A recent commenter was extolling the historical accuracy of the Bible and I got to thinking about it. So, let's focus on the stories of the OT for now and actually look at the historicity of the Bible.
Genesis - god creates the universe in 6 literal days - didn't happen.
Adam and Eve - didn't exist.
The Exodus - didn't happen (there's no evidence for it and the evidence we do have indicates that the Jews were never in Egypt).
Jonah and the whale - didn't happen. Whales don't eat people.
The conquest of Canaan and all the genocides - much as I like to harp on theists for this, they didn't happen. Of course, I still feel justified because they are in the book and described as their perfect, omni-max god's actions, so it's fair game.
The more I think about it, the more difficult I find it to think up any story in there that actually is historically accurate. Anyone care to stand up for the Bible's (OT - I'll talk NT in a later post) historicity?
43 comments:
I pitty your ignorance and i hope one day you will see with open eyes.
And I hope that one day you will make a substantive comment to actually back up your claims of ignorance.
"Genesis - god creates the universe in 6 literal days - didn't happen."
Prove it wrong please. No human knows for sure how the world was created, so no one idea is more right than another. How can you prove there isn't a God?
"Adam and Eve - didn't exist." Really? We have a list of every single person who ever existed? Am I on it? I sure hope so.
"The Exodus - didn't happen (there's no evidence for it and the evidence we do have indicates that the Jews were never in Egypt)."
Actually, we have a lot of evidence now, including names, slave prices, and records. True U Pt 2 is a DVD series that goes over some of this.
"Jonah and the whale - didn't happen. Whales don't eat people." It wasn't a whale. It was a large fish.
The more I think about it, the more difficult I find it to think up any story in there that actually is historically accurate. Anyone care to stand up for the Bible's (OT - I'll talk NT in a later post) historicity?"
Actually the whole True U part 2 DVD series (college prof was checking it out so I did too) has a lot of stuff that proves the historicity of the Bible.
"Prove it wrong please."
It's called the big bang, radio-isotope dating, stellar distances and movement rates, background radiation, etc.
"How can you prove there isn't a God?"
Burden of proof is on you and you have nothing, especially when you start using argument like, "No one knows anything for sure, so therefore god." Even so, most of the gods put forth are contradictory. Take a look at the book, "The Impossibility of God," for quite a few examples of disproofs of certain gods based on their purported characteristics.
"Really? We have a list of every single person who ever existed?"
Your defense again is that Adam and Eve existed because we don't know they didn't? But, unfortunately for you, we know they didn't. Evolution doesn't work that way, that 2 people would seed the world. Evolution works on individuals within populations. The idea that 2 people created all the genetic diversity we see today is simply wrong.
"Actually, we have a lot of evidence now, including names, slave prices, and records."
No, actually we don't. We have no records of Jews being in captivity in Egypt. In fact, the earliest appearance of the Jews comes well after the supposed Exodus story, as well as the problems with timeline and which pharaoh it is. Add to that the fact that at no time did Egypt suffer such debilitating plagues and you've got a mythical story.
"It wasn't a whale. It was a large fish."
Which somehow makes it better?
"Actually the whole True U part 2 DVD series (college prof was checking it out so I did too) has a lot of stuff that proves the historicity of the Bible."
Link? Cite?
Human beings cannot possibly live for three days inside a whale!
That's absurd!
How could Jonah breathe?
That's ridiculous!
Oh! Wait! It was a fish?
I'm sorry. Never mind. I guess (if it was a fish) it makes perfect sense.
Despite the fact of Egypt being one of the MOST exhaustively studied archeological sites on the entire planet, zero evidence for the story of Exodus has been found.
It's myth.
The Jews were not in bondage in Egypt.
The Egyptians had slaves, but not an entire race of Hebrews. There's no evidence.
Look at the HUGE amount of material we have on the Egyptians! ZERO EVIDENCE FOR AN ENSLAVED RACE OF HEBREWS. It's totally lacking.
The pyramids were constructed by paid laborers.
The story is false.
(Unlike my pious friends, if valid evidence is found that proves my statement to be untrue, I will happily admit that I was wrong! No problem. I've been wrong about many things. I'm fine with it.)
The story of Exodus has nothing to show that it has merit. It's false. It's myth.
Wow, you really don't sweat the facts, do you. You do know (and if you do, you're one of the few modern atheists apparently who does), that most Christian's don't believe in a literal interpretation, right? You do know that neither the Catholic nor Orthodox traditions hold to a literalist interpretation, and that accounts right there for about 70% of the Christian faith. You do know these things, correct?
