Christians, since your bible is historically inaccurate, how can you call it the "truth"?

Question

After all every gospel, even the much venerated gospel of Mark, is riddled with geographic inaccuracies. Did'nt he know where he was?
You're "eyewitnness" accounts (you refer to people like Josephus (a pharisee) and Tacitus, (a Roman Pagan) were both born years after the supposed death of jesus!
Not much in the way of eyewitnesses huh? They'd be thrown out of any court with credentials like that.
In fact, the "divinity" of jesus is a forgery, a myth written by a man named Eusebius in 324CE. Nothing is written about the divinity of jesus before that date!
Wierd huh?
So please, if you must, continue to childishly cling to your mythology. But please, do NOT insult people or make yourselves out to be more stupid than you already are by claiming it is "historical in nature" because of course, it's not.
No acual accounts exist to support the existence of jesus except as a mythological fabrication.
(and if you can't find the question, find the ? up there a bit...)

christiangirl,
Um, no, sorry sweetheart it hasn't.
In fact, quite the opposite really. You haven't got a single clue about the history of your own mythology.
Read about the council of Nicea or the council of Trent first.
Even the books of Josephus (none of which survive) are rife with innacuracies. That's because they were forged while transcribing by monks. You add a line here, take out an embarrasing line there, and voila! You have a new deity that people will follow and MOST importantly, pay good money to be patted on the head by. See how that works? Good girl.

Brianna, exactly so.
Yet christians, when asked about the history of thier own mythology, will answer with lame retorts like "you weren't there dude!" um, neither were they. And in fact, neither were the people who claimed they were either.
Classic symptoms of dementia, say you were somewhere where you could never have been and say you saw something, you could never have seen.
Laughable.

Victorius,
LOL thanks for the laugh this morning!
There are MANY that claim that josephus was an eyewitness and quote him constantly. To discount those people's views is a typically christian thing to do. You take what you like and leave the rest. And if information changes, you change with it. Pathetic is what I call it. As for the flimsy claim that Mark was an eyewitness, why can't he get a simple geographic area right? Answer, because he wasn't there. Like all the other "apostles" he was made up in the 3-5th century.
Heck, you christians can't even agree what books should go into the "wholly babble" how many books in the king james version? Now how many in the Protestant version? How about the book of Mormon?
Hmmm?
Besides, John 5:31 says it all ""If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
That pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

pumpkinpie,
So, what you're saying is "stop thinking, turn off your brain and you'll be a happy christian" thanks but no thanks. If it means not thinking anymore (and let's face it, what else does the myth of the garden of eden and god telling adam and eve not to eat from the tree of KNOWLEDGE mean?) then I'd rather not bother. You can keep your bronze age mythology, I'll take reality and science. Deal?

J
You're right, applying logic to mythology is never a good idea. Logic ALWAYS wins out. It is the brainless, mono-maniacle sheep that I'm addressing here.
But yeah, when one is starting from a false paradigm (religion) reality quickly bites you in the ***.

Answer 1

the christian bible is more than just historically innacurate
It is also a bad book for morality. Noahs ark was a stolen story from the epic of gilgamesh and the rose from the dead stories are from the stories of the annunaki that lived here long before we did.

Born again christians are more annoying the second time around.

H. L. Mencken:

Puritanism(fundamentalism): the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

WHen peoples faiths are challenged they will go at any lengths to keep said faith because they think that challenging it makes it true. It does not make it true on the contrary. People question christianity on the basis of the atrocities it has committed and will commit again in the future if left to its own devices

Answer 2

Josephus (a pharisee) and Tacitus, (a Roman Pagan) were HISTORIANS. Not Eye witnesses and no Christian I know of ever said they were eye witnesses. Historians report history not myth unless they say its a report of a myth, and in no wise was Jesus reported as a suspected Myth.

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote these reports (Gospels) well within the lifetimes of all witnesses (30 to 40 years after Christ) - and copies were made after that on into 300 years and beyond.

However there are gnostic gospels (which MOST Christians do not accept) that were only written (not copies) around 400 years after Christ and could not have been considered reliable.

You make a good many charges but give no proof to back your claims. The New Testament Gospels ARE accurate - it is your reasoning that is flawed.

Answer 3

Obviously, you are trying to apply logic to belief. Let’s start with specifics.

God's existence or non-existence cannot (repeat not) be proved by observation (scientific method).

