NationStates Jolt Archive

Well long story short a crazy preacher guy was on campus.
I ignored him the two previous days but his bent on things had gotten to be too much for me. (he said tupac was in hell along with all rappers).

So I joined the hecklers. Then he went on the whole bible is confirmed by history. I mentioned as a side bar that as a history major i would disagree.
I sadly mentioned this to the Chi Alpha group(very Christians on campus). after a discussion on if Christianity is proven history with them they invited me to free dinner(I love free food) follow by religious.

I was able to hold my own with them for a few hours, but i suspect they will have a preacher at me.
I am not an expert on ancient Mideast history, and well Ive seen you nation state types go at it for hours.

so i am curious about the various arguments both for and against a mostly literal interpretation of the bible, and the bible as a historical document.

the bible is only accidentally historically accurate. it was never really meant to be anything but a religious text. it may have some amount of accuracy in the parts that take place after the babylonian exile, i guess. not that they are historically important parts....unless you are a jew, maybe.....

The bible is not literal history. It cannot be interpreted as such. There is very little concrete evidence. Often times, the bible contradicts itself. Look at the books of Joshua and Judges. Joshua says that the Israelites took Jerusalem. But Judges clearly tells the same story, in which the don't take Jerusalem. So which is it?

This is just one instance, they do it plenty of times over and over again.

Argument against literal interpretation of the bible: It was written thousands of years ago for people with the same capacity to understand things as your average first grade student.

In general, yes. A lot of the places in the Bible have been found, a lot haven't and there is considerable debate on if they ever actually existed. A lot of the people in the Bible may, or may not have existed. Some of the major people for example (Like Moses) have very little historical backing. Some major events (Such as the exodus) seems to have not had any real historical backing, maybe (The jury is still out).

ANY sort of act of God from the parting of the Red Sea to the flood to the loaves and fishes has no historical basis whatsoever.

So, in a way yes. The Bible has been backed up, but only in that it has been used to find some old cities, not that finding such old cities means that the walls actually fell when a horn was blown.

In general, yes. A lot of the places in the Bible have been found, a lot haven't and there is considerable debate on if they ever actually existed. A lot of the people in the Bible may, or may not have existed. Some of the major people for example (Like Moses) have very little historical backing. Some major events (Such as the exodus) seems to have not had any real historical backing, maybe (The jury is still out).

ANY sort of act of God from the parting of the Red Sea to the flood to the loaves and fishes has no historical basis whatsoever.

So, in a way yes. The Bible has been backed up, but only in that it has been used to find some old cities, not that finding such old cities means that the walls actually fell when a horn was blown.

I know having the correct setting doesn't make anything historically accurate other wise romeo and juliet would be a true history because Verona exist.

Why bother arguing at all? Nod your head politely and eat as much as you want. When you're ready to leave, stick your penis in the pudding and enjoy the complementary escort to the door.

Why bother arguing at all? Nod your head politely and eat as much as you want. When you're ready to leave, stick your penis in the pudding and enjoy the complementary escort to the door.

Its an honor thing i am getting free food. I do suspect i should stay for the entire service. Even more so because its not a normal part of their services one of them is buying it for me prior to (from the school cafeteria so meal plan thing).


Of particular interest is the Q document hypothesis if anyone happens to be more knowledgeable in that.

Its an honor thing i am getting free food. I do suspect i should stay for the entire service. Even more so because its not a normal part of their services one of them is buying it for me prior to (from the school cafeteria so meal plan thing).


Of particular interest is the Q document hypothesis if anyone happens to be more knowledgeable in that.
are they expecting you to debate them?

are they expecting you to debate them?

I am expecting them to engage me in conversations using the normal logic of see this is all proven. it is what they are know for. I don't like backing down and I want to come out as holding my own.
I am not anti christian I am more a truth Vs fact type and that they can coexist.

I know having the correct setting doesn't make anything historically accurate other wise romeo and juliet would be a true history because Verona exist.
You'd be amazed on how many people I've met have decided that is just the case. For example, in Jerusalem, a tunnel was discovered a few years back (If memory serves) that vaguely matched the story of how David gained entry into the city when he took it. It was amazing how many people claimed that MUST mean that David actually existed.

I am expecting them to engage me in conversations using the normal logic of see this is all proven. it is what they are know for. I don't like backing down and I want to come out as holding my own.
I am not anti christian I am more a truth Vs fact type and that they can coexist.
welp, you can look up Q on the net easily enough.

but if they are talking about the new testament, nothing about the life of jesus is true--nothing that could be verified at this late date i mean. the scant details of his life are bullshit and the actions of the jews and the romans in regard to jesus' ministry dont fit well with the policies of those times.

welp, you can look up Q on the net easily enough.

but if they are talking about the new testament, nothing about the life of jesus is true--nothing that could be verified at this late date i mean. the scant details of his life are bullshit and the actions of the jews and the romans in regard to jesus' ministry dont fit well with the policies of those times.

we will see i got until Thursday. the stuff about Q ive glanced over. more its not my normal area to discuss.

