What is the difference between the bible and a history book?

Why is the bible seen as less credible than per say a history book?
Iam just wondering. i know one of the reasons are that things in the bibile just don’t happen and it is old.
But if someone said that so and so historical event happened and iam asked to prove it, i would cite a textbook. How come that can’t be done with the bible?But when someone is to prove god they aren’t allowed to cite it.

NOTE: iam not defending the credibility of the bible, i just need a better reason for know it lacks merit.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

9 Comments to “What is the difference between the bible and a history book?”

  • Bruce

    Because it is a work of fiction.

  • Move on

    Why would the bible have any credibility ? Mankind has been RE- writing it for centuries.

  • Ethan Martinz

    some think the bibles false, some think a history books false, some think all are false.
    id say they are different because no one can fully trust the bible as nothing like it has ever happened again and it can often seem very confusing and bizzare. you can live without the bible but we need history books so we do not repeat the fails of history

  • my friend

    Most history tomes are at least based on reliable and verifiable facts, with a correct chronological sequence of events, etc. The Torah/Tenakh, which was never intended to be a history book, according to the latest archeological evidence and findings, does not have nor provide such an account.

    Mythology was never intended to be taken as fact and such is a recent development of our present day culture which is far removed from that of the original writers.

  • Jesere

    they are basically the same…
    Bible means book
    Christians have put a special meaning on the
    “Bible”, just as the other religions have their Holy Book…

  • Yellow Alarm Clock

    Books are not inherently credible. Something isn’t true merely by virtue of being written down. You have to examine sources critically. Who wrote it? In what circumstances? For what purpose? What information did they actually have available to them? Was there anyone to dispute the claims in the book at the time (and if so, did they)? Most importantly, are the claims made by the book consistent with reality? And if you’re satisfied that the original text was accurate, are you looking at an accurate reproduction?
    Now, considering these points, isn’t it obvious why a typical history book should be relied upon in preference to the bible? We don’t know exactly when or by whom the texts in the bible were written, there’s no reason to suppose that the authors actually had the knowledge they profess, their claims were not generally believed by their contemporaries, and many aspects are manifestly absurd. Further, you’re probably looking at a translation in a language that didn’t even exist when the original was written, and which has been substantially edited for political reasons, in addition to the inevitable accumulation of unintentional errors through centuries of copying.

  • sin

    Look at Matthew. He claimed that after Christ died, the graves opened and dead souls came out. No one else in history recorded this. Surprisingly no one interviewed the dead souls where they went etc.

    Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still. We all know what should stand still is the earth.

    One of the gospel writers wrote about Herod’s massacre of the innocents. No other historian wrote about this to my knowledge.

    The population of 2.4 million crossed the Red Sea and travelled from Ramases to Succouth(?) at the speed of contemporary commandos, old folks, pregnant children and all.

    Credible history? You decide.

  • Ratz

    The difference between fiction and non-fiction. The Bible isn’t a history book or a textbook — it’s a religious holy book. The PURPOSE of the Bible is not to tell you history but to convert people to Christianity. Most of the “history” in it did not happen the way it’s described. It’s like citing Harry Potter to try to convince people of witchcraft.

  • Blue™

    Reading history books, you only need common sense to understand it. Reading the bible, you need wisdom to “fathom” the meaning of the parable.

Leave a Reply