The Christian bible is for believers who believe that it is the word of God spoken by the prophets. It is not a conversion manual or a history book, it is a religious book. It talks about God's promises and how God fulfills them. Sadly, you have not studied enough to see that, nor do you have enough belief

Second, the gospels (an account of four witnesses) documents Jesus life. Josephus and Tacitus are not "eyewitnesses" but "historians.” They knew of the Christian movement (see Acts) and recorded it.

Third, there were three possibilities to the nature of Jesus: only man, God and man, and God. You will see that all three were debated (Gnostic writings) and the Christian church choose one. This was much earlier than Eusebius in 324 AD.

Fourth, the bible interprets itself. If there is a contradiction, the bible will sort it out. Just because you think you found contradictions, many biblical scholars (19th century) have work them out, and at this date, no new unexplained contradiction are outstanding. Remember the bible is an eastern book and it method of presentation is eastern, not subject to western criticism.

Now let's get to the real issue: you do not believe in the Christian message. Fine. Your unbelief is no excuse for your lack of scholarship. You can believe (yes believe) what you want, but remember it is a belief, not subject to scientific interpretation. The gospel of John addresses tells how Jesus talks about nonbelievers, just try doing a word study on belief/believe.

As the your inaccuracies, you fail to mention one. As for your legality, the history of Christians and government has been document as well. Belief is not a legal construct, and you should have know that.

My advice is to find some real biblical scholarship (say Harvard or Yale), visit their libraries, and do a little homework. The Christian bible is for believers who believe the word of God is the will of God. And your arguments (worthless in the area of belief) are extreme lacking in scholarship.

Forgive the shortness of this answer. To be honest, if you had a list, it would have been easier to reconcile your inaccuracies with the book that interprets itself. For example, compare the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke; count the number of generations and you will see you are one short. I can reconcile this, can you? Obviously not.

Answer 4

Oh so your saying john 5:31 is true? Then John 5:32 must be"There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.(G*d) Don't quote the Bible if you don't believe it,or atleast take it in context.

Reliability depends on the accuracy of a document. There are three tests for determining the accuracy of any document. They are:

1. The Bibliographical Test (the accuracy of the copies that are compared, although there is a time span between them and the originals).

2. The Internal Test of Reliability (the author verifies or disqualifies himself by known factual inaccuracies or contradictions).

3. The External Evidence Test of Reliability (the document is authentic in regard to historical and archeological evidence or other writings).

The Bible passes all three of these tests. Research into formerly unknown languages and excavations by noted archeologists have shown over and over that historical events recorded in the Bible really happened. Westerners exploring the Middle East for the past one hundred and fifty years and Israeli archeologists since the 1950s have proved the Bible is fact, not fiction. There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament's historical accounts, in spite of the great skepticism expressed toward the Bible by scholars of the "higher criticism" school (which began with German theologians in the 1700s).

For example, critics said no such place as Sela, the rock fortress (the capital of Seir, home of Esau and the Edomites),existed. From shortly after the time of Jesus until the early 1800s, no one except wandering Arab tribes knew where it was. Then Anglo-Swiss explorer Johann L. Burckhardt risked his very life by disguising himself as an Arab in 1812 and was taken into a hidden valley to a huge rock fortress with only one narrow way in or out. Once again, the Bible was shown to be more accurate than secular history. Today, we know this place as Petra.¹

Another example is the excavation of Shushan, which lies some 200 miles east of Babylon. It was the capital of ancient Elam (Susiana) and, later, the winter capital of the Persian kings. Sushan was the scene of many Biblical events in the time of Daniel, Nehemiah, and Queen Esther and King Ahasuerus. When archeologists uncovered the floor of the throne room, they found a pavement of red and blue and black and white marble, just as had been described in the book of Esther (Esther 1:6).²

The Bible is unique in that it has survived over the centuries with very little corruption to the text. Compared to other ancient manuscripts, the Bible is the most accurately preserved text in existence. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1948 has shown the world that, if all of the books of the Bible are as accurate as Isaiah--the scroll they have pieced together and dated to 100 B.C.--then there have been extremely few changes since at least a hundred years before Christ. What differences exist between modern versions and the ancient manuscript found in a cave above the Dead Sea are minor ones that make no difference to the text itself and have affected no Church doctrines.

