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?

[OnceConvinced]

Funny you would call this a "historical document", yet whenever a questionable claim is made, theists usually excuse it with "but it's a metaphor". Is this not special pleading? What if a historic text makes a claim that I would rather not be true? Can I call it a metaphor suddenly?

This here stands out hugely to me and what a great point. Just how seriously would we take a historical account if it was full of metaphors like Christians claim the bible is? If accounts of say Robert the Bruce or Tutankamen were full of metaphors and symbolism, we wouldn't be calling it a historical document. We'd be putting it alongside Shakespeare in the fiction part of library.

[OnceConvinced]

.

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

When that is done, the Bible is regarded as no more credible than other ancient texts (even aside from its supernatural claims).

Indeed. And as with any text if it included tales of supernatural events we would naturally question them.

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.

[liamconnor]

[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.

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?

[OnceConvinced]

[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.

Well there appears to be no good evidence for virgin births and people walking on water. Let alone people coming back from the dead.

It is you, not me, who is irrational.

How am I irrational for being skeptical about the claims of the supernatural? How is it irrational to believe that there is no such thing as virgin births and that men don't walk on water or return from the dead?

I do not come to history with a prejudice against miracles. That seems to me to be in my favor.

I don't think it would be an advantage at all. I think it would leave you way open to believing nonsense.

It is far more rational to lack prejudices, no?

From what I have seen in my life everything has a natural cause. There are no miracles, so why should I believe ancient tales of them? That would be irrational of me.

King Arthur was supposedly a historical character, yet there are claims he fought monsters like dragons and giants. Would you take seriously claims that he fought monsters like dragons and giants?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

In fact, I seriously don't understand how anyone can take the Bible seriously. It has its God commanding and directing men to do all manner of immoral things. Yet it claims that its God is the epitome of perfect morality.

There are numerous historians who do not believe in god and yet use the bible to reconstruct history--like Israel's history, or Jesus' life. It is the same with the life of Mohammed.


That is what I am talking about. I am asking whether the Bible in its most mundane claims should be held to a higher standard.

For instance, Paul claims to be a Pharisee: this is not a supernatural claim. But people doubt it. When asked, one sees that they are just being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical.

[OnceConvinced]

Seriously Liam. You want us to treat the bible the same as other historical documents, but can you seriously claim that you treat the bible the same as other historical documents?

Surely if you want us to treat the bible as being equal to other historical documents, you should treat the bible the same way.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by OnceConvinced]

If you assume prior to historical analysis that miracles are impossible. You are irrational. (I here add a later edition: if your reasons are philosophical, then it remains the question whether the philosophy is sound)

If you construct an historical criteria that suspiciously strains out the supernatural. you are irrational.

Are you claiming to hold a different position from these?

[liamconnor]

Seriously Liam. You want us to treat the bible the same as other historical documents, but can you seriously claim that you treat the bible the same as other historical documents?

Surely if you want us to treat the bible as being equal to other historical documents, you should treat the bible the same way.

Where have you seen me not doing that?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 24 by OnceConvinced]

If you assume prior to historical analysis that miracles are impossible. You are irrational..

Why is it irrational? You will have to explain how it's irrational not just assert it.

There's nothing irrational about it at all. If I have had everything that I once believed to be supernatural, shown to me to have natural causes or proven to be lies, why on earth would I accept anything supernatural at all? Why would I take seriously any claims of miracles or supernatural events? That would be ridiculous! That would be completely irrational of me to go against what I see to be true.

If you construct an historical criteria that suspiciously strains out the supernatural. you are irrational

There is nothing irrational about my stance at all. And what is suspicious about it? Please elaborate on that. You have made a charge against me now please support that.

I have had 48 years of life to examine claims of the supernatural only to find that they all have natural explanations or were made up stories. It would be irrational of me to ignore what I have learnt.

Are you claiming to hold a different position from these?

Please show how any of those positions are irrational. You claiming it to be so is simply your opinion. Not only that but a personal attack against me. Instead of trying to insult my position how about debating it instead? Why is my stance irrational when I am simply going by what i have seen and learnt in reality?

And why is it such a problem for you anyway? Why are you so offended by my refusal to take supernatural nonsense seriously? Surely you can see it would be RATIONAL of me to reject many bible stories after what I have learnt in my life. To go against what I see to be true would be irrational.

[OnceConvinced]

Seriously Liam. You want us to treat the bible the same as other historical documents, but can you seriously claim that you treat the bible the same as other historical documents?

Surely if you want us to treat the bible as being equal to other historical documents, you should treat the bible the same way.

Where have you seen me not doing that?

I may be mixing you up with someone else, but don't you see the bible as God's word? Do you not studying it on a regular basis? Do you not base life decisions on what it says?

You have clocked up nearly 1000 posts defending this book. The fact that you are on this website defending the bible so profusesly shows me that you see it as way more than just a historical document. Way way more. Are you on any other websites defending other "historical" books?