If the Bible is so primitive, why can't Historians come up with their own Bible?

[Valjean]

The closest Philosopher who attempted to write a Bible is Nietzsche with his Thus Spake Zarathustra. Good luck living by it.

But since the Bible was written hundreds of thousands of years ago, no one ancient or modern has ever been able to duplicate the interaction of History, Art, Literature, Religion and Spirituality like the Bible. Well, we can be honest and look to Herodotus The Histories or Maybe Thucydides the Pelopenesian War, but really having read them in college neither gets close. Nietzche was the closest in his cynical way.

So, why can't Atheists, Scientists and Historians write a History Book like the Bible? You may write, "because the Bible is untrue," well wouldn't it make sense, if that is your argument, to turn recorded events into teachable moments? There is nothing a Historian ever written that is as universal and insightful as the Bible.

So, discuss. Atheists, where are your great minds that they cannot achieve such a simple goal? (sarcasm and irony noted)

As Sojourner pointed out, The Bible is an anthology of many types of ancient literature, by many different; generally unknown, people, covering many different subjects in many different styles. It would be quite a feat for a single individual or organization to write such a varied, confusing, ambiguous, self-contradictory work.

That said, there have been many recent philosophical works calling themselves 'Bibles'; many books on ethics, ethnography, history, poetry, &c.

Show not tell, cite them. The Bible is by far the number 1 selling book. I don't see people put their hand over Nietzsche, Herodotus, Thucydides, being sworn in to high offices. Nor do I see any other book put in so many Hotel rooms and Hospitals. If that book existed it would have resonated by now. It hasn't.

What does the ubiquity of the Bible in Western culture have to do with anything? It's numbers and historical usage don't confer any moral or historical authority.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Umm exsqueeze me,.....

You're exsqueezed.
Love it!
(Grief, I haven't heard that in years! Lol. I just had to respond!!)

 

[Justme1981]

As Sojourner pointed out, The Bible is an anthology of many types of ancient literature, by many different; generally unknown, people, covering many different subjects in many different styles. It would be quite a feat for a single individual or organization to write such a varied, confusing, ambiguous, self-contradictory work.

That said, there have been many recent philosophical works calling themselves 'Bibles'; many books on ethics, ethnography, history, poetry, &c.
What does the ubiquity of the Bible in Western culture have to do with anything? It's numbers and historical usage don't confer any moral or historical authority.

Have you read the Bible or is this the stock internet answer? I've read the Bible several times, I see a clear linear narrative. From a fallen people being brought to do God without the best guidance, leading to people who are in the presence of God and take advantage of him, leading to their renunciation of God in favor of mortal Kings, leading to years of wars, chaos only to be redeemed by a series of Prophets who come in and talk of a Messiah, the Son of God, leading to Jesus Christ and his ministry.

It's all there. Read a book first hand; don't read about a book. This applies to any book not just the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Well, good point. But scientists, atheists, Historians have a history of books since the Bible they could piece together like an anthology that could show some truth like the Bible.

You may say the Bible is just a collection of books, but there is a linear story going on. After the Torah, follow Joshua, which leads to Judges, which lead to Samuel...etc...sure at some points the order breaks but there is a linear narrative being told. If you want me to explain it just ask.

No. It’s contrived/forced. The order of OT books is different in the Jewish tradition. And Mark is older than Matthew, and Thessalonians is older than any of the gospels.

I’ve studied the Bible in graduate school, and as part of my job. I don’t need to have it explained to me.

 

[sojourner]

Why does the Bible resonate and still resonate? You give the stock answer, you call it a myth I call it the truth. I call your histories Myth.

One of my NT profs said, “The Bible hadn’t endured because it is true; it has endured because it supports multiple interpretations.”

“Myth” is a literary device that uses storytelling, metaphor and sometimes hyperbole to speak truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The closest Philosopher who attempted to write a Bible is Nietzsche with his Thus Spake Zarathustra. Good luck living by it.

But since the Bible was written hundreds of thousands of years ago, no one ancient or modern has ever been able to duplicate the interaction of History, Art, Literature, Religion and Spirituality like the Bible. Well, we can be honest and look to Herodotus The Histories or Maybe Thucydides the Pelopenesian War, but really having read them in college neither gets close. Nietzche was the closest in his cynical way.

