This question already has an answer here:

This question was already asked but closed. This is my initial understanding of the Bible, that it consists of the following:

  1. Historical "facts", as there are physical evidences such as the Moabite stone.
  2. Religious doctrines, from the Old to the New testament.
  3. Prophecies, which of course do not qualify as a historical fact because those predict the future.

Considering only the item 1 I stated above, can the Bible, or the particular records in it, be considered "historical facts"?

My understanding of a "historical record" is that it was scholarly written. I am not pertaining to doctrines which may cause debates, but to the historical records only, such as the existence of Herod the Great.

marked as duplicate by yannis, Kobunite, Mark C. Wallace, jwenting, sds Apr 4 '14 at 18:10


  • Certainly any work can refer to historical facts. But how can you ascertain whether a certain statement is fact or fiction? – Rajib Apr 4 '14 at 8:06
  • 2
    Could you comment where you developed the notion that a historical record is scholarly written? I'm unfamiliar with the notion, and I'm not sure I share that understanding. – Mark C. Wallace Apr 4 '14 at 11:20


The bible does contain historical accurate facts that can be verified. However, it contains too much myths and inaccuracies as to be utterly unreliable as the sole source for a historical event. In fact, the question alludes to this in points (2) and (3).

  • I cannot think offhand of any verifiable "historical accurate facts" anwhere in the Bible. Could you give us a few examples and us where they are "verified" outside of the Bible? – fdb Apr 4 '14 at 14:33
  • 2
    @fdb: Just one example, Jerusalem was a real city under Roman rule around 30 AD. – Sardathrion Apr 4 '14 at 14:56
  • Yes, the place names mentioned in the Bible are mostly the names of real places, as are those mentioned in most novels. But I thought we were talking about historical events, "facts". – fdb Apr 4 '14 at 15:56
  • 1
    @fdb: I fail to see how "Jerusalem is a city" is not a historical fact and how "Jerusalem is under Roman occupation" is not a historical event. They might be trivial but that's beside the point. ^_~ – Sardathrion Apr 4 '14 at 16:35