"Wow, you really don't sweat the facts, do you. You do know (and if you do, you're one of the few modern atheists apparently who does), that most Christian's don't believe in a literal interpretation, right?"
First of all, if you could read for comprehension, you'd notice that this post is a specific reply to a specific poster, not speaking to all Xians, or implying that all Xians are literalists. But, that would be "sweating the facts," wouldn't it?
Second of all, why don't Xians believe in a literal interpretation? It's because science has shown many things to be in error in the Bible, so they re-interpret instead of throwing out the obviously erroneous work that supposedly comes from their perfect god. It's post hoc rationalization at its finest.
You're way out of your league when you can't delete comments that don't suit you.
You responded to a commenter, but your post was generic, as your answer demonstrates. I did stand up and explain that most of Christianity doesn't take it literally as you understand it, so there is no need to defend that.
Why don't they? Study Christian history and you'll find out. It's not hard if you study the various ways that Christianity has approached the scriptures over the ages. That's like asking why I insist that Robert Frost didn't actually have to walk through a yellow wood. Do your homework. Don't expect me to do it for you.
Robert Frost isn't telling people that they BETTER walk through a snowy wood, or else, TORTURE!
Robert Frost isn't claiming that everyone outside of New England is evil.
Robert Frost isn't passing judgement, or the collection plate!
Robert Frost has no agenda, beyond poetry.
Your filthy, judgmental Book has an agenda that goes WAY beyond poetry.
Your filthy, judgmental book claims perfection. Why does it need human interpretation?
I already explained to you why it's not taken literally (for the most part at least - I do concede that there are parts where the authors explicitly say that the story is not to be taken literally). You have to deal with the issues that it raises, however, and I see that you are ill equiped to do so. I'll also note that you were clamoring for facts, but all you have is bluster.
So you've not studied the Church Fathers I take it. Oh, and Tigerboy, that was funny. Had nothing to do with my point of course, but funny nonetheless (in a sort of yeeesh kind of way).
I have. Which ones do you think rejected the literal interpretation. I know there was one that decided that each "day" in Genesis was really 1000 years, which put him on the long end of YEC (name escapes me right now) but if that's what you're hanging your hat on then you're in trouble. He only did that because there were competing literal verses and he choose one instead of the more popular one.
I think the big question is, do you really want to understand the historic approaches to biblical interpretation or not. If so, I'd be happy to throw some things out there. Too many atheists I read seem to echo the likes of Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens, who say things that are long on rhetoric, short on facts.
If you do, that's fine. I'm always open to discussion and good natured rock'em sock'em debate. But if not, let me know and I won't bother (by the way, it also takes trying to see things from a religious POV, one that doesn't assume a priori that God doesn't exist so all religion is obviously wrong).
Actually, I would think the big question would be why you support death to gays.
But, hey, if you want to talk about Biblical interpretation, knock yourself out. I doubt that I'll learn anything from you.
"(by the way, it also takes trying to see things from a religious POV, one that doesn't assume a priori that God doesn't exist so all religion is obviously wrong)."
That's rich. I've always maintained that I'm ready, willing, and able to believe in god if anyone could actually present some, you know, evidence for their god. There isn't any. Far from being a priori, it's the lack of evidence that doesn't allow me to believe. And, since there is no evidence, your position that god exists would be the a priori stance (begging the question).
OK, I'll give, could you post the quote where I said I supported death for gays?
And by proof of God, what do you mean? Prove how? With what? Based on what? What are your parameters?
"OK, I'll give, could you post the quote where I said I supported death for gays?"
You're supporting Xian Reconstructionists that are pushing for death for gays.
"And by proof of God, what do you mean? Prove how? With what? Based on what? What are your parameters?"
Um, I said evidence, not proof (which is more evidence that you're either bad at reading comprehension or you're trying to erect strawmen). You could start by actually presenting a god idea that isn't logically contradictory and then providing some logical argumentation that agrees with empirical results or some empirical results that butress the idea of god. Fair warning - bad arguments like Pascal's Wager or First Causes will make me want to laugh at you.
No, I used the word proof on purpose. I've noticed Atheists often use the term evidence, but what they really mean is proof. What they often want is actual proof, since theists will lob evidence after evidence over the walls, only to have it smacked down because the Atheist in question is, either consciously or subconsciously, already interpreting the evidence through his or her own subjective lenses. So believers of all stripes may produce a sudden cure that has no scientific explanation, or an event that defies all logic within a material framework, and yet the Atheist will simply shrug and say 'doesn't prove there's a God'. I've had that response more times than I care to think. Since the term often becomes 'prove' in those cases, I thought I would cut to the chase and just ask, what would satisfy your desire for proof. Not slogans or talking points, either. Actually cut to it: What would you demand that would say 'Ah, now I see the evidence clearly points to one logical conclusion'? Or let me say it another way. What are the parameters within which you are willing to accept the evidence given? Purely scientific? Philosophical? Experiential? What?
