Is the Bible Just a Myth?

[Kenny]

When we start finding proof of Jewish slavery in Egypt, I'll start listening.

LOL... Archaeology is a little slow in making, isn't it? After all, artifacts 4,000 years old can't be found at your local Dollar store. On top of that, you then have to wade through those who don't want it to be true.

I remember when they said for decades that King David NEVER existed until...

but if you are interested in Exodus:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324/

 

[Kenny]

No it isn't all myth, and determining what is myth etc is a personal thing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm convinced that many things actually can't, be myth, logically, because of timeline and geographical issues, so forth.

IMV, yes. There are so many names, places, events that continually are proved to be true that I have come to the place to believe that the rest must be valid also. Its like a 5,000 piece puzzle where we have found 1,000 interlocking pieces and then turning around and saying..."there isn't any puzzle"

 

[Kenny]

There are a lot of stories in the Bible, analogies, and facts just as any other spiritual book. Likewise, there are archaeological facts to back up most religious books. The Bible isn't unique. The Bible is "a traditional story (stories), especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or event."

That's the definition of a myth. Unless there is another context you're referring to, myths are not always false, they are just stories that often involve supernatural events that cannot be proven in and of themselves. People discard them but myths are not bad in and of themselves.

Yes... there are different definitions of myths.

Most people view myths as:

1. any invented story, idea, or concept:
His account of the event is pure myth.
2. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
3. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

And thus relegate the historicity of the Tanakh as just made up stories with no historical value.

But you are right that one definition is a story that often involve supernatural events that cannot be proven in and of themselves.

 

[Kenny]

I have not personally observed the utterances of these alleged prophecies or their fulfillments for myself. However, even if these alleged prophecies did come to pass, it still does not prove that the biblical "god" is the Creator of the Universe.

But it does lend to that a supernatural event has just happened and should, at the least, be put on the radar as a possibility.

If I somehow managed to communicate with ants, and tell them that in 20 generations a colony will be destroyed with a flood, and then when 20 ant generations have passed, I come back and throw a bucket of water on their anthill, does that make me the Everlasting Almighty Creator?

Well... there is a slight problem with this analogy... you haven't learned how to communicate with ants. There is a big difference between "IF" and "CAN".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm. I learned something new. Going by your OP and your post, I'd say

1. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

Invented stories aren't bad. Many people made up stories or created stories, I guess better way of saying it to explain events in nature and purpose of society. It doesn't mean the meaning behind the story is false, it just means the story-the people, the place, etc-are created for a purpose.

The Biblical account of the Garden of Eden isn't proven. I think they found the Garden somewhere in Africa; but, that is our attempt to connect the supernatural with a physical place and story. Many religions do it all the time. A specific place, sacred object, etc has specific spiritual significance, relates to the event account in the Bible, and automatically it's true.

It doesn't work that way.

Who can prove that the god "hovered over the sky and create the land and waters." We know they exist. Believers feel that if someone exist it must have a creator. That's the thought connection between believers and that's fine. However, many stories account for this connection and they are myths many are not facts.

That doesn't discount that the stories aren't valuable. There are many accounts for the creation of the earth. The Bible isn't unique in that regards either. If anything, some religions have more accounts (so more possibility of factual accuracy) then the Bible

It doesn't make the Bible wrong. I wouldn't use false since it's sacred book to others but yes, the stories in the Bible are not real. It is for the message not to be taken literally.

2. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

There was a talking donkey in the Bible not to mention the snake. Trees that forever burn. Waters that go as high as the skies. People turning to ashes. Towns dissolving in the sin of fire and smoke.

These are myths (as you defined)

I can't remember the story of the talking donkey, but it had a meaning. I think, like the other stories in the Bible, it warning the biblical character (and those who believe in the Bible) what would happen if they were to do X. The snake isn't a real talking snake and he didn't have legs. Does that matter? No. The story is just telling you how sin came into the world. It's a moral story that attempts to define why we do bad things. A lot of religions have stories that account for suffering and our bad actions. The Bible isn't unique.

3. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

First thing that popped in my mind was Catholicism. Yes, there are unproven beliefs in the Bible. Since some stories are imaginary, yes, some facts of the story are false but the meaning of the belief isn't. You can't prove false something that you can't prove exist to begin with.

That and the Roman government took Christianity and made it its own religion. Roman politics and beliefs mixed in and it was no long a Jewish faith carried on by the Apostles. Christianity is a Jewish teaching engraved in Roman beliefs.

The reformation tried to take a lot of the Romanism out but that's Christianity. However, who knows what Christ said without writings from Christ himself? You are getting things third and fourth hand. How in the world can anyone consider what's in the Bible accurate and even more so the word of god when the Bible is a leather (etc) book with words on it.

There are a lot of stories, myths (your definition and mine), false things, unproven beliefs, people, and items in the Bible.

