Why do so many people question the historical validity of the bible when..?

Question

We have hundreds of stone tablet's such as "the epic of Gilgamesh" and egyptian tablets that confirm hundreds of stories in the bible. We have scientific explinations to how the plauges could have happened and moses could have turned the nile blood red. This does not mean God didn't do it but rather that he manipulated nature.
I personally think that they are in denial.
Thoughts?

Answer 1

God will use what God will use!
but the one I like is the hail that burned!

Answer 2

The epic of Gilgamesh predates the Jesus Christ parables, so this goes towards disproving the new testament, not validating it. The new testament was written at least 100 years after Christ didn't die. I don't know of any plausible scientific explanations of moses turning a stick into a snake, or of a man surviving inside a big fish. And the assumptions behind the "scientific" explanations for the plagues are closer to wishful thinking than scientific fact. Yet the verifiable facts, including absolutely no written account of the event by the most prolific writers in human history (the egyptians), or the silliness of an entire population wandering 40 years looking for the promised land that was a week's walk away (yet left no evidence of this trek), are conveniently ignored. The fact that biblical scholarship is racked with repeated political editing and exclusion of selected texts, incorrect translations, and clear conflicts makes the bible the most unreliable historical document in the history of man.

Answer 3

I think the Bible is valuable as a historical document in many areas. I think that rather than questioning the historical validity per se, that many question the "holiness" of the documents. They were written by men after all, and it takes faith to make that leap to believing they were "divinely guided" in their storytelling. You sort of hit upon the nugget itself in saying that we do have scientific explanations for some of the occurrences recorded in the Bible. The flood for example. It's been determined by scientists that there was a huge flood, in THAT area of the world. At that time there was no way for people to know that their geographical area was the only one flooded. It seemed to them as if it WERE the whole world and so the story grew to what we now read in the Bible.

It's hard to say someone is in denial because they do not accept the stories in the Bible as fact. Though from your viewpoint that may not be true. I certainly find people who believe in the Bible as undeniable historical fact as being in denial themselves. So I guess our views are entirely subjective due to what we believe about God and science.

Answer 4

The fact that hose Gilgamesh and Egyptian tablets pre-date the Bible, does not lend the Bible any "historical validity."

If you were to re-tell the story of Little Red Riding-hood, it would not mean that the original was a true story.

Answer 5

i do not look at the bible as literal history, it has some major flaws in it, for example: how do you fit 2 of every kind of animal into a hand built boat? you cant, the elephants alone would take up most of it. so with that said you can decipher some history out of it for some of it was based on unexplainable (at the time) circumstances. it is most easily done when comparing it to other biblical story's or epochs like for instance the epoch of Gilgamesh, or other religious bound texts.

Answer 6

somebody's going to apply "Flavius Josephus" because of the fact the "historian" who proves the bible real ... however the genuine tale approximately Josephus is ... he became a Jewish soldier scuffling with the Romans yet while he and his fellow infantrymen have been trapped by their enemies, Josephus confident all and sundry to kill one yet another somewhat than be captured. After the enterprise have been in general lifeless, Josephus, grew to become traitor and surrendered. Then, to kiss as much as his captors, he switched over and took a Roman call and started to jot down approximately Roman existence, in general because of the fact he became attempting to flatter extreme-score Romans. He in no way wrote approximately Christ because of the fact he became first and greater desirable, a Jew, and that they did no longer have faith Christ became their Messiah! The church violated his writings later, after his loss of existence,by including info approximately Christ, And asserting Jerusalem proves the Bible is traditionally precise is like asserting the secret novel "Angels and Demons" is an historic account merely because of the fact that's set in Rome, "and Rome rather exists!" (Jeez) So there is not any historic info by any ability. .

Answer 7

Well if they are stories from man where does inspiration come from. It is divine write that down don't forget it, go ahead and question it as you may find divine intervention yourself if you seek it. The bible is written by men close to god but is still translated as his word why because no man has ever created a world in six days now have they!

Answer 8

Stories created by man. We can argue if god is real or not but religion is clearly man made.

Consider how many religions there are. Then consider how many existed long before your bible was written. The odds of any one religion being correct are close to zero. Thus, most (if not all) believe in a lie.

Answer 9

I don't even know where to begin with this discussion and I am a Christian.

I have a suggestion, read "Misquoting Jesus." You will get a better appreciation of what the bible is and is not. You deeply need the bible to be literally true, it seems. I recommend it as it is a good read.

Answer 10

because the epic of gilgamesh was written in the second millenium thousands of years earlier than the supposedly valid bible which plagiarizes some of the sumerian religion such as the epic of gilgamesh

Answer 11

So how does the Epic of Gilgamesh validate the bible?

Please add links to support your "facts". Thank you.