Why bother arguing at all? Nod your head politely and eat as much as you want. When you're ready to leave, stick your penis in the pudding and enjoy the complementary escort to the door.

I can confirm that this works. :)

I can confirm that this works. :)
The only downside (or maybe it is an added benefit?) is that you almost never get invited back.
And the one time I was invited to return was very odd, a large bowl of gazpacho was placed in front of me, and I was asked to "season" it.

The only downside (or maybe it is an added benefit?) is that you almost never get invited back.
And the one time I was invited to return was very odd, a large bowl of gazpacho was placed in front of me, and I was asked to "season" it.

It's a trap. *nod*

Well long story short a crazy preacher guy was on campus.
I ignored him the two previous days but his bent on things had gotten to be too much for me. (he said tupac was in hell along with all rappers).

So I joined the hecklers. Then he went on the whole bible is confirmed by history. I mentioned as a side bar that as a history major i would disagree.
I sadly mentioned this to the Chi Alpha group(very Christians on campus). after a discussion on if Christianity is proven history with them they invited me to free dinner(I love free food) follow by religious.

I was able to hold my own with them for a few hours, but i suspect they will have a preacher at me.
I am not an expert on ancient Mideast history, and well Ive seen you nation state types go at it for hours.

so i am curious about the various arguments both for and against a mostly literal interpretation of the bible, and the bible as a historical document.

The Old Testament is probably as accurate as Greek Mythology, and the New Testament is likely as dependable as Livy or Herodotus.

Google is your friend. Use it!

Google is your friend. Use it!

its more the practice in debating and conversing on these points i want.

its more the practice in debating and conversing on these points i want.

You know, a question I always like to start with when I'm the humour for reasonable debate with Christians is to ask: Do you believe Robin Hood loved Maid Marian?

I start with this because there's quite some debate over who Robin Hood might have been based on, or whether he was an amalgamation of poor against rich folklore*.

The Q document is a combination of allusion and deduction, that some of the gospels match word for word and so the conclusion is that they were based on a 3rd, original and unknown document.

Of course, another conclusion could be that a story was mashed together to create a linear tale out of a collection of sayings.

Robin Hood mentions real names and places as well, it's still a story.

I generally say that I'm happy to consider the story of Jesus is based on a mash-up of half-truths, blown up into a story with a beginning and an end, but that's it, there's no other evidence for anything.

So I end with asking whether they're willing to bet their actions in life on the story of Robin Hood.

What's different here I ask?

The only difference is that influence brought to bear on us by the power of the established church throughout the last 1, 500 years.

*the best is that quite a few people believe Robin Hood to be a true story, this really helps my point.

its more the practice in debating and conversing on these points i want.

Greed, you know, quite well, just how these kind of debates turn out on NSG.;)

Greed, you know, quite well, just how these kind of debates turn out on NSG.;)

i ahvent seen any of the pro historical bible people post yet. so who knows.

i ahvent seen any of the pro historical bible people post yet. so who knows.

Well, you've been warned. Now, I'll go get my pop corn and some soda. This will turn interesting.

Robin Hood is a pre-christian myth.

Seriously though, would you argue against biblical texts, or Christianity? The two are quite dissimilar things.

Well, you've been warned. Now, I'll go get my pop corn and some soda. This will turn interesting.

all that will happen is arguing and logic debts. Or. the Christians wont show up and post.
Or lastly it devolves into yet another thread asking for topless pictures from you.

all that will happen is arguing and logic debts. Or. the Christians wont show up and post.
Or lastly it devolves into yet another thread asking for topless pictures from you.

That last part, I assure you, won't happen.

And what? Are you bitter because I never offered topless photos of me to you? For heaven's sake.:rolleyes:

That last part, I assure you, won't happen.

And what? Are you bitter because I never offered topless photos of me to you? For heaven's sake.:rolleyes:

its like being denied the chance to see a goddesses true form.

its like being denied the chance to see a goddesses true form.

Oh, how sweet! Greed is complementing me. Please. You're highjacking your own thread. Here, let me help you get back on topic by leaving.

Google is your friend. Use it!
The last thing the world needs is more uses of the non-word "sheeple."
That last part, I assure you, won't happen.

And what? Are you bitter because I never offered topless photos of me to you? For heaven's sake.:rolleyes:
Greed may be or not be whatever he is, but I'm bitter. Yes, I'm bitter. Bitter like a lemon that likes taking its teeth to women of the opposite sex [irony alert]get it, bit her and bitter, it is a fucking pun, which I am highlighting[/irony alert].

i want to here from people who feel a literal interpretation of the bible is the correct one. I know you all exist on this board some where. I just want your view points.

Ask them to explain what dinosaurs are or how they play into the work of things.

I would enjoy hearing that. But the answers are never backed by fact. They are basically the same exact thing as saying "Because Chuck Norris didn't get around to killing them yet."

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

...

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

...

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)
Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)
Explaining Inerrancy (https://store.ligonier.org/product.asp?idDept=B&idCategory=TH&idProduct=EXP01BP)

...

