What is so good about the 'Good Book'?

This is a serious question, what is it that is so good about the Bible?Can it really be described as the 'Good Book' or should it be referred to as something else?One thing that makes me doubt the 'Goodness' of the Bible is the use made of passages in the Bible (e.g. Joshua and Judges)to justify a 'Holy' or 'Just War.'For example, ALL interpretations of a military conquest of Canaan by Joshua have been proven false, yet the conquest narratives have been used to justify all sorts of Christian atrocities, such as the Crusades. The suffering caused thoughout the centuries, all based on events that simply didnt happen, is incalculable.How can the Bible retain its title of the Good Book when it has been responsible for some of the severest examples of man's inhumanity to man?So what is it that makes the Bible 'Good' ?------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
what history was recorded 10 000 years ago..

​

---

The cave paintings at Vallon-Pont-d'Arc are about 31 000 years old, they record an event whereby men/women took the time to paint a series of pictures on the walls of a cave.Whether the events in the pictures actually happened or not, doesnt change the historical event of the men/women painting the pictures and it also records as history that mankind had learned to use materials for drawing earlier than we had thought.You need to stop selectively reading, you clearly suspend your ability to think rationally when reading the Bible and it appears that this has spilled over into your everyday lifeTry being a bit more understanding, put your points calmly and think about what you are actually sayig before you post it.The Bible is an unparalled collection of literature from ancient times, but it is only that, literature. You might be able to talk a good game in silly chat rooms but I think you will find things beyond you at this site.Best wishes.
Bria------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing![This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 11-09-2002]

Bria, much evidence suggests that the ancient Hebrews and the authors of the NT considered Bibilical texts to be historical record. The OT/NT in fact have quite an excellent track record in archeological circles. That is one reason why many non-christians have such difficulty with the Bible. On the one hand, it is a reliable historical record, and on the other it makes claims that may seem preposterous. What is actually the case is that the preposterous claims were actually taken as seriously by the original authors as was the interspersed historical record. This particular regard given the Bible is the basis of Christianity, Judaism, and in many important ways, Islam. The idea of the Bible solely as literature is actually a very recent concept and has no basis in the historical origin of the book itself.For this reason alone, I encourage you to take the Bible as seriously as its authors did. This is really the only way to understand its literary merit.I do take it seriously, as literature. The only people that take apparent preposterous claims seriously are Bible believers.I think you overestimate the track record of the Bible in archaeological circles. Very little that is written in the Hebrew Bible can be verified from external sources.The appeals to the supernatural, the complete absence of evidence for the majority of bible claims, and the masses of contradictions make the Bible unreliable as a historical source.The last 20 years have seen a rapid decline in the use of the Bible in archaeological circles, even the most fervent Bible supporters, WIlliam Dever for example, agree that the Bible is mainly myth and propaganda.The only reason that the Bible is used by any 'archaeologist' is to try and make any archaeological data fit the Bible account, the contortions that these people perform are ridiculous. The King David of the Tel Dan inscription is a good example of so-called archaeologists prematurely claiming that the Bible is correct 'again'.I dont have a problem with the Bible. I do have a problem with people who havent studied the Bible and/or archaeology and claim that the Bible is an accurate record of anything. I am not saying that this applies to you, but it applies to people who post inane articles on their websites claiming things like Pilate was thought of as fictional before the 1961 inscription find at Caesarea, and ludicrous claims that archaeology has never disproved anything in the Bible.Best wishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!