Oh, you're using "faith healing" as evidence?!
No, faith healing does not "prove there's a God." It proves there's a shameless charlatan and a room full of credulous fools.
Are you really gonna go with "faith healing" as evidence of your faith?! Pathetic.
Parameters for evidence?
Something that can be demonstrated to an objective group. Peer review. It's a pretty basic standard.
I didn't say faith healing at all, did I. There are plenty of cases where doctors and specialists have claimed, time and again, that recoveries or healings defy modern medical understanding. Heck my Grandma had a similar experience and even as an agnostic, I had to admit that was a bit freaky.
But see what I mean? You didn't even get what I said. You merely made an accusation, and then went on to blast me for it before even bothering to stop and say, "By the way, that is what you meant isn't it?"
The operative term is objective group, and launching into such a tirade sans evidence suggests a slight lack of objectivity, wouldn't you say? Which sort of demonstrates my point in the first place.
"No, I used the word proof on purpose."
And, I used the word "evidence" on purpose.
"I've noticed Atheists often use the term evidence, but what they really mean is proof."
No, actually most people use "proof" as an informal shorthand when they are really looking for evidence. It's nigh impossible to really "prove" most things.
"...since theists will lob evidence after evidence over the walls, only to have it smacked down because the Atheist in question is, either consciously or subconsciously, already interpreting the evidence through his or her own subjective lenses."
Sigh. Not only is that not indicative of the difference between evidence and proof, it's not accurate. You seem to think that atheists are these hardened idiots that sit around and go, "There's no god, there's no god, no matter what there's no god." When in reality, the vast majority look at the supposed evidence provided by theists and laugh at how bad it is. More on that later.
"So believers of all stripes may produce a sudden cure that has no scientific explanation"
And, here's a good example: argument from ignorance or better known as god of the gaps. When a gap in knowledge opens up, theists often insert their god as if it's proof that their god exists. But, what gives you the idea that your god should be inserted into the equation at all, and why should your god be preferred over any other possible explanation? That part is never explained, except sometimes through completely ad hoc reasoning.
So, if you really want to provide evidence you can start by telling us all what exactly you plan to provide evidence of. What god will you be presenting evidence for and how is this god not inherently contradictory? If you can't even propose a god that isn't self-contradictory, there's no point in moving forward is there?
Actually it is. I agree with what you say is proof. My point is, all too often I, and others, when discussing things with atheists see nothing less than proof being demanded even when such is stated as being beyond the grasp of their own theories or even expectations. I'm find with it, sticking to evidence. I just like to know up front so, should it come up as it seems to come up so often, I can refer back.
But alas, your response to the question of scientifically confounding medical results is exactly the point. What evidence will you accept? What are the limits? You state the rules beyond things that are merely slogans, and explain what you will accept, won't accept, and what you admit does not need to be provided. I mean: I need to see this, this, and this.
"But alas, your response to the question of scientifically confounding medical results is exactly the point. What evidence will you accept?"
I will accept any evidence, but not anything amounts to evidence. Do you see the distinction? That is why I said:
"So, if you really want to provide evidence you can start by telling us all what exactly you plan to provide evidence of. What god will you be presenting evidence for and how is this god not inherently contradictory? If you can't even propose a god that isn't self-contradictory, there's no point in moving forward is there?"
Ah, now we come to it. That's been the problem. We weren't on the same page. You ask:
"What god will you be presenting evidence for and how is this god not inherently contradictory?"
I'm not trying to present evidence for any particular god/goddess, or combination thereof, or any particular traits or doctrines. I'm merely looking for what you would accept as evidence pointing to the existence of a non-material other, a cognitive supernatural force, a divine presence. That's all. The idea of inherently contradictory is, in that case, purely subjective. Maybe we would both discover that, by Jove, there is a divine presence in the universe and it's not some old loving God, it's a fickle god of wrath and inherent contradictions. Who knows?
I'm not trying to fill in the details. Just asking what evidence you would accept to get to step one. We'll get to the Nicene Creed soon enough. Right now, we're starting at the ground up.
"I'm not trying to present evidence for any particular god/goddess, or combination thereof, or any particular traits or doctrines."
Are you daft? In order to present evidence for a concept, you have to actually tell me what the concept is that you're going to be presenting evidence for. Does it count as evidence for Blomgorthox if I tell you that the sky is blue counts as evidence for Blomgorthox without ever telling you what Blomgorthox actually is?