A believers focus should not, in my opinion, try to prove the Bible is true or real. If it's not, how does that affect your faith in Christ?

Is your faith in Christ and his existence depended on the Bible or on Christ and his father themselves?

If it's depended on the Bible, where do you place Christ and his father?​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL... is that really applicable.

The 'logic' of your OP is, indeed, laughable.

The Tanakh is a tapestry, woven by many over many generations, in which threads of history and etiological narrative abound. But to suggest (for example) that the occasional historical accuracies found in the later texts serves as evidence for the historical accuracy of the text in general is simply stupid.

Yes, there is a *Hezekiah's Tunnel, but that serves as zero evidence for the Global Flood or the Biblical Exodus.

Yes, there are tornados and farms in Kansas but that serves as zero evidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz.

* interestingly enough, the dating of the tunnel is being reexamined

 

[buddhist]

But it does lend to that a supernatural event has just happened and should, at the least, be put on the radar as a possibility.

I don't know those supernatural events happened or not.

Well... there is a slight problem with this analogy... you haven't learned how to communicate with ants. There is a big difference between "IF" and "CAN".

OK, change the analogy to apes or dolphins then if you'd like . Humans have learned to communicate with them in many ways.

 

[Kenny]

Hmm. I learned something new. Going by your OP and your post, I'd say


Invented stories aren't bad. Many people made up stories or created stories, I guess better way of saying it to explain events in nature and purpose of society. It doesn't mean the meaning behind the story is false, it just means the story-the people, the place, etc-are created for a purpose.

Yes. People do make up and create stories. Although some stories are true and not created.

The Biblical account of the Garden of Eden isn't proven. I think they found the Garden somewhere in Africa; but, that is our attempt to connect the supernatural with a physical place and story. Many religions do it all the time. A specific place, sacred object, etc has specific spiritual significance, relates to the event account in the Bible, and automatically it's true.

IF, and I do say IF the Bible is true, then we would never find the Garden of Eden as we would also have to accept a global flood (as depicted in the vast majority of all religions) which would have eradicated any semblance of a Garden of Eden.

Who can prove that the god "hovered over the sky and create the land and waters." We know they exist. Believers feel that if someone exist it must have a creator. That's the thought connection between believers and that's fine. However, many stories account for this connection and they are myths many are not facts.

That doesn't discount that the stories aren't valuable. There are many accounts for the creation of the earth. The Bible isn't unique in that regards either. If anything, some religions have more accounts (so more possibility of factual accuracy) then the Bible

It doesn't make the Bible wrong. I wouldn't use false since it's sacred book to others but yes, the stories in the Bible are not real. It is for the message not to be taken literally.

Yes... no one was there to give testimony of the fact. For me, it would take more than just a story from a religion to make it true. I hardly base what I believe simply because it is a story.

There was a talking donkey in the Bible not to mention the snake. Trees that forever burn. Waters that go as high as the skies. People turning to ashes. Towns dissolving in the sin of fire and smoke.

These are myths (as you defined)

I'm not quite sure on some points.

Sodom and Gommorah - https://web.archive.org/web/20050208203746/http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch5.htm

Animals communicating: http://www.dolphins-world.com/how-do-dolphins-communicate/ Science is always evolving and learning more. Is it possible that animals communicate? I believe they can. If there is a God, could He translate into human ears what the donkey was saying? Well.... only Balam knows for sure but, it could be in the realm of possibility. Dogs often communicate to their masters in a multiplicity of ways.

Trees that are burned and water that go high? I will have to ask God that when I see Him.

I can't remember the story of the talking donkey, but it had a meaning. I think, like the other stories in the Bible, it warning the biblical character (and those who believe in the Bible) what would happen if they were to do X. The snake isn't a real talking snake and he didn't have legs. Does that matter? No. The story is just telling you how sin came into the world. It's a moral story that attempts to define why we do bad things. A lot of religions have stories that account for suffering and our bad actions. The Bible isn't unique.

Not unique in some ways but unique in others IMV

First thing that popped in my mind was Catholicism. Yes, there are unproven beliefs in the Bible. Since some stories are imaginary, yes, some facts of the story are false but the meaning of the belief isn't. You can't prove false something that you can't prove exist to begin with.

True!!

That and the Roman government took Christianity and made it its own religion. Roman politics and beliefs mixed in and it was no long a Jewish faith carried on by the Apostles. Christianity is a Jewish teaching engraved in Roman beliefs.

I disagree--mainly because the scriptures remained the same (even those before the Roman empire). What people did with them such as changing its meanings (as you mentioned) -- sure. But today we can see what they twisted.

The reformation tried to take a lot of the Romanism out but that's Christianity. However, who knows what Christ said without writings from Christ himself? You are getting things third and fourth hand. How in the world can anyone consider what's in the Bible accurate and even more so the word of god when the Bible is a leather (etc) book with words on it.

