About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible canon

[Bango Skank]

I wonder what is the reason that when debating with a christian/creationist, it's always about evolution vs creationism, cosmology, or some philosophical arguments. I have seen historical arguments and argument for forgeries used very little in debates (for example in debate.org or youtube debates). At least in my perspective, for a lay person historical arguments are easier to understand than evolution and philosophy.

I have never been a follower of religion, in preteen i secretly believed in multiple gods, but it was just a belief not knowledge. Anyway, when i started to have some interest in christianity, i started to look it's formation history and the Bible. It didn't take me too long to see that it was clearly a man made religion.

I once made a poll in some forum where i asked exchristians if study of Bible's historical claims had any impact for leaving the religion. Not a single case came, it was for other reasons (science and stuff).

So, i'm just curious why these type of arguments seems to be the least used. Any thoughts on this?

 

[WarK]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

Maybe it's because Christians don't know the bible?

Churches recognised that science and evolution in particular are a nail to religions' coffin so they attack science and gullible sheep follow.

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

Churches recognised that science and evolution in particular are a nail to religions' coffin so they attack science and gullible sheep follow.

I dunno. With science there is always a wiggle room, you can claim any vague passage to support some scientific view or use the metaphorical claim. I don't see how you can do it with history, for example the Bible's claim of world wide census (Even if local, still many problems.).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I can only speak for myself, but I argue against creationists (and other reality deniers) because they bring it up. I do not seek out those arguments, they come to me. The two most common arguments theists use are arguing for a god or arguing against evolution.

However, there are people that argue the historical inaccuracies found in the bible. You should look up books/articles/videos from Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, and Robert Price. All four of them have great arguments against the historicity of the bible.

 

[Collecemall]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I have a fairly large collection of ebooks by the authors hwin mentioned if anyone wants them send me a pm and I'll send them to you. Ehrman's Forged is a good one to read on the subject. It really is interesting to find out how much of the Bible is written by someone other than who it is claimed to be authored by. So many of the characters are acknowledged by mainstream scholars as being fictive that it baffles me how they can manage to square their beliefs with reality.

 

[tuxbox]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

It didn't take me too long to see that it was clearly a man made religion.

All religion is man made...

I once made a poll in some forum where i asked exchristians if study of Bible's historical claims had any impact for leaving the religion. Not a single case came, it was for other reasons (science and stuff).

So, i'm just curious why these type of arguments seems to be the least used. Any thoughts on this?

Because there is very little evidence to indicate that the characters in the Bible are fictitious. Most claims that the historicity of some of the event in the Bible are fictitious, with the exception of the magical stories, are speculations. Richard Carrier's case for the historicity of Christ was not convincing and I am sure the others who argue that Jesus was not a real historical figure are also speculating as well. I need more evidence to change my position on this matter.

That being said, I agree with Hackenslash.

In short, who the fuck cares? The wholly babble is bollocks. What more needs to be said?

 

[WarK]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

Churches recognised that science and evolution in particular are a nail to religions' coffin so they attack science and gullible sheep follow.

I dunno. With science there is always a wiggle room, you can claim any vague passage to support some scientific view or use the metaphorical claim. I don't see how you can do it with history, for example the Bible's claim of world wide census (Even if local, still many problems.).

I can only speculate why Christians and others see science as the main danger to their beliefs.

Our modern world is built on science. They can see it and actually touch it. It's a part of reality that can be directly experienced and it's in contradiction with their fable.

I don't think comparing the Bible to history has the same tangible experience. You have to have knowledge about history and how actual historians extract facts from historical sources. And a lot of the time it can be nuanced. I think.

With science you just open your eyes and it's there! And it bluntly refutes first passages from the Bible and it doesn't leave room for reconciliation (doesn't mean that some believers can't live with a dissonance )

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

However, there are people that argue the historical inaccuracies found in the bible. You should look up books/articles/videos from Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, and Robert Price. All four of them have great arguments against the historicity of the bible.

I own multiple of Ehrman's books. I haven't researched much of mythicism side (as far as i know they seem to focus mainly on did Jesus exist), but at least some of their arguments sounds as stupid as creationists (D. M. Murdock).

I just wish there would be more of this among the laypersons. Youtube user TaylorX04 is a good example, i would like to see more of that with others. Sadly, often it just goes on about did Jesus exist or not if historical inaccuracies are talked about.

