the events in NT was proven to be historically accurate, yet all of the events in the OT were proven to be historically *inaccurate*? And by "all of the events in the OT", i mean all of the events: creation story, noah's ark, moses, the prophets and their prophesies, king david, etc, etc.

Please also explain why if your answer is yes or no. Thanks!

It is not possible for all of the events in the Old Testament to be false if all of the events in the New Testament are true.

By historically accurate and inaccurate, do you mean true and false?

not entirely sure what you mean by "true" and "false" here. For example, one can believe that the entirety of the NT is historically accurate (or true). This does not mean they have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that he can forgive sins and provide everlasting life ... just the Jesus existed, performed the miracles that he did, said what he is claimed to have said, and rose from the dead.

Another example, if the NT is proven to be historically true, then Jesus walked on water. That doesn't mean that Jesus walked on water using his supernatural divine power from Yahweh.

an example would be helpful, otherwise, feel free to stay out of this thread since it will be uninteresting to you.

Okay, so we are supposed to exclude the supernatural birth of Christ out of the NT also?

I think it is obvious you didn't think this thread through very much.

But we all read the Bible...

Being born of a virgin is not a "supernatural" historical event, so unsure what you are confused about.

Look, clearly this thread is uninteresting to you, and all you are going to do is whine and bitch about minor nits. If thats the case, please go away, your input is neither appreciated or appealing.

Even if the OT is false, Jesus in the NT is very convincingly Lord if the NT is proven true. Probably based on the good old 'Lord, Lunatic, or Liar' argument, which carries much more weight if all the events in the NT are proven true IMO.

He resurrected, and told us how (God) and proved it to us (other miracles). We have little choice but to believe Him, since he obviously had access to greater powers than we do.

But I do have to agree with Gunth...the NT writers constantly refers to the OT, so I don't know how the OT could be false with the NT being true.

I would no longer be a Christian if the OT were proven false. In the NT, Jesus confirms the veracity of historical events in the OT (like The Great Flood, and God giving the Jews the Ten Commandments).

If the events in the OT are false, that would make Christ either confused or a liar. In this case, Jesus couldn't be God. If Jesus isn't God, then Christianity is false (sorry Pletho ).

Here are some verses in which Jesus refers to Old Testament events:

...it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement... Matthew 10:15

But as the days of Noe [Noah] were... Matthew 24:37

For the law was given by Moses... John 1:17

There are at least 2 major misconceptions contained in your question. The NT is a fulfillment of the OT and many statements in the NT, by Jesus and other writers, such as Paul, vouch for events in the OT. Therefore you would end up with Jesus and the apostles as either liars or badly misled fools. Since that idea doesn't square with either the old or new T, your question is basically absurd.

Another major problem is the assumption that Christians believe simply because of bare facts - "I believe Jesus came up out of the grave, therefore I am a Christian". But the events of both the old and new T are not stand alone events from which we are supposed to draw conclusions. Those events come with an explanation of why they happened and what they mean. Those explanations (for instance, that Jesus is the Son of God who was crucified and resurrected FOR A REASON which He gave and then was confirmed by Peter and Paul) are what we believe - the facts and explanations are inseparable. BTW, this is one reason most conservative Protestants don't place any emphasis on extra-Biblical miracles - they are stand alone events and there is no way to know what they are supposed to mean. But if the events of the OT are false then the explanations of the NT are given by demonstrable liars or fools, so the facts of the NT would no longer have a credible explanation.

Finally, we believe the Bible is the Word of God and is trustworthy, which is why we dedicate our lives to what it says. But if the OT is false, then so is the NT - Jesus said the OT is scripture, so if it isn't, then neither is the NT.

Edit: Just saw Chucky's post - didn't mean to repeat what he says.

Yeshua was Jewish and so were the twelve apostles and the vast majority of the disciples; thus, they believed what was written in the Tanakh ( = OT ). How could the passages Mt 12:38-42 and Jn 3:14-15 make any sense whatsoever if the relevant parts of the OT were not "true"?

