It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


some parts of the bible based on real events

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:10 PM
I'd just like to point out that much of the bible is probably based on actual events that have nothin to do with god. consider the story of david and goliath, goliath was probably a person suffering from gigantacisum(the disease, not exactly sure wat its called) in the bible 1 blow 2 the head from a rock killed him, in real life people suffering from such a disease have an enlarged pituitary gland wich puts preasure on the rest of the brain and 1 simple rock could kill them.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:15 PM
4got 2 ask if ppl can come up with more examples, i have more but i want to kno if other people agree also

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:18 PM
Its very well known indeed that a good deal of the bible is based on historic events, although we should note that "based on" is a loose concept, and history is usually written by the winning side. But so what? What is your purpose in starting this thread?

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:37 PM
The bible is based purely on historical facts!

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:06 PM
If you say so... one man's trash is another man's treasure...

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 10:11 PM
Well, since the beginning of time, no doubt, there have been examples where an underdog beat the crap out of a big dog. David was just lucky enough to do it when someone could record the story.

If I recall correctly David used a sling. A good stone slung from a sling
can crack a healthy skull.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:09 PM
Giantism is one theory of why Goliath was defeated, but it was also likely in heavy armor (no not like Knights of the Round Table or anything) and padding which made movement diffucult and more labored. David, a young unarmored lad, had more motion and speed. Also, the slings used back then generated considerable force and were fairly accurate. It would be easy to take down almost anyone with that weapon. Didn't you see the Discovery Channel special on this?

Also, the bible is full of historical fact. Even the Red Sea parting can be explained by local weather, and the Noahs flood of the "world" was likely a flooding of one sea where a natural dam burst. It was the world to the authors and people who lived in the region, though. All storytelling was based on *something* that actually happened. Even the story of ressurection is often retold across many cultures and times outside of christianity. It was a popular myth and seemed to carry through. The bible is a great read of historical fact, sex, human interest, politics, etc. I don't personally believe its a litteral tale, but its goal was likely to influence readers towards certain moral ways and its lessons were best taught with interesting stories and fables.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:49 PM
David might have found this too, but sometimes big guys actually kind of suck at fighting. The reason is, they don't have to fight because of their size, then they get overconfident, and confront a small guy who's a real scrapper, and next thing you know the big guy is down.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:56 PM
No offense coming from me, but I'd like to also point out that the bible was written by men a very long time ago. Im not sure how much wear and tear the bible could have endured but i'd guess alot. Take for example water dripping on a rock, gradually it degrades. Same thing (might've happend) for written words left in the hands of the worlds elite at one point in history. Straight to the point i'm skeptical and would need proof to believe your statements about it being historical fact.

Also what is the purpose of this thread?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:14 AM
The Book of Enoch speaks of the giants, during the time of Noe, the force that they were; plundering the earth, their devouring of mankind, and the subsequent flood.

We can presume then, there is a lineage and a conection to Goliath.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:56 AM
the story of David and Golith gains more plausibility when carefully read. as i recall there is nothing that says golith was killed by the stone, but felled.
then David cut off his head with a sword, which would no doubt remove any
question as to his being dead.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 11:45 PM
I've always thought and believed the bible to be a mixture of truth and fiction.

The truth or historical parts of the bible were simply interpreted how the writers saw it or how their religion allowed them to see it.
The fiction were parabels to teach the people how to live their lives and what would happen to them if they didn't follow the guidelines of the bible.


posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:03 PM
>Even the story of ressurection is often retold across many cultures and times outside of christianity. It was a popular myth and seemed to carry through. <

I haven't heard this where is your reference? I hope it isn't Greek or Roman mythology.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:30 PM
Yes the bible is base on historical facts but the chronology of the history does not match some historical days due to the fact that the bible was not written until 90 years AD, so some of the years were perhaps mistakenly change, we will never know, but one thing is sure while the bible concentrate on the middle east way of life and the roots of one house that ended with the birth of Christianity many other things were happening all around the world that the bible does not have any mention of it.

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:53 PM
Hey Marge:

You are "kind of" correct about the AD 90 date in which the books of the OLD TESTAMENT were finally voted in "as that which defiles the hands" (i.e. holy scripture) by the Babylonian Rebbes in Jamnia near Caesarea after Rome destroyed Israel in AD 70. No central Temple in Jerusalem meant no Sadduccean (benei Zadok) priests and no more blood sacrifices---only rabbis and books and synagogues.

Books like The Testament of the 12, The Wisdom of Solomon, the Testament of Moses, I Henoch and the Wisdom of Yeshua Ben Sirach ("Ecclesiasticus") were all thrown out (even though the Dead Sea Scroll Community believed these books to be Scripture, like the author of Jude seems to think the Assumption of Moses and I Henoch were too, since he quotes them (Jude v 9 and Jude v 14) as Scripture)--but the Old Testament texts in the current "bible" were probably not written in their final form that we read today in the various versions until around 330 BC (Daniel and Ecclesiastes a little later, perhaps around 164 BC, late Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic gives those books away), though obviously based on older versions and re-edited at least 4 times since BC 621).

The New Testament did not come into its present form until after the time of the Emperor Constantine and the voting of the bishops at at least 4 different councils of the 4th and 5th centuries AD (where books like the gospel of John and the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder (whosever he was = Book of Revelation) were considered "heretical" for centuries and got in only by a vote or two at some councils, and outlawed altogether in others).

Books that also didn't get into the final count like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews (and I Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas etc.) were all banned as "not inspired" as well.

In terms of how much of the socalled Bible (old and new "testaments") is actually based on history is a debateable point.

The texts about the Exodus were not written down in their present form until after 480 BC and reflect a political situation with Egypt and Canaan during the reign of Josiah (621 BC) i.e. long after the time of Moses.

A good fairly recent book for the newcomer to this subject to get would be THE BIBLE UNEARTHED (Archaelogy's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts) by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman, 2001 Free Press-Simon & Schuster ISDN 0-684-86912-8) which shows that there is about 10% of REAL history behind the Biblical legends, but the vast majority of the material (even in the NT) is "midrashic" i.e. moral legends and teaching, only loosely related to hard facts when it overlaps with the moral of the stories, most of which are Ziono-centric and purport to show YHWH the clan god of Israel in the best possible light.

The same can be said for another book called WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Richard Elliot Friedmann of Harvard who breaks down the Old Testment histories into their respective politico-religious sources (J, E, P D) and the final redaction of the material during the time of Ezra "the scribe", his conclusions being a layman's re-wording of the more complex Graf Wellhausen source documentary hypothesis (1873) which has stood its ground for more than 130 years.

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:50 AM
David and Goliath like most stories in the bible a are symbolic. David represents the people of Israel and Goliath the Philistines. The Philistines were the Superpower, while the Israelites the underdogs.

To this day we still use the metaphor David verses Goliath when describing the defeat of a stronger power by a weaker one.

new topics

top topics


log in