"I'm merely looking for what you would accept as evidence pointing to the existence of a non-material other, a cognitive supernatural force, a divine presence."
Again, what counts as evidence is dependent on what the evidence is purportedly evidence of. I'm not going to let you off the hook on this.
"The idea of inherently contradictory is, in that case, purely subjective."
No, it is most certainly not.
"Maybe we would both discover that, by Jove, there is a divine presence in the universe and it's not some old loving God, it's a fickle god of wrath and inherent contradictions."
Maybe if you wish to argue for that god you should present evidence for that god. But pick one, pick something, then show how we have evidence for it.
"I'm not trying to fill in the details."
Obviously so. You're avoiding it probably because you know it's a losing proposition. Once the apologists starts to get pinned down on specifics, everything goes to hell.
"Just asking what evidence you would accept to get to step one."
And, I've explained my position on this and why it is my position. I shall not be doing so again.
Daft? You're not serious are you? Please tell me that you just didn't say it was daft to first establish the possibility of a divine being before proceeding to a particular doctrine or faith claim about a divine being. Please. I'll let it go and assume you didn't read me right. Even if you want to establish a different approach, it is not inherently daft one way or another.
For obviously when dealing between a religious tradition and a person who believes there is absolutely no divine being at all, whatsoever, there has to be some middle ground somewhere, or a common starting point. I'm just asking what evidence you want to get to a supernatural force, a divine being of some sort. The possibility. Remember, you don't seem to be saying, like an agnostic, that there could be, might be, and probably is - but we'll never know or can never know. Unless I've read you wrong, you're saying there ain't nothing. No divine, god, supernatural presence, nothing. So we have to make it to square one. I'm not trying to defend a Jewish or Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or Muslim or Hindu or any other notion of the Divine. I'm merely saying get me to what evidence you demand in order to at least admit there is a divine presence. Once we get there, we can move on. That is as regular an approach to just about anything as you can get. Now, if I have misread you, and you are more agnostic, admitting to a divine power or supernatural cognitive force, then we can move onto the next part. But unless you are an agnostic, we start at step one. I've told you what we are looking for, what evidence would you take to acknowledge the very existence of a divine presence (because maybe agnostics are right, and all religions are human made and miss the point of what really exists)?
As for the idea of a god being or not being this or that, such as no god can be inherently contradictory, again unless you can show the hard evidence, since you are now the one making the claim that any god must measure up to that standard, then we go with the simplest and basic divine existence as the first step. If that's the standard you demand, then show me what evidence you have that any argument for god must measure up to that standard.
Or we could do it this way. Since you have continually accused me time after time after time of several different religious affiliations and perspectives, you must know where I stand. You tell me then. What is my particular understanding of God, what particular tradition am I part of, and what evidence would you want for me to get going to validate that belief? I'm willing to go that way, since you already seem to know so much of what I associate with regarding my religious faith.
"Please tell me that you just didn't say it was daft to first establish the possibility of a divine being before proceeding to a particular doctrine or faith claim about a divine being."
OK, so you are daft or else being intentionally obtuse. My bet is on the latter since you know that to get pinned down on details would spell the end of any apologetics you would attempt.
"For obviously when dealing between a religious tradition and a person who believes there is absolutely no divine being at all, whatsoever, there has to be some middle ground somewhere, or a common starting point."
I've told you the starting point. You propose something that you think you have evidence for, define it, and then show me the evidence. We are not going to argue about some nebulous concept with a shifting definition.
"I'm just asking what evidence you want to get to a supernatural force, a divine being of some sort."
Which force, which being?
"Remember, you don't seem to be saying, like an agnostic, that there could be, might be, and probably is - but we'll never know or can never know."
Wow. Really? Do you understand the difference between what one knows and what one believes (gnosis vs. theism)?
"Unless I've read you wrong, you're saying there ain't nothing."
I do need to spell it out, don't I? There's no reason to believe that there's some supernatural thing out there and hence no rational warrant for doing so.
"Now, if I have misread you, and you are more agnostic, admitting to a divine power or supernatural cognitive force..."
No, that is not what agnostic means.
"...again unless you can show the hard evidence..."
It's not my job to show you hard evidence. If you present a god that is logically contradictory then too bad for you.
"If that's the standard you demand, then show me what evidence you have that any argument for god must measure up to that standard."
Are you honestly saying that unless I can prove that a square circle doesn't exist that I can't say that gods that are self-contradictory don't exist?
"What is my particular understanding of God, what particular tradition am I part of, and what evidence would you want for me to get going to validate that belief?"