Yeshua was not "Christian". Every bible a "Christian" carries has the Tanakh contained in it for a good reason: the Tanakh gives a foundation for the New Testament writings. For example, the woman's thoughts in Mt 9:21 can only be fully explained by the Tanakh and a basic understanding of Jewish beliefs and practices.

I think you guys are missing the point of my question ... no one is saying in this hypothetical that the OT is proven to be FALSE. All I said was that the OT was shown to be historically inaccurate. Most Christians already assume a large portion of the OT is not historically accurate (but rather allegory) and that doesn't seem to affect their faith ... probably because they assume most of the NT to be historically accurate.

To respond to some points specifically:

So ... if S&G was just a well known story for moral purposes (sort of like Job), this statement would still make sense.

Again, the "story" of Noah does not need to be historically accurate for someone to refer to in and infer a point from it.

Again, its also shown clear that Jesus Himself (at least when he was on earth) did not have a full scope of all knowledge in the universe. Its very possible that he only believes that the "Law" as given to Moses, when in fact the entirety of the Moses story could be inaccurate (not saying it didn't happen, but it didn't happen as written in the OT). This *does not* mean the Law is not accurate, its very possible that the law in the OT is indeed the laws that God wants to lay out, but that doesn't mean they were communicated to man as detailed in the OT.

Again, does not need to factual and historically accurate for Jesus to use it as a story to prove a point. He does so many times with his parables, i dont see why it wouldn't make sense to use a well known story instead.

"The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance. The answer of theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. This, no doubt, is true, though it cannot be imagined. Nor indeed can the unconsciousness of Christ in sleep be imagined, nor the twilight of reason in his infancy; still less his merely organic life in his mother's womb. But the physical sciences, no less than theology, propose for our belief much that cannot be imagined." - C.S. Lewis

I don't always agree with Lewis - we have some theological differences. However, as to the above, he answers himself in the same paragraph. Can you spot it?

Nope, care to point it out?

So to summarize, everyone who said "No", you would turn from Christianity if any part of the OT that is referenced in the NT was shown to be historically inaccurate?

I think this is a very bad post:
- why are there little asterisks around the *inaccurate* ?
- where is this going?

"The answer of theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. "

That Jesus didn't know all things in His human nature says nothing about His knowledge, veracity or sanity concerning the things about which He spoke authoritatively.

Edit: Paul professed ignorance about some things. But we believe his letters are the Word of God. See?

to make sure you notice that its the word "inaccurate", since I had just previously written accurate. perhaps a poor usage of *'s? Who knows, never learned how it should be used in school.

i find it interesting. also, if a Christians faith is not based off of the historical accuracy of the OT, then it would be confusing why they care so much about proving it is historically accurate.

C.S. Lewis' quote is in response to something that Jesus spoke authoritatively on, and was wrong (in his opinion).

So again, to clarify, if anything in the OT that is referenced to by the NT is shown to be historically inaccurate, you would denounce your faith?

See where I noted I don't always agree with Lewis. And being ignorant of something isn't the same as being wrong about something.

right, but that doesn't change the fact that all of Jesus' references to the OT does not hinge on the referenced events to be historically accurate and not allegory.

again, to clarify, if anything in the OT that is referenced to by the NT is shown to be historically inaccurate, you would denounce your faith?

It would obviously depend a lot on degree whether or not it affected my personal faith. Lewis DID believe that Jesus was actually wrong but that didn't change his view of God, Christ, the NT, etc.

I've said before that if anything was shown actually wrong in the Bible at the least it would affect how or if I tried to defend it as God's Word.

Edit: BTW, showing something is allegory(or in general, literary figure of speech) isn't the same as showing something is factually wrong. Shakespeare wasn't wrong about King Lear.

that's easy: never.

Correct.