So, why can't Atheists, Scientists and Historians write a History Book like the Bible? You may write, "because the Bible is untrue," well wouldn't it make sense, if that is your argument, to turn recorded events into teachable moments? There is nothing a Historian ever written that is as universal and insightful as the Bible.

So, discuss. Atheists, where are your great minds that they cannot achieve such a simple goal? (sarcasm and irony noted)

Wow, you're smart. You lost me about the third paragraph. Does anyone out there have cliffs notes for this?

 

[Milton Platt]

But are they as insightful? Why does the Bible resonate and still resonate? You give the stock answer, you call it a myth I call it the truth. I call your histories Myth. Why? What record is it to substantiate? You mine as well get into Ancient Aliens if you want to get into Archaeology. Essentially they can't figure anything out because the assumption is always primitiveness. Well, if those ancient men were so primitive why is no one like them now? I mean who are our Leibnitz's and Ezekiels?

I didn't tell any stories...I only pointed out that that there are actually many history books (thousands) available if you look. You asked where they were, I told you. Those were written after research and can be independently verified.
The supernatural claims in the Bible cannot be independently verified.
Just because the stories collected in the Bible name some historical places does not make the rest of the book accurate and true.The Harry Potter novels mention real places...are they true or fiction?

Archaeology is based on examining historical sites and studying ancient records and piecing together the history of a specific place or society. If the
Bible had anywhere the level of actual evidence for it's claims of the supernatural, it would be interesting indeed. Alas, that is not the case.

I can't find them anywhere myself. One day you will understand just because you came later in history doesn't mean you are automatically better than people before why you. Like Newton said, "If I have seen so far it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Well, where are our Giants? Is Elon Musk it? How about Jeff Bezos? I see nothing that makes your or most people as great as Socrates.

Greatness is somewhat objective. I don't even understand what you are meaning here.

 

[sojourner]

I doubt the Bible's hundreds of thousands of years old. I'm thinking more like 2000 years at best.

The Bible didn’t appear in its final form until about 450 CE. The oldest OT texts were written ca. mid-600s BCE.

 

[Justme1981]

No. It’s contrived/forced. The order of OT books is different in the Jewish tradition. And Mark is older than Matthew, and Thessalonians is older than any of the gospels.

I’ve studied the Bible in graduate school, and as part of my job. I don’t need to have it explained to me.

I've also studied the Bible and maybe you studied the Positivist Interpretation of the Bible but how do you know that is not myth meant to demean the Bible. So, yes, you can try to pull rank but we are all equals online. I for one went Columbia University and the London School of Economics; we do read parts of the Bible at Columbia. So, nya, nya, nya I pulled rank as well.

Now, I must go drink for I am retired and it is going to be 6pm pst where everyday I go grab some nice Dionysian brew with the Angel numbers for only those with Reserve of Steel can drink it (aka Steel Reserve) at the local 7-11.

As the great Bob Marley said, "Let's get together and be all Right."

 

[sojourner]

But are they as insightful? Why does the Bible resonate and still resonate? You give the stock answer, you call it a myth I call it the truth. I call your histories Myth. Why? What record is it to substantiate? You mine as well get into Ancient Aliens if you want to get into Archaeology. Essentially they can't figure anything out because the assumption is always primitiveness. Well, if those ancient men were so primitive why is no one like them now? I mean who are our Leibnitz's and Ezekiels?

I can't find them anywhere myself. One day you will understand just because you came later in history doesn't mean you are automatically better than people before why you. Like Newton said, "If I have seen so far it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Well, where are our Giants? Is Elon Musk it? How about Jeff Bezos? I see nothing that makes your or most people as great as Socrates.

Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Dietterich Bonhoeffer, Winston Churchill, the Dalai Lama, etc. ...

 

[sojourner]

how do you know that is not myth meant to demean the Bible

Because it’s peer reviewed scholarship that relies on evidence and criticism that seeks to understand the Bible.

I’m not pulling rank; I’m merely demonstrating that I don’t need to have it explained to me.

Cheers!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The Bible is by far the number 1 selling book.

Absolutely false. Unless by "sell" you include "printed to be propaganda, by government, religious and other theological institutions".

Or even more disingenuous, "the #1 printed book" (which is also false).

Using whatever criteria you want? Your claim is false. Modern best sellers-- books that actually sell for money, to be read by actual people, have long since out-sold the bible. The Harry Potter series, for example, surpassed it long ago-- if you go by selling for money.

