Are there any true facts in the Bible?

Answer 1

I heard that The Bible is based on true facts, especially the part about Jesus.

Yes. Especially when it concerns archeology and prophecy and here is why. In every single case where the two overlap, the results have been that some biblical claims have been proved, some rendered probable, and none simply disproved by Archaeology. Claims have been made (e.g., that Jericho fell long before the Jews came) and then withdrawn (see B.G. Wood in Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April 1990; The New York Times International, February 2, 1990, A8). In addition, no prophecy has ever been disproved, and many have been proved true by history. Jesus fulfilled at least thirty, perhaps as many as three hundred specific and distinct Old Testament messianic prophecies. The practice of modern scholars of course is to date prophecies by their fulfillment. For instance, they argue that Isaiah must have been written after King Cyrus because Isaiah mentions Cyrus by name as the Gentile king who would release the captive Jews to return to Israel. Or that Matthew's Gospel must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70) because it predicts it in such detail. This is a typical case of reading a text in light of a prior theological assumption; namely, that miraculous prophecies cannot really occur, that we cannot know the future ahead of time. Worse, it implicitly assumes that the prophetic writers were liars and deceivers, for they clearly present the prophecies as predictive. If Jesus did not really predict the destruction of Jerusalem forty years ahead of time, then Matthew is simply deceiving us when he says He did.

Answer:

Jesus tells us that ALL of "God's Word is TRUTH" -- and that those who "trust" in Him and BELIEVE what He says in His Word; that believing and trusting in His Word "SANCTIFIES" them: sets them apart in the world for His Holy Purpose, to do the things He would have Him do.

"SANCTIFY them through thy TRUTH: Thy Word is TRUTH." (John 17:17 KJV)

"...If ye continue in My Word [read it, study it, BELIEVE it], then are ye My disciples indeed; and YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, and the Truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32 KJV)

The Bible is True. But a reader's willingness to "believe" the Truth is whole other question.

Answer 2

A surprisingly small amount of detail in the Bible is considered historically true. Lester L Grabbe (Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?) makes the following comments, based on the consensus of modern historians and archaeologists:

• On the whole, the biblical text is problematic for Iron I (and the earlier periods). Its picture of a massive exodus and rapid unitary conquest do not match either written records or archaeology.
  
• There is nothing in Egyptian texts that could be related to the story in the Book of Exodus. He says that despite the efforts of some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the biblical text as a description of a historical event.
  
• Not much can be found in the Book of Judges that can be supported.
  
• The bulk of the DtrH's text [Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings] is not of great value for historical events, though it can be of use for sociological study and of course for literary, theological and other non-historical disciplines of the Hebrew Bible.
  
• In some cases, material has clearly been inserted for theological reasons.
  
• There is a gradual increase in reliability the later the DtrH narrative progresses. In the last years of the kings of Judah, when there are times that we know what was happening year by year, the biblical text can be remarkable accurate.
  
• Prophetic stories do not generally make good historical sources.
  
• Stories in the Book of Daniel about Nebuchadnezzar seem at least in part based on legends rising out of the reign of Nabonidus. This was first recognised by W. von Soden but confirmed in a startling way by the discovery of 4Q Prayer of Nabonidus. This last is a Dead Sea scroll, the text of which is intermediate between Babylonian texts and Daniel, thus showing how the story evolved from the historical original through an intermediate, largely fictional stage to the entirely fictional story in Daniel.
  

Robert P. Carroll (The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Prophecy and society) says that with regard to the biblical text we can never be sure how much of the story of the prophets is Propaganda and the manipulation of information and how much was untainted by editorial control.

Andrew D. H. Mayes (The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Sociology and the Old Testament) says that it is becoming clear that the presentation of Yahweh as the only God of Israel in the pre-monarchic period is a late construction which runs up against great historical difficulties.

In the view of John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus), neither birth story, in Matthew and Luke, contains any historical truth. Jesus was not physically resurrected, but rather "exalted" by God. In the view of Archbishop Peter Carnley, discrepancies in the accounts of the empty tomb can only be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source. That source is Mark's Gospel, but we do not know where its (anonymous) author learnt of this.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) says that the whole of Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament 'book of history', is a work of propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians. Jesus is supposed to have remarked to Paul as he lay on the ground blinded on the road to Damsacus, "It hurts you to kick against the goad [or 'pricks']" (Acts 25:14). This is a quotation from the Bacchae by Euripides (d. 406 BCE). The scene has parallels to the play and peculiarly has Jesus quote a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic ("in the Hebrew language"). Another clear parallel with the Bacchae is when Paul is miraculously released from prison. Taken together, these accounts demonstrate that the source was a play, not true facts.