You're a Xian, which automatically puts you in the realm of believing in a contradictory god.
some people interperet things allegorically. like St.Augustine.
Allegorical "meaning" is the general fall-back for when the plain text isn't supported by reality.
I pray your mind and your heart get opened up to the truth of who Christ is. God didn't create you to hate you. He made you, intending you to be the object of His perfect love. The emphasis of Christ's existence had nothing to do with self hatred, condemnation (except that of Satan), religiosity, and hypocrisy. Yes, many have failed and fallen prey to many of these things, but that is not a reflection of the man they claim to follow. If someone is a crazed stalker does that reflect on the person they stalk? (limited analogy). Christ died because a price had to be paid for OUR willful and unwillful addiction to death and sin (defined as lawlessness, which would be to operate against the manner we were created to operate in by God [Life]) through Adam and all our previous parents against a God that loves life, peace, grace and love itself (He created an amazingly intricate world, am I right? Nature is an awesome thing, and so much more awesome the God who made it).
God himself came to ransom man because of His love for him. It says something that God himself came to rescue men. Christ died that you could put your confidence in Him (faith) to have not just eternal life, but life here as well. Life is an amazing opportunity to love and be loved. I know we all come from different places, but I assure you with all that I am that I've been changed for far the better by really pursing the knowledge and understanding of who Jesus REALLY is. Jesus has definitely responded and I've personally experienced His perfect love. It's crazy good. I pray He find you as you want to be found by a God who gives perfect powerful and awesome love.
"I pray your mind and your heart get opened up to the truth of who Christ is."
Prayer has been shown to be ineffective. I suggest you try a more practical approach, like providing some evidence for your claims or logical argumentation.
"God didn't create you to hate you."
Which is why our default state is hell-bound?
"Yes, many have failed and fallen prey to many of these things, but that is not a reflection of the man they claim to follow."
Why not? Are you claiming that god's plan that all go to heaven is being thwarted by us lowly humans? How does a perfect god have his plans wrecked so easily?
"If someone is a crazed stalker does that reflect on the person they stalk? (limited analogy)."
If god is the crazed stalker, which he would be in a more proper analogy, then I'd agree here.
"Christ died because a price had to be paid..."
Why, and to whom?
"God himself came to ransom man because of His love for him. It says something that God himself came to rescue men. Christ died that you could put your confidence in Him (faith) to have not just eternal life, but life here as well."
So, Christ died to appease a bloodthirsty god, who happened to be himself in order to give himself permission to not torture all of us...and on top of it all, he didn't actually die. This is simply convoluted and silly.
"Life is an amazing opportunity to love and be loved."
That we couldn't have without the threat of everlasting hellfire upon our heads? Heaven is supposedly better, so life would suck in comparison (according to Xian beliefs). On top of that, life more often leads to hell than to heaven, which would make life a horrible thing - given your theology.
"I know we all come from different places, but I assure you with all that I am that I've been changed for far the better by really pursing the knowledge and understanding of who Jesus REALLY is."
Then you're aware that no scrap of contemporary evidence exists for the supposed existence of Jesus? That all mentions of him are from much later sources and that they cribs of each other and aren't true, right? And, you've been changed for the better? How so? By what exactly?
"Jesus has definitely responded and I've personally experienced His perfect love."
So you claim, but that's not what many other people feel. Others feel other gods while some people have wanted so badly to feel Jesus and come up empty. Why is your god so selective and how do you deal with the contradiction this creates in your religious ideas?
It wouldn't do any good unless you are willing to understand biblical criticism from the scholarly, not the fundamentalist/literalist, point of view. If you allow for that, then there is much do discuss.
Oh, and it should be mentioned that denying the divinity of Jesus is one thing, denying the existence of a historical being we'll call Jesus is another. Few serious scholars doubt the existence of someone upon which the movement was founded. To do otherwise is, quite frankly, to be in the same camp that denies the moon landings and the Holocaust.
"It wouldn't do any good unless you are willing to understand biblical criticism from the scholarly, not the fundamentalist/literalist, point of view. If you allow for that, then there is much do discuss."
Certainly...like which part is literal and which isn't and how can you tell? When you can come up with a process for doing this that doesn't involve 'that which contradicts science is to be put into the metaphorical pile, while that which doesn't yet contradict science is in the literal pile,' then we can talk.
"Oh, and it should be mentioned that denying the divinity of Jesus is one thing, denying the existence of a historical being we'll call Jesus is another. Few serious scholars doubt the existence of someone upon which the movement was founded. To do otherwise is, quite frankly, to be in the same camp that denies the moon landings and the Holocaust."