If you go by printed? The weekly Wal-Mart advertisement, that comes in newspapers and the mail, has out-printed the bible by a very long shot, and quite some time ago.

How about read? Nope. Any number of other examples of literature are out-read-- typically by people who actually want to read it. (instead of having it forced upon them, required reading, by brainwashing institutions, such as the Catholic Church.... )

"By far the number 1 selling"? Not even close...... most bibles were "sold" to be given away, to languish unread in a cuppard, or dusty on a nightstand, or in hotel/motel rooms, or the absolute worst of all? Given to starving indigent peoples instead of actual food.

Sold? Not even close.

 

[Justme1981]

Because it’s peer reviewed scholarship that relies on evidence and criticism that seeks to understand the Bible.

I’m not pulling rank; I’m merely demonstrating that I don’t need to have it explained to me.

Cheers!

How are the reviewers chosen? Who chooses the Peers? Doesn't seem to work out well for a jury where there is great effort in reviewing people. Who is this elite group of people who by some authority get to decide what is rightt or wrong. Sound like a scam to me. Have you met these people? Do they have wives and families and do they live normal lives? Or do they all have long beards and long hair? Or do they all wear glasses and are socially awkward? Sounds like a low standard to be a peer reviewer.

Cheers!

 

[Justme1981]

Greatness is somewhat objective. I don't even understand what you are meaning here.

You write Red I write Blue. So, what?

 

[Justme1981]

Absolutely false. Unless by "sell" you include "printed to be propaganda, by government, religious and other theological institutions".

Or even more disingenuous, "the #1 printed book" (which is also false).

Using whatever criteria you want? Your claim is false. Modern best sellers-- books that actually sell for money, to be read by actual people, have long since out-sold the bible. The Harry Potter series, for example, surpassed it long ago-- if you go by selling for money.

If you go by printed? The weekly Wal-Mart advertisement, that comes in newspapers and the mail, has out-printed the bible by a very long shot, and quite some time ago.

How about read? Nope. Any number of other examples of literature are out-read-- typically by people who actually want to read it. (instead of having it forced upon them, required reading, by brainwashing institutions, such as the Catholic Church.... )

"By far the number 1 selling"? Not even close...... most bibles were "sold" to be given away, to languish unread in a cuppard, or dusty on a nightstand, or in hotel/motel rooms, or the absolute worst of all? Given to starving indigent peoples instead of actual food.

Sold? Not even close.

This is cognitive dissonance. Look at the reaction. He'll be fine as well. It's not the end of the world or mean anything if someone reacts to cognitive dissonance. So, never use it as a reason to try to shut down discussion.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The Bible didn’t appear in its final form until about 450 CE. The oldest OT texts were written ca. mid-600s BCE.

Thank you! I've been saying this for years, ever since I read about it, during a couple of extended, year-long bible studies.

 

[Milton Platt]

You write Red I write Blue. So, what?

Don't understand the quote system....was trying to make it easy for you to pick out my comments.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is cognitive dissonance. Look at the reaction. He'll be fine as well. It's not the end of the world or mean anything if someone reacts to cognitive dissonance. So, never use it as a reason to try to shut down discussion.

Thanks for the patronizing tone. You posted a flat lie-- and I called you on your flat lie-- and you turn all patronizing.

Ain't that a peach?

You MIGHT have, instead, attempted to show you did NOT lie, by posting a link or other nonsense --but you know you did, so.... you attack the messenger instead.

Logical Fallacy, by the way.

And your bible is still not the "#1 best seller", not by a long shot.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

. So, never use it as a reason to try to shut down discussion.

Loving your use of the third person, in a personal attack on me.

Shut down the discussion? No-- I'm pointing out that you lied. It's a common lie, so often repeated that some poor folk who don't bother to check, actually believe it.

Likely due to confirmation bias.

 

[Valjean]

Have you read the Bible or is this the stock internet answer? I've read the Bible several times, I see a clear linear narrative. From a fallen people being brought to do God without the best guidance, leading to people who are in the presence of God and take advantage of him, leading to their renunciation of God in favor of mortal Kings, leading to years of wars, chaos only to be redeemed by a series of Prophets who come in and talk of a Messiah, the Son of God, leading to Jesus Christ and his ministry.

It's all there. Read a book first hand; don't read about a book. This applies to any book not just the Bible.

What part of my post do you disagree with?