Thats exactly what I meant. "Its real because we say so".

Some other pro-infallibility and inerrancy resources that may help understand the arguments (or may not):

What does it mean to believe the Bible? (http://www.ruf.org/mediafiles/what-does-it-mean-to-believe-the-bible.pdf)
The inerrancy of Scripture (http://uga.ruf.org/site_content/attachments/0000/0640/Inerrancy_of_Scripture_Vanhoozer.pdf)
The historical reliability of the Gospels (http://uga.ruf.org/site_content/attachments/0000/0473/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels_Stuart_Latimer.pdf)
The Bible's reliability (http://www.ruf-lu.org/articles/the_bible%27s_reliability.htm)

I generally say that I'm happy to consider the story of Jesus is based on a mash-up of half-truths, blown up into a story with a beginning and an end, but that's it, there's no other evidence for anything.

Josephus did mention about the existence of Jesus Christ though in the Antiquities of the Jews.

ANY sort of act of God from the parting of the Red Sea to the flood to the loaves and fishes has no historical basis whatsoever. The flood however seems to have a basis as two large scale flooding events around there in human history

The formation of the black sea,(which is still distupted) and and the formation of the Persian Gulf.

Actually now that I look more into it there could be many different floods that could form the basis of that story.

(Including a massive lake in North America emptying causing a 1 meter rise of the oceans)

Josephus did mention about the existence of Jesus Christ though in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Highly contentious, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Often times, the bible contradicts itself. Look at the books of Joshua and Judges. Joshua says that the Israelites took Jerusalem. But Judges clearly tells the same story, in which the don't take Jerusalem. So which is it?

This is just one instance, they do it plenty of times over and over again.

I think you make a good example - Judges makes its case where God loses because his opponents had iron chariots. That would stand to reason the same as all other conflicts involving "god" vs. technology / evidence.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:



Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)
Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)
Explaining Inerrancy (https://store.ligonier.org/product.asp?idDept=B&idCategory=TH&idProduct=EXP01BP)This is going on Dubsy's thread, and for hella good reason.

As inerrancy goes ... anyone bring up certain crop practices of Russians about a millenia back?
The part where peasants planted pagan penis figurines in the their fields to encourage crop fertility, and local priests were paid to sprinkle holy water on the crops to ward off pests?

I think another funny occurrence was the Day of Industry replacement for the Feast of Transfiguration, and Harvest Day in place of the Feast of the Intercession.

The Bible is comparable to e.g. the Da Vinci code as far as historical accuracy is concerned. They both contain references to real places, people, objects, organisations and so on - but if the actual narrative is correct is questionable at best.

The Bible is comparable to e.g. the Da Vinci code as far as historical accuracy is concerned. They both contain references to real places, people, objects, organisations and so on - but if the actual narrative is correct is questionable at best.
Yeah, the best-selling roman a` clef in Western History.

Well I think a literal interpretation of the bible is just plain un-reasonable and I am Christian. That doesn't mean that there aren't some, perhaps even lots of elements of historical truth within the bible but asserting that everything in the bible is true is a very weak position to take in any debate. I suggest actually reading the bible, particularly Genesis and Revelations. Both books actually make sense as metaphor but a lot of people don't seem to know what metaphor is. :o

As far as trying to disprove parts of the bible, well disproving anything is intrinsically very difficult so don't try. Simply familiarize your self with the bible, particularly the new testament and show that a non-literal interpretation of the bible is more reasonable and more relevant to the modern world.

Exodus just doesn't fit with archaeology or history. Egypt is one of the most studied ancient cultures and there is no evidence to support the Biblical account.

Exodus just doesn't fit with archaeology or history. Egypt is one of the most studied ancient cultures and there is no evidence to support the Biblical account.

... prove it.

See where I'm going with this? You can't prove or disprove anything by arguing archaeological evidence. There is always the possibility that more evidence could still be found or that all traces of the event have long since been destroyed.

I always prefer Gnostic texts and the other "apocryphal" titles.
The Book of Thomas is a good one. Its nothing more than 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.
In it, you'll find nothing more than simple wisdom and practical advice. It reads much like Confucius. Ie "Jesus say, dont poop where you sleep".

No mention of miracles, ressurection, or divinity. In fact, the only title given to him, by his "apostles", is "Teacher", or in Hebrew, "Rabbi".

It tends to paint him as much more of a human mystic or sage, rather than a Messiah.
This of course, is why it was left out of the reindeer games at Nycea.

Several scholars put its date of origin at around 40 ad. This could very well mean it was written long before the accepted "Canon".

As you probably know, there isnt a single shred of evidence supporting the existance of Jesus of Nazereth, and as mentioned before, its as likely as Robin Hood, or Arthur Pendragon.

The only artifacts that Ive been aware of that held any historical evidence mentioned in the bible were two small ivory staff ends, that are believed to have been used in the Temple in Jerusalem, before its destruction in @67 AD.
This means merely that there was indeed a temple there, and it in fact, was destroyed, and rebuilt upon.