Most disputes among church scholars and theologians involve the interpretation of the words in the Bible, not the words themselves. It makes sense that if the Bible is the very Word of God, it would be the most persecuted book in history. And indeed it has!

French philosopher, Voltaire, predicted in 1778 that within a hundred years, Christianity and the Bible would be swept away! In the days of the French Revolution, the 1790s, a comprehensive effort was made to burn all of the copies of the Bible in the country (the Roman Catholic Latin translation) and thousands of Bibles were burned. However, Voltaire died and is only a name in the history books. Today, more copies of the Bible exist today worldwide than ever before.

The Bible is unique, and it has been proven reliable. One thing that proves it is Holy Spirit-inspired is the fact that, in spite of the diverse human authors having lived across almost two millennia, the theme of the Bible is the same. Although the writing styles vary, the unity of all of the books of the Bible taken together are as if one person wrote them. And One Person did--the Holy Spirit.

Answer 5

Wow! You managed to rewrite Christianity in just one huge block of text! What's next? Buddhism? How about New Age religions? Those Wicca magicks must exist, right?

Is there proof that Caesar existed? Yes? Well, someone could have forged those documents. I mean, the people who wrote them were born years after Caesar. They must be liars!

So there was no Roman Empire. Hmmm...Alexander Macedon? He's a myth, a legend!

We should all worship someone closer to our time-line, like George Bush or Jacques Chirac. But who knows, maybe in a couple thousand years another guy will sprout up and claim they never existed!

Answer 6

I find it very interesting that you reference the courts in your question. Having just completed coursework in criminal justice, it seems pretty clear to me that our courts are less geared to finding "truth" than to manipulating it - and all sides are guilty of this! I won't argue the veracity of the Bible with you, because it is plenty clear that at this point you are not open to accepting the possibility that the Bible is true ... which makes an argument pointless. All I can say is that when you are willing to consider Christianity - as a whole - objectively, I believe you will find that the Bible is a good deal more accurate than all else that you have been accepting as "truth."

Answer 7

Yo m8, I agree wid u. Some, I repeat, SOME Christians hold a high opinion abt themselves. Prophet Muhammad's cartoons are freedom of speech and Da Vinci Code isnt? Maybe they need a dose of their own "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and other things. But on the whole, noin wrong wid them. Its just that some ppl misguide others. It exists everywer and we cant hold a community responsible on the whole. U seem to be extremely infuriated wid something or some1. Take a Chill pill and relax. Adios :)

Answer 8

Bobm709 is exactly right. I think that you got you're info from one book with a liberal bias, and, believing every word, came here to criticize us. The Bible is impecable, sir, and has been proven so, at least historically. To use a cliche', you don't have a leg to stand on.
Perhaps there is no evidence of anything, just because you say so. I believe every word you say, of course, and that book you read is surely more accurate than one of the most comprehensive history and religious books ever written. Of course.

Answer 9

I'm not a Christian but I do believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Also, for future reference, if you're attempting to "debunk" anything, especially God's Word, you'd better come correct with an entire arsenal called "references." (Which by the way, you have none. Absolutely none.) In other words, you need to validate what you claim, because right now my friend, you're spitin' in the wind and you know what they say about that.

Answer 10

Did you know that the Old Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes were actually true events of political unrest - but had they been spoken outside of the riddle and rhyme, the speaker would have been killed? This is generally accepted as fact and when read in that light gives new meaning to the various rhymes.

Did you know that fiction or not, people give more credence to Dan Brown's novel having actual basis of truth in covering up secrets; but in actuality is all fictional? When read in that light it becomes just another intriguing novel.

Have you read the Bible, cover to cover, to know that it doesn't need your stamp of approval, or a courts approval? That all it needs is to be read in Spirit and Truth and you will know in your heart and mind, if read in Spirit and Truth, if it is or isn't.

So, I do not feel I childishly cling to mythology; I do not feel I insult anyone of any amount of intellect when I choose to use its wisdoms; I do not feel it makes me look any more or less stupid than the next person; and if Cinderella can refer to herself as Cinderella and Jesus Christ refers to himself as The Truth, then I am quite comfortable calling him the The Truth as well.

Answer 11

Hmmmm...you did not provide one fact to back up your theory.

Would love to know what these "geographic inaccuracies" are. There have been so many archaeological finds due to the geographical instructions within the Bible.

The rest of your ranting is your own belief which is thoroughly discredited even with modern forensic archeology and history.