There has been a great number of debates about what the "bible" says and means, but the fact is that it just doesn't matter. Everything in the bible is irrelevant if a god doesn't exist.
Now there are those of you that say that the bible PROVES that there is a god, but that is not a fact. That is like saying that all the 'Harry Potter' books prove that there is a wizard world.
It doesn't matter what the bible says, what it doesn't say because a god has never been proven.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
For many religious people, the "proof" of god's existence comes from notions of objective morality which they often claim is evident in scripture.
@Sapporo
Yes, but "morality" is subjective and those "notions" that you describe are just fantasy.
The best way to tackle erroneous beliefs is to address the reasons why people hold them. If a person did not adopt a belief by assessing evidence, it is difficult to make them reconsider through evidence. If a property of a god is said to be objective morality, pointing out acts in scripture that most people would consider blatantly immoral should be a good way of disproving such a god.
You’re right when you say the Bible can’t prove God exists. Coz that would be circular reasoning. Say gid doesn’t exist. The Bible is still a compilation of ancient books which give an insight into the lives of the ancient people. They’re what you could call, historical documents. If you’re interested in that sort of thing, it would be of use.
When you say "historical" what do you mean exactly?
It records history. But just like any other historical document, it may or may not have errors. It will have a bias. As for other books which do not record history, like the Psalms, Proverbs, etc, they're still "historical" as they still give insight as to how the ancient people thought and made poetry.
@JOC
What history does it record? I don't think it records any "history" whatsoever. For example, there is no archeological evidence that any large population crossed the Red Sea.
You need not hold that every thing in a historical document is accurate to a T. Especially ancient writings. How about how the Davidic Kingdom was established and how it was divided. The Exodus of Israel from Egypt. The fact that there is no archaeological evidence today doesn't prove your point. All it proves is you don't know. It may well have been a lie. But you have an ancient people who held onto these stories as actual history for centuries. To simply wave that off and say, "Sorry. You don't have non-biblical sources to corroborate your story." is very VERY intellectually dishonest.
Jon the Catholic,
This is true history: Egypt included all of the Levant to the Tigris River. The Israelites didn't leave Egypt; Egypt left the Israelites. That was the exodus.
https://www.ancient.eu/image/538/
@JoC
WHAT!?
Intellectually dishonest? You have got to be kidding. You claim that the bible is a historical document, that is somehow records history. You didn't offer any evidence that that is a fact.
I simply gave an example that there is no evidence that anyone crossed the Red Sea on foot at the time. For that, you are claiming that I am being intellectually dishonest?! You've got it backward pal.
You claim that the bible is a historical document that it is a record of history. Well, you'd better prove it before you go shooting off your mouth and claim that I am intellectually dishonest. Just saying that there is no record of anyone crossing the Red Sea on foot at the supposed time of Moses is NOT intellectually dishonest. Now claiming that the bible recorded history when there is no proof whatsoever of that being true IS intellectually dishonest!
I'm saying, Myk that you have this people from the ancient world that regarded these texts as historical and holy. Are you saying that you can get nothing from these texts. Not even how these people thought of the world? That's why I say it would be intellectually dishonest...
Unless you claim that the Bible was written like a hundred years ago... then that would be another form of intellectual dishonesty.
You actually think the babble is a historical document. and how would you prove that?
This isn't even a matter to question. The books of the Bible are, in fact, historical documents.
@ JoC
"This isn't even a matter to question. The books of the Bible are, in fact, historical documents."
Oh, it is very much a matter to question. You are going to have to PROVE that the bible are historical documents. I have no knowledge of the bible recording ANY real history at all. You see to claim that something recorded history is to claim that it recorded an actual event. I don't think the bible recorded ANY actually events. None that can be verified.
By your standards, really, nothing in the ancient world can be proven at all. all I said is that the Bible is collection of books which are historical documents. Are they reliable? You say no. I say yes. It doesn't make them less historical. You've also got to admit that truth can be extracted from even unreliable witnesses.
Jon the Catholic,
So Bel and the Dragon is actual history?
What do you think? The Bible is composed of many different books. Each with a different style and genre. Do the Psalms record history? No. Because that’s not what they were meant to convey. Does Bel and the Dragon record history? No. That’s because these were written in a different genre. Still meant to convey truth but in a different way.
Either way you look at it, reading these works give you a glimpse into what this ancient people saw the world as. That’s enough to classify it as a historical document
"reading these works give you a glimpse into what this ancient people saw the world as. That’s enough to classify it as a historical document"
So the legends of Hercules would be an historical document then? How about the Iliad? Don't historical documents have to have reasonable corroboration from other sources?
