PARTS of the bible are historically accurate. For instance, many of the people mentioned in it really did live, and the things that happened to them are merely metaphors for world events at that time. You have to read the accounts of a guy named Josephus to get all the dots connected properly, but the bible isn't a complete farce as some people like to assume. Sure, there's little to no evidence that people lived hundreds of years, but while they were alive, they really did fight wars and pass laws, which are part of the bible history. And most university-level history majors can tell you that they do at some point study the bible as part of history.
If you understand to read Daniel and Revelation together to help interpret the meanings of symbolism, then it most certainly is the most historically accurate book available. If there is a word used like Beast in Revelation, you might have to look at how the word Beast is used in Daniel to better understand what it means. (IE: Daniel plainly says that Beasts represent governments or kingdoms- Revelation does not give this information) As for the History of Creation, I believe it is accurate. The reason I do, is simply because of reading Daniel and Revelations, which are prophetic books and were written long before any of the governments it speaks about existed. These prophecies were fulfilled exactly as they were foretold. Since the Bible prophesies were accurate, I would have to believe that it's historical accounts are also accurate. It is easier to write history than it is to tell the future accurately. Side note: Alice- the question was for YOUR Opinion not a cut and paste of someone else's opinion
Historically accurate is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs fiction. The Bible can not be recognized as historically accurate because only a few of the historical clues given can be prooven with today's understanding. Of course, I personally believe that the Bible is truth, by deffinition, it can not be considered a historical document. Sorry, whichever 10 of you are going to give me a thumbs down, but, it's the truth.
There are many instances where archaeology has confirmed the bible. Note I am not suggesting that archaeology has proven God's existence merely that the places and historical battles are with merit. The writer of the book of Luke has been considered a first class historian. At one time they questioned some of his territorial boundary suggestions only to later have them verified by new findings. They have also found the place where Pilate ruled and the pool of siloam that was mentioned in the gospel. Many many findings have confirmed these places which stands to reason. People would Know if they made up a bunch of places and people that they never existed. Now the book of Mormon can't prove any of the places mentioned in them ever existed and is filled with historical inaccuracies such as claiming that there were elephants oxen horses and other items at a period in time before they were known in the America's. These animals and items weren't introduced into this hemisphere until the Europeans started coming over.
