Mythological Scripture accepted as History

[The Nice Centurion]

A post in this thread made me think:
viewtopic.php?t=25006

Note that there is a difference between discussion of religion and discussion of history (though either can contain some reference to the other).

Few, if any, scholars or theologians regard the bible as a historical document. However, uninformed or minimally informed believers often regard it as historical.

The bible was indeed seen as History by western culture for longer than most people know.
A remarkable example here is the english empyre.
The empyres absolute thrust in biblical historicity sustained its might to swallow other cultures.
Officially all english scholars and scientist believed the whole bible to be history until Darwins works came out.
Then slowly thrust in the bible began to lose its attractivity.
(No wonder christians tend to despise him so!)

Before Darwin young earth creationism reigned supreme.
Though flat earth was the first thing christians had to officially let go a long time before Darwin.
(Therefore flat earth is the first biblical fact christians want to distance themselves from until today!)

Remarkable is the Paradox that scientific minds and studied Scholars for so long accepted the bible without question.

A hundred years ago from now european history schoolbooks still presented Jedus godliness and resurrection as historical fact.

What are the resons for above Paradox?

What other Cultures do and did take for how long scriptural evidence as history?
(I am sure that for example non-secular mohammedan states schoolbooks still present mohammeds phropheteness and quranic historicalicity as proven facts. I am also sure that Brigham Young University does the same with Mormon Phophets propheteness and BoM historical accuracy.)

What about ancient greece for example? Were Ilias and Odyssee or Tales of the greek gods interacting with humans taken as historical fact ?

Arguments from the bible are until today so common that this verx forum had to set a rule concerning them.

But for christians Arguments from the bible remain good weapons of course for apologetics.

Also christians do understandably have to fight for the historicity of Jesus resurrection, at the very least!

Most of christianitx had to let go good things like:
Flat earth
Geocentricism
Young earth

And strong under fire is the historicity of OT heroes like Moses as well as important OT happenings like Exodus which is essentially disproven.

How long can a religion outlive the dwindling historicity of its scripture?

[The Nice Centurion]

P.s I do rather like the "Evilooshun" debate (1) but it is irrelevant, as proving a Creator still leaves us with "Which one?" . I have seen the apologetics. Proof of Genesis then leaps wildly to accepting Jesus. Some Christians know that it is not needful to try to maintain belief in Genesis, and to me , Genesis - literalism it is become an article of Faith. I think these people think that one can either be a Christian or accept evolution and deep time geology, but not both.

True, if Genesis is rejected, then the whole doctrine of sin -death and the need to redeem it goes out of the window. But since the Creationists haven't though that far yet, we won't tell 'em eh?

If earth isnt flat, the whole bible and with it christian doctrine and their three gods get flushed.
(Or not, if christians accept that their gods either lie or the world was flat at last up until the temptation of Christ by Satan upon the high mountain.)

We should tell christians at last that, pal !

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes a religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

P.s I do rather like the "Evilooshun" debate (1) but it is irrelevant, as proving a Creator still leaves us with "Which one?" . I have seen the apologetics. Proof of Genesis then leaps wildly to accepting Jesus. Some Christians know that it is not needful to try to maintain belief in Genesis, and to me , Genesis - literalism it is become an article of Faith. I think these people think that one can either be a Christian or accept evolution and deep time geology, but not both.

True, if Genesis is rejected, then the whole doctrine of sin -death and the need to redeem it goes out of the window. But since the Creationists haven't though that far yet, we won't tell 'em eh?

If earth isnt flat, the whole bible and with it christian doctrine and their three gods get flushed.
(Or not, if christians accept that their gods either lie or the world was flat at last up until the temptation of Christ by Satan upon the high mountain.)

We should tell christians at last that, pal !

That is indeed one of the minor objections. However, putting on my Theist hat, I could argue that it's symbolic (like e.g taking someone outside and offering them the whole world - you can't see it but the idea is more immediate than doing it indoors. Indeed, it is all rather theatrical, ain't it?)