Some christians will alude that Jesus makes a future mention of this and therefore, displaying some sort of divine prophetic ability. However, since the writing of the text it appears in, could easily have been written well past the destruction of the temple, its not hard to imagine the author embellishing such a story.

I always prefer Gnostic texts and the other "apocryphal" titles.
The Book of Thomas is a good one. Its nothing more than 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.
In it, you'll find nothing more than simple wisdom and practical advice. It reads much like Confucius. Ie "Jesus say, dont poop where you sleep".

No mention of miracles, ressurection, or divinity. In fact, the only title given to him, by his "apostles", is "Teacher", or in Hebrew, "Rabbi".

It tends to paint him as much more of a human mystic or sage, rather than a Messiah.
This of course, is why it was left out of the reindeer games at Nycea.

Several scholars put its date of origin at around 40 ad. This could very well mean it was written long before the accepted "Canon".

As you probably know, there isnt a single shred of evidence supporting the existance of Jesus of Nazereth, and as mentioned before, its as likely as Robin Hood, or Arthur Pendragon.

The only artifacts that Ive been aware of that held any historical evidence mentioned in the bible were two small ivory staff ends, that are believed to have been used in the Temple in Jerusalem, before its destruction in @67 AD.
This means merely that there was indeed a temple there, and it in fact, was destroyed, and rebuilt upon.

Some christians will alude that Jesus makes a future mention of this and therefore, displaying some sort of divine prophetic ability. However, since the writing of the text it appears in, could easily have been written well past the destruction of the temple, its not hard to imagine the author embellishing such a story.

Yes I found that an interesting read as well. Actually mentioning the story of the compilation of the bible at Nycea and the fact that this quite relevant book was left out would be a good place to start. Just to get the whole "the bible is the word of god" thing out of the way at the start.

Actually not to spoil your conspiracy theory but I think Thomas was left out not so much as censorship but more for the sake of brevity. (A lot of things were...) A lot of Thomas is actually duplicated elsewhere, but I still think it's sad that it was left out. Another reason is that I believe that there was some doubt as to the authorship of the gospel of Thomas at the time... (but don't quote me on that I'm not sure where I heard it)

... prove it.

See where I'm going with this? You can't prove or disprove anything by arguing archaeological evidence. There is always the possibility that more evidence could still be found or that all traces of the event have long since been destroyed.

True, proving or disproving is not really possible.
Then again, all evidence we do have does not show any indication whatsoever of the Egyptians suddenly losing the bulk of their workforce, which many Jews claim they were. No economic collapses, no increased requests for trades with the neighbouring countries, no mentions of thousands of Jews walking around... nothing. It is odd that we find so much, while everything that would support the story seems to be missing.

With the global flood we are at least at firmer ground. If it ever happened, it left NOTHING to show for itself - while even small local floods leave sediments and so on.

True, proving or disproving is not really possible.
Then again, all evidence we do have does not show any indication whatsoever of the Egyptians suddenly losing the bulk of their workforce, which many Jews claim they were. No economic collapses, no increased requests for trades with the neighbouring countries, no mentions of thousands of Jews walking around... nothing. It is odd that we find so much, while everything that would support the story seems to be missing.

With the global flood we are at least at firmer ground. If it ever happened, it left NOTHING to show for itself - while even small local floods leave sediments and so on.

Well ancient authors were masters of Hyperbole, just because the Egyptians didn't loose their entire workforce in a night doesn't mean the exodus never happened.

Similarly, just because we can prove that there never was a flood which covered the entire earth there is plenty of evidence for a (smaller) flood occurring. Also keep in mind that there is no actual date attributed to the flood in the bible. The general tone of the work indicates that the author is describing events in the past which did not happen to him so this very well could be quite an old story.

Well ancient authors were masters of Hyperbole, just because the Egyptians didn't loose their entire workforce in a night doesn't mean the exodus never happened.

Quite true. It is entirely possible that a few dozens slaves were released from capitivity through the actions of a man named Moses. But if one wishes to claim it was far more than that, one has to show more evidence as well.

Similarly, just because we can prove that there never was a flood which covered the entire earth there is plenty of evidence for a (smaller) flood occurring.

We even have plenty of evidence for thousands of floods. Humans after all tend to build their civilisations near bodies of water. There were even several significant floods in the past decade.
So again, we have something that reeks of hyperbole. The flood from Noah may well have destroyed all of *his* world - meaning friends, fellow villagers and so on - but the people in China almost certainly never even noticed it.

Also keep in mind that there is no actual date attributed to the flood in the bible. The general tone of the work indicates that the author is describing events in the past which did not happen to him so this very well could be quite an old story.

Not old enough to leave no remnants whatsoever ;) Geology can go back far.

Quite true. It is entirely possible that a few dozens slaves were released from capitivity through the actions of a man named Moses. But if one wishes to claim it was far more than that, one has to show more evidence as well.