Really? That's funny, because we actually have evidence of the latter examples, but not a single scrap of evidence of the former. Most "serious scholars" up until recent times were Xians who didn't doubt the divinity or existence of Jesus and looked for anything to corroborate what they already believed to be true. It's only been quite recent that others have started to look back and point out the lack of evidence for this person. All the supposedly miraculous things this guy did, yet not a single historian of the time bothered to note any of it. Not one. The closest is Josephus, who wrote about the existence of Xians, and whose work was later forged by Xians looking desperately to insert Jesus into older writings. But, hey, keep believing that no one doubts the historicity of Jesus and that it's so completely proven that it's on par with moon landing and the holocaust. It's just one more unsubstantiated belief, like your religious beliefs.
This is correct. There is no concrete proof of a historical human Jesus. Not one single artifact. (There is a long list of artifacts that were produced later. Hoaxes.)
In the past, a majority of historians accept the Biblical document as good evidence. But, given its obvious bias and supernatural agenda-pushing, that mindset is changing.
The Bible represents truly poor history. Rife with bias, the Bible must be dismissed as totally unreliable. A growing number of scholarly historians are doing just that.
Once the Bible is dismissed as unreliable, the evidence for a historical Jesus just evaporates.
Historians used to accept the Biblical account of the Book of Exodus, too. Until it turned out that millions of Jews living in bondage in Egypt for multiple generations had left zero evidence! A growing number of historians are starting to admit that the the story of Exodus is pure myth.
The moon landings and the Holocaust are well documented. They are accepted by objective scholars without controversy. There is overwhelming evidence.
The Biblical document? The Flood? Jews building the pyramids? Moses collecting stone tablets from the Burning Bush? Historical human Jesus? Hardly.
The only author of the Bible, itself, who wrote within a timeframe that he could have actually witnessed the life of a historical Jesus (I'm speaking of Saul of Tarsus) never describes the birth, crucifixion, death, and resurrection as having happened on Earth. He probably was describing events he believed to have happened in the spiritual realm.
Even Saul might not have believed in a historical human Jesus!
All the other Gospel writers came generations after the supposed life of Jesus. It all starts to look as if a mythology was layered onto the supernatural writings of Saul.
I don't know if there was a historical human Jesus. At this point, neither does anyone else! The evidence is highly suspect. Good evidence is nonexistent. To claim that the issue is non-controversial is just false.
Tigerboy, could you cite the statistics of this growing number of scholars? You mention that, some stats would help back it up.
Also, please do your homework before making points. The Bible says nowhere that the Jews built the pyramids. The Jews weren't identified as such in the book of Exodus anyway. Likewise, the burning bush and the stone tablets aren't anywhere near each other. There's nothing worse than someone accusing something of being wrong by using evidence that is, well, wrong.
By the way, there's plenty of evidence that Jesus lived. The reason for rejecting it has to do with bias, not scholarship. As for the evidence for the holocaust or the moon landings, sure we have evidence today. But that doesn't keep some from denying them. But what about 2000 years from now? Do we really think all of this information will exist then? If not, who's to say it won't be quite the vogue idea to regard them as myth and legend, especially if thinkers at that time decide evidence we have to be untrustworthy based on the same reasoning used to dismiss the evidence we have for the historical Jesus?
GCT, That’s an amazing question. That’s like asking how you can tell writing by Stephen Hawking apart from writing by Robert Frost. The Bible is not a book, but a collection of manuscripts and texts. Dating them depends on a host of presumptions. Within those pages written over a number of centuries are a variety of genres of literature, from straight letter and basic theology, to poetry and song. And it’s not simply a reaction to science that has brought this out. I heard Bill Maher say that once, and I almost blew beer out my nose laughing. One need only study classical Christian writings on the subject of scriptural interpretation to realize that. A brief survey of early church writings should help, the Alexandrian school being a particularly rich source of unpacking the variety of approaches to understanding Scripture.
As for Jesus, you need to be willing to unpack the evidence, look at what happened around it. We have extra-biblical references to those who followed Jesus as early as mere decades after the dating of his ministry. We also lack any evidence of individuals refuting the accuracy of the basic story of the existence of Jesus, even though there was clearly a dynamic and growing movement based upon his life as early as the 6th decade of the first century.
