I have no problem with biblical claims that have been empircally verified by external evidence. The problem I have is the abuse of history and archaeology by people who don't know much about these disciplines in their attempts to turn the Bible into something that it isnt.
Sure, the world of fill of Ron Wyatt's, who make up "evidence" as they go along -- anything to corroborate the Bible. But that doesn't mean that abuse is to blame for all or most of it.
There's much of the Bible that is beyond the scope of verification. The private conversations between characters are never going to be verified, Jesus' chat with Pilate is a good example.
There is no verification for any private chat that Pilate had either. You have to go by what is known. The conversation that Pilate had with Jesus isn't only found in the gospels, as if they should fall under immediate suspicion. The extra-biblical account of Tacitus also recorded it.
What is known from history about the Bible is very little, certainly far outweighed by the evidence against the Bible. Again I'd mention the 'messianic prophecies' that were allegedly fulfilled by Jesus.
A ton of evidence was only begun to be known because of the Bible, which after careful reading, uncovered many things.
As wee know, outside of the Bible Jesus is invisible in history, so any evidence supporting His life and actions will be circular, which doesn't mean they never happened of course.
That's absolutely false. There are at least 4 separate sources of Jesus alone, let alone the corresponding figures and companions with him. If there was one source of Plato, would you be as incredulous, or does bias factor in?
What it does mean is that we have to investigate the plausbility of the claims made for Jesus and decide if they are plausible or not. I mentioned earlier the events surrounding Jesus' birth in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Micah 5:2. When we examine the internal and external evidence surrounding this story the only reasonable conclusion is that this didn't happen, the whole census idea is historically ridiculous, registering at the city of a distant ancestor is plain stupid. This doesn't stop people accepting everything about this story though, probably because they have already made up their mind that Jesus was the Messiah.
Are you referring to the Roman census? Why and how is that stupid, when Romans did take
censuses?
I acknowledge that it is very difficult for believers on Christ to study the Bible with any degree of objectivity, but to any reasonably objective researcher the majority of the Bible, the early books of the OT in particular, are indeed fables.
There are a lot of people who believe in the account because that's what was taught to them. And they will do no kind of investigating their whole lives. But there are a lot who did not grow up in a church. I grew up in a secular home. I grew up thinking that it was a collection of fables, and was rather dismissive. It was only through investigation that I saw the Bible as an important collection of books for many reasons -- its historical context, its spiritual and context, and its moral context. Does that mean that I wholeheartedly believe every thing in the Bible? No. Does it mean that I no longer have questions about internal or external difficulties? No. Does it mean that I toss it all to the wayside because I don't quite understand something? No. It's a journey. And its most valuable lessons are the ones placed side by side personal experience.
Can you really blame people for not taking much of the Bible seriously?
Of course not. I get it. You read about this guy who walked on water. Obviously no one has ever seen a human being walking on water because everyone knows that it defies the laws of physics that govern the planet. However, the point of the story is that it is special, and that Jesus is special. The only reason it was mentioned is that it is supposed to be recognized as a special event. The fact that it doesn't happen is the very reason why it made it in the gospel to begin with.
Did it actually happen? I don't know. Is that really what matters to me? No.
people living for nearly a thousand years, the Flood has been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Exodus and Conquest have similarly been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bible account of the Exodus isn't even being considered by scholars who are looking for the origins of Israel.
I don't think that it has been falsified at all. At most, the scope and magnitude are questionable. That doesn't mean none of it actually took place.
What we do have to do is to investigate each event on its own merits and then decide the historical plausibility of each individual claim.
Well, taking your flood example as a reference, based upon physical evidence and innumerable accounts, I have concluded that an enormous deluge did in fact occur. The scope, I think, was no where near the magnitude of what creationists assert. I do think, however, that an enormous flood was absolutely catastrophic to what is known as Mesopotamia. I don't believe that every human being, except 7 people, survived the flood. But I do believe most people in that region did die. The exact number, though, I wouldn't presume to know.
our parents, or siblings, eventually tell us that there is no Santa or tooth fairy, but some Christians don't take that extra honest step and tell their kids that most of the Bible is about as true as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
They obviously don't believe that it is as untrue as the tooth fairy. So it's ridiculous to compare the two.
What chance did the Hovind of Phelps children have of being encouraged to look at the Bible objectively? These kids have been psychologically abused by retarded parents, goodness knows what damage has been done. I'll never forget those poor tiny Phelps children at those funeral protests, or the 'child preachers' whose parents should be in jail.
Does this somehow indict the Bible or Jesus?
“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
™ Version 4.2