A few dozen! Well I'd say you are a master of the art of meiosis :p

Seriously it could have been quite a lot more than that, hundreds perhaps a thousands. The Egyptians had so many slaves the wouldn't have missed even that number. We'll probably never really know we're talking about an event which occurred so long ago!


We even have plenty of evidence for thousands of floods. Humans after all tend to build their civilisations near bodies of water. There were even several significant floods in the past decade.
So again, we have something that reeks of hyperbole. The flood from Noah may well have destroyed all of *his* world - meaning friends, fellow villagers and so on - but the people in China almost certainly never even noticed it.


Well ancient authors were usually not inventing these stories they were handed down over generations orally. If you've ever played the telephone game or heard a rumor which was *based* in fact but weren't actually true you can see what happens. Stories usually become bigger and more incredible with each telling.


Not old enough to leave no remnants whatsoever ;) Geology can go back far.

No but as I mentioned there is plenty of evidence for a smaller but still quite large flood in the area.

No but as I mentioned there is plenty of evidence for a smaller but still quite large flood in the area.

Quite a few, no doubt. The Nile alone overflows almost yearly after all. And I am even more than willing to believe that someone clever enough to notice that little aspect of rivers existed, had the good sense to prepare and build a boat and entered it with his wife and some lifestock when the inevitable flood came. I will even go as far to assume that there have been multiple people smart enough to do such a thing throughout history.

I just doubt the whole global yearlasting flood that left no trace and ark that could magically contain samples of all species on the planet aspects ;)

Quite a few, no doubt. The Nile alone overflows almost yearly after all. And I am even more than willing to believe that someone clever enough to notice that little aspect of rivers existed, had the good sense to prepare and build a boat and entered it with his wife and some lifestock when the inevitable flood came. I will even go as far to assume that there have been multiple people smart enough to do such a thing throughout history.

I just doubt the whole global yearlasting flood that left no trace and ark that could magically contain samples of all species on the planet aspects ;)

I think your over simplifying the situation... your definitely a master of meiosis!

I found this (http://www.answersincreation.org/articles/flood_location.htm) googleing for the location of the flood - the truth is that no one really knows for sure but I think that the Caspian sea is a reasonable hypothesis. What we know from the bible is that supposedly Noah landed on the Ararat mountain range.

I think your over simplifying the situation... your definitely a master of meiosis!

Hey - at least I am not saying that the Bible is based on nothing ;)

I think your over simplifying the situation... your definitely a master of meiosis!

I found this (http://www.answersincreation.org/articles/flood_location.htm) googleing for the location of the flood - the truth is that no one really knows for sure but I think that the Caspian sea is a reasonable hypothesis. What we know from the bible is that supposedly Noah landed on the Ararat mountain range.
there have been FLOODS.

but that isnt what is described in the bible. to have the bible be literally factual and inerrant requires a flood that covers the whole world to the tops of all the mountains in the middle east. that didnt happen.

Argument against literal interpretation of the bible: It was written thousands of years ago for people with the same capacity to understand things as your average first grade student.

Also, the OT isn't a single organic text; it is a collection of different texts, instead.

Take Genesis and Exodus. In Genesis, the original uses Elohu/Elohim for God/Gods. In the Exodus (referring to a period when the Jews contacted another monotheistic culture, that is the Aton period of Egypt), the term Adonai (clearly Adonai = Aton!) begins to be used. (source: "Mimesis" by Auerbach).

Btw, if they want to nitpick what's literal, I guess that pointing them to Leviticus and Deuteronomy can be quite fun, as they include norms for what we would call today "genocide".

there have been FLOODS.

but that isnt what is described in the bible. to have the bible be literally factual and inerrant requires a flood that covers the whole world to the tops of all the mountains in the middle east. that didnt happen.

If you check my earlier posts you'll see that I do not, and never have supported a literal interpretation of the bible. That said I don't think It's a bunch of crap either... I'm simply saying that trying to disprove accounts of the exodus or the flood is the wrong way to go about this debate.

I would actually not try and argue the factual history of the bible since it's a no win argument anyway. You'll never be able to produce hard evidence and you'd have to cite sources other than the bible to people only concerned with the bible.

What you have to do is first show that the bible is a compiled work of many works. This is an established fact recognized by all major Christian denominations - and yet some people claim that the bible is the word of God. *This* is just plain illogical. In fact in some bibles there is page in the front which states something to this effect - the fact is that this page was added sometime after the protestant reformation!

Then I would discuss Genesis and Revelations because both contain symbolism which makes very little sense outside of the context of metaphor. In fact I think anyone who tries to read either literally will totally miss the point.

Another good story which may or may not be true is the book of Job. I would argue that true or not the inner truth (or the moral) of the story remains the same. Whether or not there really was a guy named job is really not relevant to the story.

Then I would show that the words of jesus are just as relevant now as they were 2000 years ago. ...Historical details aside.

Then I would show that the words of jesus are just as relevant now as they were 2000 years ago. ...Historical details aside.