Remember, the gist of the Gospel story is not that Jesus was some cloak and darkness leader who was really invisible, or someone who was taken away secretly one night and dispatched in the quiet of a back alley. The gist is that he was followed by thousands and known by thousands and discussed (and conspired against) by the leadership of the state. And his execution was the equivalent of being brought forth at Times Square on New Year’s Eve in front of Dick Clark and the revelers and shot by firing squad in 1988. By now, it wouldn’t be hard to find people in 2012 saying ‘actually, I was there. There wasn’t no such person being shot in Times Square that night.’ Those factors alone, when compared to other ancient historical topics or figures, are typically more than enough evidence to accept the basic existence of someone or an event.
Plus, it’s usually better to accept the presence of a historical person upon which a movement that was already dynamic and growing and recognized by the state within 25 years, than to bend historical theory and practice to the point of breaking in order to dismiss what doesn’t cut to the heart of the issue anyway: Was he or was he not, as Jesus Christ Superstar asks, who they said he was?
The Jews were NOT enslaved by Egypt. The Jews did NOT wander the desert. There is no evidence.
(Building the pyramids is a common representation of the Jews being "in bondage" in Egypt.)
You want to split hairs over my larger point, go for it.
The point is that Exodus is a myth. The Bible is biased and unreliable as history.
---" . . . his execution was the equivalent of being brought forth at Times Square on New Year’s Eve in front of Dick Clark and the revelers and shot by firing squad . . . "
Then, why are there no records? (There exist records of Roman crucifixions, but none of this rabble-rouser who attracted the attention of multitudes!)
Why are there no descriptions of this famous preacher from objective historians until Josephus, 90 years later? (Even his quotes are controversial and suspect. Some believe they were interpolated.)
Why do we not get the Gospels until 70 years later? (People had children in their teens then, so that's 4 generations later.)
The religion seems to have grown out of the writings of Saul. Where does Saul claim to have witnessed the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of a real, flesh-and-blood human being?
Anon,
If there's lots of evidence, present it. What you've done so far, however, is not that great. What are these extra-Biblical references that happened so close to the timeframe? (I already know, but it'll be fun to point out how bad they are.) Why did no one at the time think to write any of it down? Of all the multitudes of people, not one got any mention until decades later (and really even later than that).
And, your point about people not speaking up is not a good argument either. We know that Xians burned and destroyed works that they didn't like, works that criticized them. We also know that the writings surfaced many years later. Try finding someone who was in Times Square for New Year's Eve 50 years ago and can accurately attest to what happened there. And, remember that you can not use the internet to find them, can not use the phone book, etc. You have to find them purely by word of mouth and the ability to walk to them and get their story. And, on top of that, remember that lifespans were shorter then, so the chances of someone being able to speak up would have been greatly reduced. But, even without all that, it's still a bad argument. I don't know that many people speaking out that Harry Potter isn't real, so therefore it is. If someone comes up with a story many years after the fact, do we always get to assume it is true unless some eye witness steps forward to claim it isn't true? Thinking like that could lead to all sorts of ridiculous notions.
Lastly, on the question of how you can tell which parts are literal and which are not, you decided to cop out. I understand why. The way you tell which are real and which are not is based on science and/or your personal biases and what you want to be real. It's how it's done for everyone. Even so-called Biblical literalists are cafeteria Xians when the rubber meets the road. You're no different. The kicker is this though: it's a great argument against Xianity that you and many others walk right into without even knowing it.
Well Tigerboy, I was ready to respond to your spirited defense of getting the facts wrong when GCT jumped in and made it simple. GCT, you say the evidence you know I would cite is unreliable. Fine. Prove it. You no doubt have Tacitus in mind. Fine. Why is that not valid? And you must provide evidence contemporary with Tacitus to show why the writings of Tacitus aren’t valid. You can’t use theories, wild guesses, or anything not supported by clear archeological evidence to support your claim that the evidence is unreliable. Just like Tigerboy’s assertion that Saul – who we only know of from the same Bible he readily dismisses regarding the accounts of Jesus – made up the entire story, some proof would help beyond unsubstantiated assertions and theories taken as fact based on your own beliefs. Oh, and we have nobody saying Harry Potter isn’t real because we have nobody claiming he is (vs. those who claimed Jesus actually lived). But that sort of arguing appears to be your MO.
For example, my answer to the literary content and variations of scriptural interpretation - including information on early schools of thought regarding the subject - wasn’t a cop out. It was explaining the framework upon which a reasoned discussion of scriptural interpretation should be based. Your nonsense answer suggests dialogue is pointless. You, like Tigerboy, are obviously ill-informed regarding the subjects at hand. Further, you clearly have no desire to enter into a serious debate in order to learn anything. Like so many modern atheists, you regurgitate the same tripe over and over; freethinkers reduced to repeating the tired slogans of same-think. You have left the realm of skepticism for the faith of cynicism – a circular trap, because I doubt you can see what is so clearly visible. So I’ll be going now. I see others have also given up over time, but I was willing to give it a shot. I see the others who gave up were right not to waste further efforts.
