Why is it so hard for you?

Question

So many claim on here that there is no proof that the bible is based on facts. They claim this because they say there is no tangible proof. (Really because they wern't there and because they haven't experienced anything similar).
Why is it that you doubt a book that was written 2000 years plus ago?
That's like saying that 2000 years from now, people will deny the dictionary and claim it as a piece of fiction because they wern't there when it was written.

If athiest's follow their logic.. why would they believe that George Washington, or Pharoh's of Egypt, or anyone else before they were born ever existed?

I know I know, your going to argue that there is tangible proof with the Pyramids, etc.. but there is proof with the bible too..

Arc of the covenant, the remains of the cross, the DNA, and human remains of a whole slew of people...


Rude answers need not bother..... you will be reported

Somehow I deleted part of that first section.. by "they" I mean Athiests

No Paul S.. I am asking why athiests try and debunk the bible based on it's age.

Armiki, thanks so much1 Your the best!

Southpaw.. your link.. what's your point? Someone asked about Unicorns and made rude comments... so that has what to do with my question?

Duruitti.. According to whom?

Icarus.. ok so you have to weigh the possibilities.. your basing that on someone that existed more recently then Jesus... thats all.. and making HUGE assumptions... What if your wrong?

But thanks for the reply..

So Samantha.. by your logic.. in 2000 years no one should believe any book that's written now... because of it's age and they wern't there to see it firsthand....

Wow...

Whatif
I agree with you 100%

Insincere....
Its not a problem... not everyone living at that time had heard of Jesus... and not all philosophers at that time wrote about Jesus.. and it actually makes sense that a philosopher WOULDN'T write about Jesus... Philosophers love to be right.. and don't want anyone to really think that their writings are wrong, or misguided... especially back then. If they printed all the happenings they may have seen that as a threat.

Thanks for your answer tho

Answer 1

Most of the people who say the bible is not based on facts have never really examined the claims of the bible.

Answer 2

Simply because the Bible is old does not make it true. Don't you realize how absurd such an argument is? By that standard, 2000 years from now the Harry Potter books will be true.

You mentioned the Pharohs. In fact, there are magical writings all over the pyramids regarding the Pharohs. They are even older than the Bible. Are they true too? How can you reject them?

If a modern writer writes about someone walking on water or rising from the dead, a few gullible people will buy it, but most will appropriately laugh it off. What reason is there for applying a different standard to ancient writings?

There is AN ark of the covenant in Ethiopia. Is it the real thing? Maybe, but who knows. So what if is? There might really have been such a box. The existence of an ancient holy box is an ordinary claim. There's no reason to reject it. But the claims that such a box was magical is not ordinary and is rightfully rejected.

We do not have remains of the cross. All we have are artifacts (mostly from the 14th century) that are CLAIMED to be remains of the cross. That's a big difference. Either you or I could hawk a chunk of wood on ebay claimed to be part of the cross. (it'd probably have to actually be old though to get away with the con).

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding DNA or human remains. I'm not aware of anyone claiming people didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Answer 3

There are quite a lot of other books just as old as the Bible (or even older) which seem to contradict what the Bible says. The Roman historian Tacitus for example wrote a history of the reign of Tiberius Caesar but never mentions any strange happenings in Palestine. Do you think people would not have noticed the Star of Bethlehem, the raising of Lazarus, the walking on the water, or the dead coming out of their tombs after the crucifixion? It certainly seems Tacitus never heard those stories.
Another historian - Josephus - wrote a book about events in Palestine right after the time of Jesus. Josephus makes no mention of Jesus, and in fact seems never to have heard of Nazareth. It seems pretty hard to believe that someone living in the Holy Land around the same time as Jesus would have just not noticed Him.
If you want to believe in the Bible because it is old, then you really need to believe Josephus as well (for the same reason). The Bible talks about this great Redeemer with a huge following who worked miracles throughout His life and then at his death astounded all around Him by rising again on the third day. Josephus seems never to have heard of any of this.
Does this give you any kind of a problem?

Answer 4

OK you seem to like the word logic as all Christians seem to do.
The thing is you don't know what it means.
Using logic why do you think they don't believe in the bible?
Could it be....because it WAS written 2000 years ago.
I mean come on why would you believe in anything written 2000 years ago by a bunch of people who didn't know anything about science the way we know today?
See that's ILLOGICAL.
And your comments about if we believe in G .Washington and Pharaohs is laughable, why? Because we can dig them up.
And no there isn't proof in the Bible.
Also there is no Arc of the covenant, and no remains of the cross.
Where did you get this info Steven Spielberg?
Tell him I need the Holy Grail.

Answer 5

"Why is it that you doubt a book that was written 2000 years plus ago?"

Because it was written 2000 years ago. Everyone alive at the time is dead. Cultures and countries have risen and fallen. The world has changed dramatically. We could write a book now and pass it down for 2000 years and with the right publicity get people to buy it in the future.

It is a book.
Written by man.
And we all know what Man is like.

Answer 6

Poor analogies will not advance your arguments.

Dictionaries are a record of the words people use and how they use them. Until a few years ago, the word "internet" was not listed in any dictionary; now it's in all of them. In another two thousand years, something like "frzgbt" may be a word, with who knows what meaning.

There are enough "remains of the true cross" scattered around the world that if you brought them all together, you'd have -- well, a pile of decaying wood, most of it much younger than two millennia.

Fables such as these don't require faith -- they require complete abandonment of reason. Some of us prefer to hold onto whatever brains we possess.

Answer 7

"I am asking why athiests try and debunk the bible based on it's age." I know of no atheists who are trying to debunk it based on age. Consider that evolution deals with fossils far older.

What atheists disgree with is the concept of God. Whether King David existed or not has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

There are documents older than the Bible that speak of Gods. There is evidence of the people who worshipped those Gods. The Greeks, the Norse, the Romans, are all well-established in history. Does that mean their Gods must be real?

The same applies to the claims of the Bible, according to atheists.

Answer 8

So you're saying that the Bible must be true because it's old?

Friendly suggestion: Next time you have an idea like this, run it past a few people before you say it in public like this. This is exactly the kind of argument that makes people think that Christians aren't very bright. I don't think that's the outcome you're shooting for.

Later: Your follow-up doesn't help any. Atheists don't doubt the Bible because of its age, we doubt it because there's no evidence for it. Again, you should have thought this through before posting it.

Answer 9

The history presented in the Bible is for the most part accurate, and it is indeed valuable as a book of historical events. There's not much "debunking" that can be done for most of it. The rest is either accepted on faith or not.

Answer 10

We have to weigh up the possibilities. Which is more likely, given the available evidence: That George Washington really existed, or that he did not? I would say it is far more likely, given the evidence, that he really did exist.

However, the Bible makes claims which, given the available evidence, are far more likely to be false than true. Hence it is irrational to believe them.

Answer 11

If you follow your logic, you would follow the words of Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.

It's all tall tales.

As for your proof of how accurate the bible is..
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq.B4prrpdVaoUpZMjrEL2Dsy6IX?qid=20060818080102AAMPl6z
Unicorns?

the unicorns represents how accurate the bible can really be. This girl took quotes from the bible about how unicorns were real, when unicorns have never ever existed.