I have a fairly large collection of ebooks by the authors hwin mentioned if anyone wants them send me a pm and I'll send them to you. Ehrman's Forged is a good one to read on the subject. It really is interesting to find out how much of the Bible is written by someone other than who it is claimed to be authored by. So many of the characters are acknowledged by mainstream scholars as being fictive that it baffles me how they can manage to square their beliefs with reality.

Yeah i have read the Forged. I also own his more expanded work on this subject, "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" (it's a gold mine!). I'm currently reading his new book, How Jesus became God.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

Price and Carrier are the only two that are mythicists that I listed. Avalos said he is agnostic on the topic and the only reason Carrier did anything about mythicisim is because that is what the people who funded him wanted. If it were not for the interest in the Jesus mythicist idea, Carrier would have never researched it.

Avalos has done one of the best take downs of Genesis I have ever read (part 1 and part 2), and he only uses history and linguistics. The reason Avalos is my favorite is because he can actually read the Latin and Hebrew (and if I am not mistaken Greek) that the original Torah/bible was written in.

I just wish there would be more of this among the laypersons. Youtube user TaylorX04 is a good example, i would like to see more of that with others. Sadly, often it just goes on about did Jesus exist or not if historical inaccuracies are talked about.

I also enjoy TaylorX04's videos. If you like him you might also enjoy The Bible Skeptic. Thus far, The Bible Skeptic has covered a lot of historical inaccuracy and not once talked about Jesus mythicisim.

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I also enjoy TaylorX04's videos. If you like him you might also enjoy The Bible Skeptic. Thus far, The Bible Skeptic has covered a lot of historical inaccuracy and not once talked about Jesus mythicisim.

Thanks for the info, i just watched some of The Bible Skeptic's videos. Good stuff. I'll check that Avalos later.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I recently picked up a copy of Forged. Hope it's interesting

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I recently picked up a copy of Forged. Hope it's interesting

When you have readed it, maybe you could come back and tell what you think of it.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I recently picked up a copy of Forged. Hope it's interesting

When you have readed it, maybe you could come back and tell what you think of it.

*read

But yeah, I will. As a theist who never saw conflict between religion and science it'll be nice to look at the historical arguments.

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

But yeah, I will. As a theist who never saw conflict between religion and science it'll be nice to look at the historical arguments.

Have you had a change to read it yet?

 

[Laurens]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I think one of the issues is that many theists just as readily dismiss the contemporary historical criticism of religion as they do the science.

To state that the Jewish patriarchs probably didn't exist and that the exodus and wandering in the desert etc never happened are really good well founded arguments. However they are usually dealt with either by dismissal of the evidence or to claim it doesn't matter because Jesus is still real.

I agree with you that historical arguments against religion are the best because they have the most solid evidence. We can prove certain texts were added to and changed over time etc. We can prove that there were radically different Christian beliefs in the early history of the religion. Sadly it doesn't seem to make much difference to the theist.


Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

Greetings,

It's similar to the fact that most Muslims believe that there's only one interpretation of the Qur'an, whereas Islamic scholars hold the view that there are many interpretations.

Attempting to point this out to ordinary Muslims is rather difficult - unless you're an Islamic scholar ...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I wonder what is the reason that when debating with a christian/creationist, it's always about evolution vs creationism, cosmology, or some philosophical arguments. I have seen historical arguments and argument for forgeries used very little in debates (for example in debate.org or youtube debates). At least in my perspective, for a lay person historical arguments are easier to understand than evolution and philosophy.

So, i'm just curious why these type of arguments seems to be the least used. Any thoughts on this?

Your historical arguments add up to nothing but conjecture.

 

[Bango Skank]

Re: About historical inaccuracies & forgeries inside Bible c

I wonder what is the reason that when debating with a christian/creationist, it's always about evolution vs creationism, cosmology, or some philosophical arguments. I have seen historical arguments and argument for forgeries used very little in debates (for example in debate.org or youtube debates). At least in my perspective, for a lay person historical arguments are easier to understand than evolution and philosophy.

So, i'm just curious why these type of arguments seems to be the least used. Any thoughts on this?

Your historical arguments add up to nothing but conjecture.

This idiotic statement proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Go troll somewhere else, adults are talking here.