Ah - but that is the snag. For many believers the words of Jesus are important due to them believing the history surrounding them. The belief that he existed, died to cleanse humanity of sin and then returned from the grave is necessary to give the words ascribed to him greater weight than e.g. the words of Kant, Bentham, Voltaire or whatever philosopher who has spoken about good and evil you wish to consider.

Of course, if one is going to argue that the Bible is not 100% historically accurate, the sacrifice and resurrection part and therefor the "certain rightness" of the views of Jesus can also be debated - which for many is unacceptable.

The BEST way to approach this is showing them the HUGE differences between words in the Bible and ask them to explain it.

For example what is translated as Hell throughout the Bible was in fact, depending on the book, originally three different clear words. In the Old Testament it is more the Jewish underworld, which is a very different concept than Hell. Then the more Greek style Underworld, then a hell (even that word as far as we think of hell is up for debate). Find an article or something that defines what verses have changed these original words to just hell, and ask them to explain that.

Then there are numerous other cases where words meant something else but totally mistranslated.

Ah - but that is the snag. For many believers the words of Jesus are important due to them believing the history surrounding them. The belief that he existed, died to cleanse humanity of sin and then returned from the grave is necessary to give the words ascribed to him greater weight than e.g. the words of Kant, Bentham, Voltaire or whatever philosopher who has spoken about good and evil you wish to consider.

Of course, if one is going to argue that the Bible is not 100% historically accurate, the sacrifice and resurrection part and therefor the "certain rightness" of the views of Jesus can also be debated - which for many is unacceptable.

Belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith. Packaging that faith with a whole bunch of myth and superstition only makes the message of Christ less accessible to people and less relevant to the modern age. It's not necessary to believe that every word of the bible is true in a literal sense in order to believe in the divinity of Christ and in the resurrection.

In fact a lot of the supposedly Christian BS I hear coming from right-wingers in the states is not even based on a literal interpretation of the bible but a very convoluted mish-mash of prejudices, politics and heresy. Taking a rigid literal interpretation of the bible puts your faith on very shaky ground. Furthermore it makes you behave like an inflexible and illogical dumb-ass, and isolates you from the few reasonable people in this world.

In general, yes. A lot of the places in the Bible have been found, a lot haven't and there is considerable debate on if they ever actually existed. A lot of the people in the Bible may, or may not have existed. Some of the major people for example (Like Moses) have very little historical backing. Some major events (Such as the exodus) seems to have not had any real historical backing, maybe (The jury is still out).

There was alot of debate about whether Troy existed, as well, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Also, about the exodus: keep in mind the Jews were wandering an uninhabited wasteland for ~40 years. If the opening passages of the book Exodus are true, then ancient peoples had a very short attention span and it's not much of a stretch to imagine the Jews being forgotten.

ANY sort of act of God from the parting of the Red Sea to the flood to the loaves and fishes has no historical basis whatsoever.

While I will admit that the loaves and fishes story can only be passed on as truly divine in nature, I can say that the Jews didn't pass through the Red Sea, but rather the Sea of Reeds (very early mistranslation, see, but it never got totally corrected). At that point, it's not too unreasonable to conjecture that there was either a very strong gale that pushed the relatively shallow waters aside (think: swampy area) or that the place became drained while the Jews crossed, but the Egyptians became bogged down with their chariots in the mud.

So, in a way yes. The Bible has been backed up, but only in that it has been used to find some old cities, not that finding such old cities means that the walls actually fell when a horn was blown.

True. But one can't expect to find the Hand of God in archaeology (unless you're Indiana Jones... let's not go there).

The Old Testament is probably as accurate as Greek Mythology, and the New Testament is likely as dependable as Livy or Herodotus.

Ya know, it wasn't -that- long ago that a historian that believed Troy existed was ridiculed to a very large degree. I'll leave that at that.

The BEST way to approach this is showing them the HUGE differences between words in the Bible and ask them to explain it.

True. If one has genuinely read and understood the Bible, it's very very difficult to be a literalist, and one doesn't even need to know the ancient Hebrew used in the Bible.

My example: tradition holds that Moses physically wrote the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible), yet in Exodus, this oddity occurs:

Exodus 2:18 "When the girls (one of whom Moses would marry) returned to Reuel their father...

Exodus 3:1 "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law...

(NIV translation, bold mine, parenthesis mine for clarification)

Wouldn't you think Moses would know who his own father-in-law is? Evidently, chapters 2 and 3 have different authors; obviously only one can be Moses. (Let's ignore the obvious Highlander quotes we could make for the sake of focus)

There was alot of debate about whether Troy existed, as well, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Also, about the exodus: keep in mind the Jews were wandering an uninhabited wasteland for ~40 years. If the opening passages of the book Exodus are true, then ancient peoples had a very short attention span and it's not much of a stretch to imagine the Jews being forgotten.



While I will admit that the loaves and fishes story can only be passed on as truly divine in nature, I can say that the Jews didn't pass through the Red Sea, but rather the Sea of Reeds (very early mistranslation, see, but it never got totally corrected). At that point, it's not too unreasonable to conjecture that there was either a very strong gale that pushed the relatively shallow waters aside (think: swampy area) or that the place became drained while the Jews crossed, but the Egyptians became bogged down with their chariots in the mud.



