Bible Mistakes

[liamconnor]

Popular attacks against the Bible point out discrepancies among the details.

But then, there are discrepancies in detail among other ancient historians: Plutarch, Josephus, Livy etc. etc.

Historians continue to use these works in order to reconstruct the history of Greece and Rome; and it seems that most members here trust those reconstructions.


But when a single discrepancy is found in the Bible, it is regarded as earth-shattering.

Should the contents of the bible be treated differently from the contents of any other ancient document? Should it be held to a higher standard for historical reliability?

Why? Why not apply the same methods of historical inquiry to it as to any other historical source?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Is this a serious question...... or are you baiting the atheist crowd here?

What I mean is that it should be obvious that the Bible makes demands on your decision with Christ that will effect the eternal fate of your soul.............and with so much at stake it better get the story right.

The rest of history?

Not important how accurate it is....only the Bible.......because nothing on this Earth matters, only the decision you make with Christ.

That is the lunacy of Christianity and its apologists in a nutshell.........

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 22 by OnceConvinced]

If the history books told us that Adolf Hitler was born of a virgin, walked on water and was going to return one day, would we be taking that historical account seriously? Of course we wouldn't.

I take anything seriously if there is GOOD EVIDENCE for it.

There is no evidence for these things except for the most edited and changed book in the history of the world - the Bible. You've been asked for evidence of course, and other than Biblical quotes and personal opinions, you've provided nothing. No empirical data, no evidence, nothing. Bible claims are no different than any other supernatural claim made by anyone on Earth at any time period in human history. They are not special or unique and should not be treated as such. Unless evidence is provided (which given the complete lack of it from every single believer ever asked), there is no reason to consider the claims plausible.

It is you, not me, who is irrational. I do not come to history with a prejudice against miracles. That seems to me to be in my favor. It is far more rational to lack prejudices, no?

I can't speak for anyone besides myself, but I am not prejudiced against miracles. All I require is evidence for their existence. To date I haven't received any despite copious requests to everyone I've ever met who claimed one. My only "prejudice", if we can call it that, is that I do not accept any claim made about anything until there is evidence supporting it...