As I've said before, the biblical God character was simply the series of men who ruled the dominant Middle Eastern empire during ancient times. He died when the last Babylonian emperor kicked the bucket around 530 B.C. He's not coming back.
well considering you get abject silliness in the form of global floods in the bible, which is factually inaccurate,
as well as many other incorrect claims. could we not just say that the bible is simply at the moment a work of fiction.
The thing is, the Bible doesn't claim to be a work of fiction. it may actually use terms which are exaggerated like saying the whole world was flooded when it may have simply been a very serious local flood. The language,"whole world" was used by the author because to him, that was the whole world. Wouldn't it be interesting to look into what the author of Genesis was thinking as he wrote it?
Also, most atheists will state Genesis, say it's silly and be done with it. The Bible isn't just one book with one author. It's a compilation of books with numerous different authors. Forget the fact that people think of it as inspired by God. You must admit that each individual book in the Bible is a valuable piece of historical writing, whether you believe in God or not.
i would not consider the books to be valuable. the words they contain have led to untold suffering
@JOC
As I have stated to you before JoC, the way the bible is written, the way its knowledge is expressed, the authors could have only have had knowledge of Roman-era 2nd century. Because of that fact we can tell that they had limited historical knowledge and no advanced knowledge, no special insight into the future. References to the past are legends and myths and knowledge beyond the Roman territories is absent. Thus the writers of the bible were scribes of the 2nd century. The bible is an ad-hoc conglomerate of old myths and legends of past cultures and societies mixed with contemporary politics. It is badly pieced together in a volume of disjointed books.
"You must admit that each individual book in the Bible is a valuable piece of historical writing, whether you believe in God or not."
I'm not sure I "must" do anything of the sort. If it is historically valid then that must be demonstrated with evidence commensurate to the claims. It's axiomatic that it is erroneous at the very least where it contradicts scientific facts, facts the writers would have been entirely ignorant of, of course.
LucyAustralopithecus,
The flood story is simply a war story that's probably about the Egyptian invasion of the Levant. It uses a lot of war metaphors, like ravens, doves, olive branches, etc. Even flood is used as a metaphor for war in several other biblical stories.
Besides, all of the lands were in existence when Adam & Eve were running around the Garden of Eden butt naked. And they were there after the "flood" with no ill effect. People who believe in the Noah flood story usually have never read and comprehended the biblical stories. They are meant to illustrate the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 34:10-28.
Sure it includes names of a few real people and places and maybe has one or two actual historical events, but most of it is either unverified or straight wrong. That's not including all the magic and talking animals and stuff. It's about as historical as Abraham Lincoln :Vampire Hunter.
If you like to think of it that way, maybe. But You have to admit that producing and reproducing literature of any kind was an expensive affair. Yet these ancient people decided to protect these writings throughout hundreds of years. This meant something to them and to just say, “It’s all fiction” or even “Most of it is fiction” is kinda irresponsible and quite frankly intellectually dishonest.
You can read the Bible and chalk up the stuff which God says or does as things that the ancients saw as “God’s work”. There may have been some other force not mentioned in the books but it’s still a facinating piece of history we have in the Bible.
There have been far better Mediterranean historians from the time the Bible were supposedly written (since 1000 BCE), Herodotus or Thucydides being among them. And the particular Biblican cannon was decided later in history by each abrahamic religion. Mormons, JWs and other Christians also have their own cannon, so it's difficult to determine which texts are we really talking about.
Anyways, @JontheCat, I wouldn't call it of historical value, but of literary value instead. And some passages have none at all, to be honest.
I'd certainly prefer reading one of Aristophanes' comedies (444 BCE) than any of the books of the Bible. And they could be considered as historical as any Bible book.
I don't think so JoC. The expense was incurred by the Emporer and later the church. I don't think that the common person had anything to do with the bible until Gutenberg made his printing press.
So, if I understand your position, stories are either fact or fiction and the criteria for determining if a story is fact or fiction is how long the story has survived,. Okay. The Rig Veda was written over 1000 b.c. So are the stories in that book fact not fiction?? The koran is 1200 years old. Are the stories in that book true too? Same question about the Epic of Gilgameth. Same question about the Egyption book of the dead. Ditto the Zoroastrian texts. With the exception of the koran, all of these predate the Holy Babble
Pages