Is this analogy a good means to validate the accuracy of the Bible as compared to other religious texts?

Question

"There is more documentary evidence for the accuracy of scripture than any other book of antiquity. It's not even close. It's like Michael Jordan playing Michael Myers in a game of 21."

And no, I didn't come up with it, so don't criticize me.

I'm not the one making the claim. someone else did.

As for the analogy, I guess the author was saying that a game of 21 between Michael Jordan and Michael Myers would not even be close, as in Jordan would blow him away (how this would happen, who knows - real person vs. fictional character, star athlete vs. murderous psychopath, etc. etc.)

So I think the author is saying that the accuracy of other texts as they have been passed on through time - their state today as compared to their original state - is not even close. The Bible, as it exists today, in every translation, is accurate (again, not me saying this, but the author).

Answer 1

It's a bad analogy because it is based on a false statement. There is not "more documentary evidence for the accuracy of scripture" than any other ancient book.

When a person says this, they're actually trying to say: "the bible has hardly changed since it was written", not "the bible is historically accurate". Whether or not a book has changed since it was written is entirely irrelevent to it's accuracy as a text - after all, if you write a lie(not to say that the bible is; this is an example), is it any less of a lie 500 years later ?

Moreover, THAT isn't true either. The reality is quite the opposite - the bible has changed substantially since it was written. That's what evidence shows, should you research the matter historically.

Fact of the matter is, the bible may or may not be true in anything it says. Many people believe it's true, many don't. But there's one thing that's for certain: much like the belief in god, you cannot actually validate a belief in the bible. There's simply no evidence to support it, and a substantial amount of evidence to make one very skeptical of it, should you choose to take the bible literally.

It's like any other belief, really. It's a matter of faith. Struggling to proove it through evidence misses the point of the exercise.

Answer 2

Maybe, but the Bible is one of the most recent religions to come into the world, so the texts from other religions may have been lost or hidden. Also, there is probably as much documentary evidence in question of the Bible authenticity. And who is it that is validating the Bible? Christians?

Answer 3

I don't get the analogy, but you're right in saying the Bible has more documented evidence for accuracy than any other document of antiquity. In all fields, science, history, archeology, the Bible has never been proven wrong.

Answer 4

Namaste


We see only what we want to see. If we hope for evidence of scriptural truth we will find it everywhere we look.

If we don't believe its there we would not notice it if we tripped over it.

Each of us projects our own reality and then imagines that we are seeing it all around us.

If you think we live in a scary world you will see reasons to be afraid all around us.

If I expect to see a loving world the proof of this will be everywhere I look.

Yet, It’s the same world.

One of us is living a delusion.

I’d rather have mine than yours.

Love and blessings.

You really need to see why no one can send you emails.
All I get is a box that says your email address can not be verifyed.

Answer 5

Oh good Lord no. Your analogy should be ... well, analogous. Think of a generally held opinion that has a great deal of evidence on one side and almost none on the other.

Answer 6

Is there any more to that? It doesn't appear to make sense. What's not even close? I'm not getting the segue.

Answer 7

Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.