True. But one can't expect to find the Hand of God in archaeology (unless you're Indiana Jones... let's not go there).



Ya know, it wasn't -that- long ago that a historian that believed Troy existed was ridiculed to a very large degree. I'll leave that at that.



True. If one has genuinely read and understood the Bible, it's very very difficult to be a literalist, and one doesn't even need to know the ancient Hebrew used in the Bible.

My example: tradition holds that Moses physically wrote the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible), yet in Exodus, this oddity occurs:

Exodus 2:18 "When the girls (one of whom Moses would marry) returned to Reuel their father...

Exodus 3:1 "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law...

(NIV translation, bold mine, parenthesis mine for clarification)

Wouldn't you think Moses would know who his own father-in-law is? Evidently, chapters 2 and 3 have different authors; obviously only one can be Moses. (Let's ignore the obvious Highlander quotes we could make for the sake of focus)

You are assuming he had only one wife. If he had many wives then this would be true. So he one wife he showed off to people and another one. See imposing our culture on the people of the Bible could be a mistake, many people in the Bible had more than one wife.

For the record I do not think you should accept everything as literal truth in the Bible. I think the content is more important.

To be clear adultery is sleeping with another man's wife. If the woman is unmarried then there was no problem.

Numbers 12:1

1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.


Well, Zipporah was descended from Midian.

He apparently married a black woman which was a problem for Aaron and Miriam.


Although the do not give her name which would be a great help. Cush was where modern day Ethiopia is now.

While I will admit that the loaves and fishes story can only be passed on as truly divine in nature, I can say that the Jews didn't pass through the Red Sea, but rather the Sea of Reeds (very early mistranslation, see, but it never got totally corrected). At that point, it's not too unreasonable to conjecture that there was either a very strong gale that pushed the relatively shallow waters aside (think: swampy area) or that the place became drained while the Jews crossed, but the Egyptians became bogged down with their chariots in the mud.

The theory I heard has the chariots stuck in the mud and the Israelite counter attacked the defenseless chariots. of course this theory also places the Jews as hyksos. and while that actually gives an historic account of the exodus it also means the Jews weren't slaves but conquerors who were being driven out. and that's a whole other bag of worms.

Ya know, it wasn't -that- long ago that a historian that believed Troy existed was ridiculed to a very large degree. I'll leave that at that.



Which Troy. they have found 5. Troy IIb seems to be the only one matching homer's time frame and was possibly destroyed by fire or natural disaster. However it appears to have only be a small fort. And even if their was an attached town that still does not prove that an army of Greeks destroyed it over a woman.

You can't prove something by not disprovingit. Thats like saying prove Narnia doesn't exist... Well then I guess it does since you can't disprove it.

You can't prove something by not disprovingit.

Though technically that is what science does. Test, test, test, test, test - and if despite all testing the hypothesis is still not disproven, it gains more and more credibility.

But it indeed is not proven. Which is why the word theory is still used.

Thats like saying prove Narnia doesn't exist... Well then I guess it does since you can't disprove it.

If it would be testable such a claim would have merit, yes.
Is the existence of narnia testable ?

Ya know, it wasn't -that- long ago that a historian that believed Troy existed was ridiculed to a very large degree. I'll leave that at that.

Right, and I believe there is some truth to Greek mythology. But most of it is not certain and it has to filtered trough all the supernatural elements. As for Livy and Herodotus, we both know that they are close enough to reality to be considered history, even if the fantastic is occasionally mixed-in.

Is the existence of narnia testable ?
Is the existence of god testable?

No, but what is testable has more right to be considered proven. Since you can prove it.

Is the existence of god testable?

No, but what is testable has more right to be considered proven. Since you can prove it.

Science never proves anything. It merely disproves.
Unless we talk about mathematics of course.

There are many different books in "the" Bible, of very differing qualities. The books of Kings are sober chronicles, derived from official records; the events described there have been confirmed by independent records from Assyria etc. or by archaeological discoveries time and time again, and there is no good reason to doubt the essential accuracy (up to occasional tall-tale-telling, as in the Elijah-Elisha narratives, or propagandistic spin here and there).
On the other hand, the books of Joshua and Daniel have been shown to completely incompatible with the actual record of the periods they pretend to describe: they are 100% propaganda, with practically no admixture of genuine information.

When someone claims that the bible is inerrant, point them to 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. Both of them describe a circular basin ten cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. That is not and never has been possible, as even at that time they knew pi was larger than 3 (to be precise, the babylonians put it at about 3.125 in ~1900 BC and the egyptians at about 3.16 in ~1800 BC).

bottom line: if you already think the Bible has value/worth, and is historically accurate to the degree anything that is thousands of years old can be determined "accurate," you will continue to believe so.

If you don't, you won't.

