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Few, if any, scholars or theologians regard the bible as a historical document.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?

[1213]

...
The flood, as decribed in the bible, is physically impossible. ...

Please explain why do you think so?

[1213]

...Having a single continent with a water-filled cavity underneath on a spherical Earth is not possible. Nor is the breaking up and sinking of that continent. Continents do not float on water. ...

Why it is not possible?

I don't claim continents float on water. But, hydraulic force can be strong. If the water below the earth (dry land) can't escape, it can support the landmass. And in this case, by what the Bible tells, there were pillars of earth for extra support. Probably those pillars are now seen in the places of great mountains. I think the Bible story is the best explanation for current continents.

[brunumb]

I don't claim continents float on water. But, hydraulic force can be strong. If the water below the earth (dry land) can't escape, it can support the landmass. And in this case, by what the Bible tells, there were pillars of earth for extra support. Probably those pillars are now seen in the places of great mountains. I think the Bible story is the best explanation for current continents.

Exactly what is the single giant continent being supported above?

[amortalman]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #17]

The Nice Centurion wrote: "Science was proven wrong by bible from the very beginning!"

Would you care to provide an example?

[Goat]

...
The flood, as decribed in the bible, is physically impossible. ...

Please explain why do you think so?

1) The lack of water in the world to be able to cover the mountains
2) The amount of rain to cover the mountains in 40 days would be about like the pressure of a fire hose all over the world.
3) The heat generated by that amount of water would cause the water to boil off and turn to steam,
4) No place for the water to go once it cover the ocean.

[Goat]

...Having a single continent with a water-filled cavity underneath on a spherical Earth is not possible. Nor is the breaking up and sinking of that continent. Continents do not float on water. ...

Why it is not possible?

I don't claim continents float on water. But, hydraulic force can be strong. If the water below the earth (dry land) can't escape, it can support the landmass. And in this case, by what the Bible tells, there were pillars of earth for extra support. Probably those pillars are now seen in the places of great mountains. I think the Bible story is the best explanation for current continents.

It is not possible because if you add up all the water that has been found in the crust, and all the water in the glaciers , oceans and atmosphere, it does not add up to the amount of water needed to flood the world as described.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Having a single continent with a water-filled cavity underneath on a spherical Earth is not possible. Nor is the breaking up and sinking of that continent. Continents do not float on water. ...

Why it is not possible?

I don't claim continents float on water. But, hydraulic force can be strong. If the water below the earth (dry land) can't escape, it can support the landmass. And in this case, by what the Bible tells, there were pillars of earth for extra support. Probably those pillars are now seen in the places of great mountains. I think the Bible story is the best explanation for current continents.

I have already done this to death on the 'Inerrant' thread but - again, the 'hydroplate' theory may look good on a tabletop model of a flat earth with an ocean -filled reservoir with a rock lid over the top. But it doesn't work so well on a round earth where you have effectively a pacific ocean with a curved rock skin over the top. That looks to me like it would not last a year. it would break up and sink as soon as created and I doubt that water and mountain ranges (1) would support a rock lid anyway. Aside from that, the geology indicates early oceans formed on the rock -globe, and the present continents several times broke up and came together in the super -continent (Pangaea) and the globe was never entirely covered by water.

There is really no evidence for a global Flood, nor even (it seems to be) a workable model. And all the evidence is against it. You probably heard the creationist evidence of 'shells on mountain -tops'. In fact these are fossil sea beds with worm burrows still in place. They were lifted up as mountains by tectonic plate movement. If they are the Flood - remains, how could they be the mountain supports for the hydroplate? The evidence is all against it.

cue 'Grand canyon'

(1) never mind that in some versions of the hydroplate theory, the mountains hadn't appeared yet.

[amortalman]

...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.

No. It's true whether you believe it or not. And there are good reasons to believe in science. In ancient times, the age of the earth was sheer speculation. Aristotle thought the earth had always been here.

"Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. The most famous came in 1654 when Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C."

Later, geologists looked at the earth's strata and fossils to get a more accurate timetable. Many scientists from many fields of study advanced our knowledge of the earth's age.

"... by the late 19th century the geologists included here had reached a consensus for the age of the earth of around 100 million years."

"It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling, and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old."

Quotes are from https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... the-earth/ It's a very interesting article and I recommend you take a look. Of course, there are many other reliable sources you can access.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #17]

The Nice Centurion wrote: "Science was proven wrong by bible from the very beginning!"

Would you care to provide an example?

No, 'cause I told that this is not what I say, but what an earnest christian would say!

Their Holy Book teaches flat earth, worldwide flood, geocentrism, young earth, miracles as a common fact, resurrections of deceased, walking dead in Jerusalem, a Sun that sometime resisted from orbiting flat earth without catastrophic consequences, no macroevolution, virgin birth . . .

If one accepts all that, science as we know it, has little to no place in this worldview!

Oh, I realize this now was some kind of example.

[amortalman]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #29]

The Nice Centurion wrote:"No, 'cause I told that this is not what I say, but what an earnest christian would say!"

Sorry. My mistake.