The Bible and history

[ultimate777]

I have been hearing things like the below for many years.
What do you think of this? Is it true?


"Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing.
But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the
biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern
discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported
events mean."


I think it means they were not into inerrancy all that much.

[PaulSacramento]

I have been hearing things like the below for many years.
What do you think of this? Is it true?


"Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing.
But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the
biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern
discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported
events mean."


I think it means they were not into inerrancy all that much.

The problem is that not every book of the bible was history.

[Byblos]

I have been hearing things like the below for many years.
What do you think of this? Is it true?


"Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing.
But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the
biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern
discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported
events mean."


I think it means they were not into inerrancy all that much.

The problem is that not every book of the bible was history.

The problem is that at the time they didn't know it was history, they thought they were writing on contemporary events.

[PaulSacramento]

I have been hearing things like the below for many years.
What do you think of this? Is it true?


"Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing.
But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the
biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern
discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported
events mean."


I think it means they were not into inerrancy all that much.

The problem is that not every book of the bible was history.

The problem is that at the time they didn't know it was history, they thought they were writing on contemporary events.

Pslams is history? Ecclesiastic is history?

[PeteSinCA]

You can play whatever word games you like to define a duck as non-existent, but it's still going to quack, paddle and swim.