The Bible and history

by punkofnice 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  punkofnice

  There has been much said about why history proves the Bible to be correct.

  Personally, I feel that this is far from true.

  Just because an historic city or place is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible must therefore be true. I think this is an ontological argument if I recall.

  I look at it this way.

  Many fiction writers use places that exist and people that exist as the backdrop for their work of fiction.

  EG. Hitler existed. Winston Churchill existed. WW2 happened. All this is verifiable with evidence. However, Dr Who is fictional and he has met both (and a host of other historic personages), and was there in WW".....this does not mean that because these other things existed that Dr Who is a real person.....more's the pity!

  The bible where beautiful in parts and vile in others, is still a dangerous book to go waving around and using as authority.
• 

  steve2

  The Bible has authority the way a loaded gun has authority. As a loose collection of writings rounded up into a bigger book it's a good record of aspects of religious life in the millenia before Christ and few short years during and after Christ's brief life.
• 

  punkofnice

  Steve2 - This is a gun that has been weilded for far too long, along with the quran and other fundy trash.
• 

  Phizzy

  I thoroughly agree, I also approach the Bible with a deep sense of caution. Each writer has his own agenda, those who redacted it had theirs etc etc

  Also, what we have is a translation of copies of copies of copies, which contain many errors, hence the need for Textual Criticism.

  I think it is very unreliable as history, for the above reasons, to take at face value any of its claims is to be naive in the extreme.
• 

  punkofnice

  Phizzy - Agreed. The fundies and the devoted ignore or spin the failed prophecies.......

  eg. Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).

  Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

  ...and wasn't there one about the Nile drying up too?
• 

  Phizzy

  The splendid reign of Solomon, the extent of his father's "empire", the Exodus from egypt, the list goes on and on of doubtful history, and reliable prophecies are as rare as the proverbial Rocking Horse er...... droppings.
• 

  mP

  Most of the significant events that believers want to be true, have absolutely shown to be false and myth.

  Solomon may have existed, but he was not grand. There are no monuments or constructions that are impressive or match the scale of Egypt or other ancient great nations. The story of Noah has been shown to be a poor copy of much older text from Assyria.

  So the Bible gets a few places and names right thats true but it gets a lot wrong. It cant even name the Pharoah in the Moses story. Daniel also doesnt use the correct name of Nebuchadnezzar using the Greek and not the original form like Nehemiah. Im sure we can easily find many other mistakes.
• 

  mP

  Steve2

  The Bible has authority the way a loaded gun has authority. As a loose collection of writings rounded up into a bigger book it's a good record of aspects of religious life in the millenia before Christ and few short years during and after Christ's brief life.

  mP:

  Its amazing how all the religious aresholes love to document their atrocities. Even the Bible tells us that most jews didnt want to return from babylon when they were freed. Its not a wonder when you have a police state where every crime is death all thanks to jehovahs appointed autocrats.
• 

  transhuman68

  This is a problem for anyone brought up to believe the Bible has some value. Some of the places mentioned in the Bible existed; some of the people were real; and some of the events recorded actually happened- but which is which? There is no longer any way to be 100% sure. Added to that, as Jerusalem has attracted pilgrims for thousands of years, many historic sites have been 'found' i.e. the place where Abraham offered up Isaac, the cave where he buried his wife etc. which can't possibly be verified and only creates more unprovable folklore.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Dr Who is fictional and he has met both (and a host of other historic personages), and was there in WW".....this does not mean that because these other things existed that Dr Who is a real person.....more's the pity!

  It's Doctor, not Dr ;)

  /Nerd over and out, sir.