I believe that the Bible is accurate in its original languages. I also, however, understand that the Bible is NOT a "historical document" per se, inasmuch as it does not always give a linear, blow-by-blow description of events. The problem is many Christians insist that it does present a linear blow-by-blow timeline. And non-believers insist that it doesn't, even when there is evidence to the contrary.

The bible isn't meant to be understood on a purely and exclusively "intellectual" level anyway. Having the Holy Spirit help create understanding is essential in understanding it. Problem is, most Christians do NOT attempt to understand it - or defend it - via this method, and end up doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible says to do.

So, as a Christian, my recommendation is to ask them: Which is more important: to prove the Bible historically accurate, or morally accurate? Then, when they give you the blank stare, smile sweetly. If they tell you "morally accurate," then ask why they're arguing about it's historical relevance.

My example: tradition holds that Moses physically wrote the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible), yet in Exodus, this oddity occurs:

Exodus 2:18 "When the girls (one of whom Moses would marry) returned to Reuel their father...

Exodus 3:1 "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law...

(NIV translation, bold mine, parenthesis mine for clarification)

Wouldn't you think Moses would know who his own father-in-law is? Evidently, chapters 2 and 3 have different authors; obviously only one can be Moses. (Let's ignore the obvious Highlander quotes we could make for the sake of focus)

fyi: it was exceedingly common for people to have more than one name; also, to be called by the same name in different languages.

it's also very possible that "reuel" was a type of title, since it means "friend of God." Kind of like saying "my sons went to John's house," or saying, "my son's went to chess club president's house." One is a name, one is a title, but they mean the same person.

so i am curious about the various arguments both for and against a mostly literal interpretation of the bible, and the bible as a historical document.

The bible is a good primary source for various things. Its awful for others. Without knowing their specific arguements, I cant go any further into details. But to say that history has shown the Bible to be right or infailable is historical ignorance of the highest and most disturbing caliber.

Some major events (Such as the exodus) seems to have not had any real historical backing, maybe (The jury is still out).


I have to comment on this. The jury shouldnt still be out. It has no historical backing. It happened during the most well documented time of Egyptian history. The amount of primary sources we have from this time is almost as large as the primary sources from all other periods of Egyptian history combined.

If its never once mentioned by any primary source outside the OT, which was written in a different place hundreds of years later, it almost assuredly didnt happen.

I have to comment on this. The jury shouldnt still be out. It has no historical backing. It happened during the most well documented time of Egyptian history. The amount of primary sources we have from this time is almost as large as the primary sources from all other periods of Egyptian history combined.

If its never once mentioned by any primary source outside the OT, which was written in a different place hundreds of years later, it almost assuredly didnt happen.

Unless sit involved the hyksos then it is historically documented.
Too bad this would place events during the 2nd intermediary period leaving little documents. As the Egyptians destroyed or replaced records of these foreign rulers (don't want the people to think they good). Not enough evidence to say either way. of course this would make the story very different indeed.

The bible is a good primary source for various things. Its awful for others. Without knowing their specific arguements, I cant go any further into details. But to say that history has shown the Bible to be right or infailable is historical ignorance of the highest and most disturbing caliber.

that was my contention with people evangelicals. most of your primary sources are the letters toward the end of the new testament. Even then i think they are edited because the lack of discussion on mundane matters (letters were expensive you'd figure he would inquire about funding and the like.)

Unless sit involved the hyksos then it is historically documented.
Too bad this would place events during the 2nd intermediary period leaving little documents. As the Egyptians destroyed or replaced records of these foreign rulers (don't want the people to think they good). Not enough evidence to say either way. of course this would make the story very different indeed.

The Hyksos were there, and that is documented. But they were the ruling class the the Pharohs. Exodus never mentions the jews being Pharohs.

As I said. The story of Exodus has NO historical backing.

The Hyksos were there, and that is documented. But they were the ruling class the the Pharohs. Exodus never mentions the jews being Pharohs.

As I said. The story of Exodus has NO historical backing.

The latter part of Genesis does indicate, however, that the Jews got very favourable treatment from the Pharaohs and that Joseph was #2 in Egypt.

The latter part of Genesis does indicate, however, that the Jews got very favourable treatment from the Pharaohs and that Joseph was #2 in Egypt.

So there was a part of the bible that was accurate. No one is denying that.

Exodus still has no backing.

Im willing to be fair to the bible and say when it is a relevent primary source of the Christians here (as many are doing) are willing to admit when its either a poor source or flat out wrong.

The Hyksos were there, and that is documented. But they were the ruling class the the Pharohs. Exodus never mentions the jews being Pharohs.

As I said. The story of Exodus has NO historical backing.

depends on how willing you are to stretch exodus.
I always view it as the story they made up after getting chased away from their conquest in northern Egypt. but that's really historical either proof is too slim.

The latter part of Genesis does indicate, however, that the Jews got very favourable treatment from the Pharaohs and that Joseph was #2 in Egypt.

interestingly if the hyksos theory is true Joseph would have been nice to the pharaoh letting him just pay tribute rather then conquering him out right. also Joseph would have been Pharaoh in the north.