. They are almost perfectly identical to the text we have now, with like name spelling differences. Really cool.

Answer 11

You will have to go to archaeology, & search out certain ruins, like the (tell) where ancient Jerico once stood. Then theres tell Armana, where cuneiform tablets were found (some 800 in all). Some contained complaints oh the HABIRU; whose whose relationship to the Hebrews, or Israelites, (and the exodus has been much discussed), There is the Dead sea scrolls. Parts of the book of Samuel is in there. There is the ruins of Kedesh Nephtali, a city of refuge. I read of the city of Hazor mentioned in Jos.11: & 11:3. there are many more places whose ruins are still there as a witness,for us to see. I used my Zondervan picorial Bible dictionary for these references. There are LOTS more.......

Answer 12

Sorry, but there is no proof. The liberal scholars make good points. Consider getting a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible and learning about bible scholarship and why liberal scholars say what they do. Neither the OT or NT are historically reliable. They just aren't. Period.

Answer 13

The bible says it is the word of God, right? That makes it so. Who are you going to believe, some atheist Liberal "scholars" who are intent on doing the work of Satan, or God? It isn't their intent to seek the Truth of his Holy Word, but to deceive and bring doubt upon you. Just as the Holy Spirit led the writers of the bible to inspiration, so does Satan whisper to Godless Liberals the lies that will turn you from the path of righteousness.

Answer 14

Well until older manuscripts are discovered, you cannot. Just for instance, for a long time William Bradford's book "Of Plymouth Plantation" was lost. You do not thus conclude, "William Bradford never existed", you wait, and eventually it turns up in a library in London. Then it is historical.

Answer 15

Do some web searches on Fulfilled Bible Prophecy, some sites will give the time it was Prophesied and when it was fulfilled.

Answer 16

The bible is not historically reliable. I was written by man, translated many times and altered by personal motivations. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It is however an interesting read.

Answer 17

there isnt really. the same might apply to other history books. I guess in a way other historical figures arent that much more credible or are more likely to be real. infact we actually dont "know" anything. take intro to philosophy class and youll see what I mean.

Answer 18

Well, they aren't documents. But if you want to compare, you can find that the things they account match the same things for other writings like Egyptian hieroglyphics and such.

Answer 19

They are not. It is religion. Believing without seeing, faith, etc...Do you believe it happened? Then you have faith. It is not strictly speaking a historical text.

Answer 20

This might help:



===edit===



One more: http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/

Answer 21

You're gonna need to work on faith, dude....

Answer 22

Read it and you will come to know it.

jtm