Historical Books

[Neildown]

What books, if any, in the Bible have been officially ratified as being historical in nature? My question stemming from the fact that the Church basically “proves” everything on an issue before it is ratified as doctrine. So I have to ask, have any certain books been declared, by doctrine, to be legitimately, factually historical?

 

[JamesCaruso]

What books, if any, in the Bible have been officially ratified as being historical in nature? My question stemming from the fact that the Church basically “proves” everything on an issue before it is ratified as doctrine. So I have to ask, have any certain books been declared, by doctrine, to be legitimately, factually historical?

In general, I take the all the New Testament books to be factual. But maybe I don’t understand the question.

 

[Neildown]

In general, I take the all the New Testament books to be factual. But maybe I don’t understand the question.

I was thinking more along the lines of the accounts of Assyria and Babylon, and other political happenings in the Old Testament. Regardless, I was just wondering if the Church ratified historical teachings in the same manner that faith or moral teachings are ratified in *ex cathedra. *

 

[Cyberseeker]

Neildown:

I was thinking more along the lines of the accounts of Assyria and Babylon, and other political happenings in the Old Testament.

Well, if the churches haven’t ratified their historicity, the stones will cry out and ratify them. The books of Kings are very accurate.

 

[COPLAND_3]

This does not answer what the OP is looking for, but I look at it this way, I really don’t need secular historians and non-biblical concensus to be the deciding factor about whether the Bible is accurate or inaccurate. Secular historians and their timelines, theories, and their critiques all change and evolve, and not to mention become biased based on their agenda. I prefer to evaluate secular historical evidence based upon Biblical historical evidence. More than once I’ve seen a majority blame the Bible for being in error and then some new discovery comes along to prove that the Bible was right all along.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I was thinking more along the lines of the accounts of Assyria and Babylon, and other political happenings in the Old Testament. Regardless, I was just wondering if the Church ratified historical teachings in the same manner that faith or moral teachings are ratified in *ex cathedra. *

The “Church” has opinions, but cannot ratify in the sense of ex cathedra, assuming what you mean is “with certainty” except in the sense that the Resurrection is an historical fact and the Church ratifies it as such with certainty, in fact, ex cathedra. That’s my take on it anyway— yours may differ.