Saul is an author.
Jesus is a character about which he wrote.
I never said that the Bible was entirely fiction. I said it was unreliable.
Saul's writings are the basis for a popular mythology. That is evidence for the existence OF SAUL. (Not conclusive proof, but evidence.) Whether, or not, he based his character on a real man, I don't know. Neither do you! It's just something you believe.
Jesus wrote nothing. Jesus' immediate contemporaries wrote nothing.
Saul wrote about the Son of God. There is good reason to think he was referring to a divine being of the spirit world.
There is NO QUESTION that the attributes and accomplishments (and possibly the idea that He was a real human being) credited to the character of Jesus Christ by later Christians are mythology. Obvious mythology. Absurd mythology. Plagiarism of so many common divine/hero myths that came before Him.
If you wish to allow yourself to be convinced by obvious mythology and foolishness, be my guest. If a total lack of good evidence doesn't concern you, enjoy your myths.
Evidence matters to me. (I've read none forthcoming from you regarding Exodus.)
"You no doubt have Tacitus in mind. Fine. Why is that not valid?"
Tacitus, to start, is not a contemporary, writing almost 100 years after the supposed events. All his information is based on hearsay. So, sorry, but it's not evidence that Jesus existed. And, I knew you would come up with something like this. I'm surprised you didn't also pull out Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Lucian. Of course, I know nothing about anything according to you, so I couldn't have possibly ever thought to investigate those sources...
"And you must provide evidence contemporary with Tacitus to show why the writings of Tacitus aren’t valid."
Except, that's not how it works. You don't get to claim that your sources are valid unless someone can prove that they aren't. You seem to be ignorant of a little thing called the burden of proof. You bear it, not I.
"Oh, and we have nobody saying Harry Potter isn’t real because we have nobody claiming he is (vs. those who claimed Jesus actually lived)."
And, if in a hundred years people actually claim Harry Potter was real, then what? You're ignoring the forest for the trees.
"But that sort of arguing appears to be your MO."
What, posing questions that you can't answer or posing arguments that you can't rebut? Yes, that is my MO.
"For example, my answer to the literary content and variations of scriptural interpretation - including information on early schools of thought regarding the subject - wasn’t a cop out."
It most certainly was. How do you tell which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? You can't answer that because you know that it has changed over the years and that which people have accepted has changed based on extra-Biblical findings. You also can't answer it because you would have to admit that you make determinations based on the morality of the story as well, and you have to make determinations on your own as to which verses are moral or not and then apply it back to the Bible. Perhaps you are smart enough to understand where that leads, which is why you are avoiding having to deal with it.
"It was explaining the framework upon which a reasoned discussion of scriptural interpretation should be based."
No, actually, it was the direct opposite. You've copped-out and assiduously avoided coming up with a framework. In fact, I was asking you to come up with a framework, to which you balked. Don't try to lie about it now.
"You, like Tigerboy, are obviously ill-informed regarding the subjects at hand."
Obviously, since I happen to know quite a bit about the Bible, the non-contemporary writers, and how we form morality outside of the Bible, as I've shown in just this discussion. What have you shown? That you can complain that we aren't simply rolling over and agreeing with you? Yes, I can see how that shows your infinitely vast and superior knowledge. Perhaps I need to use smaller words for you?
"Further, you clearly have no desire to enter into a serious debate in order to learn anything."
Nonsense. I asked you how you can determine the difference between that which is literal and that which isn't. It was your chance to shine and teach me a framework in which to do it. You, instead, decided that you couldn't do it and would rather heap scorn upon me.
"Like so many modern atheists, you regurgitate the same tripe over and over; freethinkers reduced to repeating the tired slogans of same-think."
I'll make you a deal. When you, or any other theist, can actually answer the questions and arguments of atheists, we'll stop asking/arguing them. Until then, you don't get to regurgitate the same old apologetics tripe over and over and claim that the obvious objections are some sort of same-think.
"You have left the realm of skepticism for the faith of cynicism..."
So, unless I simply accept your pablum I'm not being skeptical? Whatever you say.
"...because I doubt you can see what is so clearly visible."
Which part? That you have no answers? That you're doling out the same inane nonsense that other apologists unsuccessfully trot out? That you have decided that you can't actually debate in good faith so it's time to throw out bigoted stereotypes and insults in lieu of rationality? No, those things are quite obvious. Your religious privilege is quite obvious as well as is your bigotry.
Post a Comment