And as I recall, Luke adds a slip of his own. Let me check...yes, he puts Jesus on the pinnacle of the Temple which makes sense with a Greco - Roman temple with a pediment, but not the Jewish Sanctuary with a flat roof. It is a small clue that suggests that Luke didn't know what the Temple looked like. Yes, It's in Mathew, too, but Matthew has the business up the mountain and Luke just has Jesus taken up like it might be to the edge of space. Though he wouldn't see the nations on the other side of the earth, and good heavens, his Father made the world, and bosses Satan, so why would Satan he think he could get Jesus to worship him? I would have to (if I was a Christian) see this as Metaphorical, as it makes no sense.

Putting my Atheist hat on now, I think the temptations are Q material as it doesn't appear in Mark. Thus it does suggest that "Q" would be a Greek Christian document as it crossed my mind once that it might be Jewish -Christian, though of course the sermon material is overturning the Jewish law, but I won't do a Sermon on my own
It does have a minor query of: "If Q is a separate document, how do both Matthew and Luke have it in the same place?" (A mark of Q is that Matthew and Luke use the same material in different places in their gospels). I would suggest that Q had the passage about being tempted in the wilderness and being hungry (which isn't in Mark) so the Q document would identify the right place.

[The Nice Centurion]

...Young earth adherents are also proven wrong by geology and radiometric dating methods.

Only if you believe the claims. There is no good reason to believe them.

How do you know that ???

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

The gospel story is pure fantasy, obviously not a word of it can be verified, yet how many believe Jesus was an historical figure? Every week in church the story is repeated, and first and foremost we are to believe it, we must. Well, I no longer think such stories as that are possible.

[1213]

...Young earth adherents are also proven wrong by geology and radiometric dating methods.

Only if you believe the claims. There is no good reason to believe them.

How do you know that ???

Because no one has given any good reason to believe them. If there would be, surely someone would have shown it?

[The Nice Centurion]

...Young earth adherents are also proven wrong by geology and radiometric dating methods.

Only if you believe the claims. There is no good reason to believe them.

How do you know that ???

Because no one has given any good reason to believe them. If there would be, surely someone would have shown it?

You might be on to something here. I read in some forum that even if we had Joseph Smiths Golden Plates we couldnt date them with radio carbon dating.

If radio carbon dating cant even prove mormonism teue, even with Golden Plates present, than what is it worth.

Can someone here, in good clear reformed egyptian words please, explain any good reason to believe "
geology and radiometric dating methods"?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Young earth adherents are also proven wrong by geology and radiometric dating methods.

Only if you believe the claims. There is no good reason to believe them.

How do you know that ???

Because no one has given any good reason to believe them. If there would be, surely someone would have shown it?

There are numerous reasons to credit radiometric dating of rocks as well a C14 dating for organic material.

...Young earth adherents are also proven wrong by geology and radiometric dating methods.

Only if you believe the claims. There is no good reason to believe them.

How do you know that ???

Because no one has given any good reason to believe them. If there would be, surely someone would have shown it?

You might be on to something here. I read in some forum that even if we had Joseph Smiths Golden Plates we couldnt date them with radio carbon dating.

If radio carbon dating cant even prove mormonism teue, even with Golden Plates present, than what is it worth.

Can someone here, in good clear reformed egyptian words please, explain any good reason to believe "
geology and radiometric dating methods"?

We can't date minerals with C14 because it works by organic material containing carbon.

Rocks can be dated by other radiometric dating, Potassium and Argon isotopes. It might be possible to date gold, if we had the plates, which of course, we don't. We do have the Abraham papyrus which might be Carbon dateable, but I think it pointless as it known what it is and it isn't anything to do with Abraham, and I suspect it may turn out to of late Egyptian date when these books of the dead were available in Papyrus, whereas in the (supposed) Abraham time, they were rather carved on the walls of wealthy burials.

[neverknewyou]

How long can a religion outlive the dwindling historicity of its scripture?

I don't think it makes any difference because, well, believers.

[TRANSPONDER]

How long can a religion outlive the dwindling historicity of its scripture?

I don't think it makes any difference because, well, believers.

Well that's the Question "Why are you atheists here?" Back in the day '8% atheists" was the stock jibe and a decade later it was still the same (of the 26% non believers only 8% were Real atheists). I haven't heard a survey over the last decade or so, but it would be interesting to hear what the figures are now. At least in countries where such surveys can be held and they'd dare to say 'atheist' if they were asked..