Well... in a court of law, if you have two or three witnesses--it is pretty well established.

There are a lot of stories, myths (your definition and mine), false things, unproven beliefs, people, and items in the Bible.

Absolutely. What I have asked, though, if there are 1,000 substantiated events--one can wonder. If it increases to 2,000 substantiated events, it increases its reliability. At what point to we begin to trust its historicity? Maybe never for some but eventually some people are convinced.

A believers focus should not, in my opinion, try to prove the Bible is true or real. If it's not, how does that affect your faith in Christ?

Is your faith in Christ and his existence depended on the Bible or on Christ and his father themselves?

If it's depended on the Bible, where do you place Christ and his father?

I don't think they are separate. If I can't trust the Bible in what it said of Christ, then how can one trust Christ? If one does not trust what the prophets said, how can you trust what they wrote? Or, if you can't trust what they wrote, how can you trust them?

IMV, they are inseparable.

 

[Kenny]

The 'logic' of your OP is, indeed, laughable.

The Tanakh is a tapestry, woven by many over many generations, in which threads of history and etiological narrative abound. But to suggest (for example) that the occasional historical accuracies found in the later texts serves as evidence for the historical accuracy of the text in general is simply stupid.

Yes, there is a *Hezekiah's Tunnel, but that serves as zero evidence for the Global Flood or the Biblical Exodus.

Yes, there are tornados and farms in Kansas but that serves as zero evidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz.

* interestingly enough, the dating of the tunnel is being reexamined

Yes, the Tanakh is a tapestry woven together throughout the centuries and it seems to make a complete story with no mixture of different types of threads.

But, my point is if we find Hezekiah's Tunnel and continue to find supportive evidence of what was written, when can you then accept the written version of the same?

* science is always changing what it last said.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes, the Tanakh is a tapestry woven together throughout the centuries and it seems to make a complete story with no mixture of different types of threads.

But, my point is if we find Hezekiah's Tunnel and continue to find supportive evidence of what was written, when can you then accept the written version of the same?

* science is always changing what it last said.

If you feel this way, why are you using it to substantiate your claims?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe the bible has a mix of myth, history, analogy, cultural preconception, well meaning error, a few words to live by and a lot to leave behind. I feel the same way about the Torah (oral as well), the Vedas, the Sutras (and the Tripitaka) and other holy and spiritual texts and records.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think they are separate. If I can't trust the Bible in what it said of Christ, then how can one trust Christ? If one does not trust what the prophets said, how can you trust what they wrote? Or, if you can't trust what they wrote, how can you trust them?

IMV, they are inseparable.

This caught me. I have a friend who feels the same. She lossed her bible and it almost felt from her reaction she lossed her confirmation that christ existed. I had to ask if she was using her bible as an idol. If I went off scripture, one I like the most is when the apostles say about jesus "you search scriptures as if They have eternal life. Even They testify on my behalf." If you see scriptures in par with christ that is no different than a catholic seeing church tradition in par with scripture.

Its not wrong morally. Both of you have your faith. But its wrong scripturally. If I went ver batum, the Roman traditions added to the bible in vatican 2 is against scripture. Same as the latter with you and my friend: putting scripture (then like Jews put scripture over the father. Pharacese their traditions) over the father and christ.

Both of you guys say its inseparable so that means without the Eucharist or bible, you would not have christ.

That goes against the first commandment. Its, well, according to scripture, well wrong.

Yes. People do make up and create stories. Although some stories are true and not created.

Some are. Many in the bible are not. Doesnt change its meaning and purpose. Since its not a history book (not supposed to be seen for its historical accuracy), regardless what it says, the Word is in you. But thats what the father taught. This goes back to my first point above.

IF, and I do say IF the Bible is true, then we would never find the Garden of Eden as we would also have to accept a global flood (as depicted in the vast majority of all religions) which would have eradicated any semblance of a Garden of Eden.

This comment is confusing. If you believe in the bible/christ where does the IF come in? Is the bible true or not?

Yes... no one was there to give testimony of the fact. For me, it would take more than just a story from a religion to make it true. I hardly base what I believe simply because it is a story.

But since you said the bible/christ are inseperable without the bible, youd have no christ. The bibme is full of stories. So it does take those stories to make your religion true.

What is "more than the story" when the bible is stories ans you put them the same level as christ?

If it takes more than a story (such as the bible/christ) what else does it take to make your religion true?

I'm not quite sure on some points.

The donkey actually talked. He had a conversation. What animal has a full English conversation with its master?

I disagree--mainly because the scriptures remained the same (even those before the Roman empire). What people did with them such as changing its meanings (as you mentioned) -- sure. But today we can see what they twisted.

Historically incorrect. However, my whole point is that even though these historical events are created that doesnt change the purpose of them.

Absolutely. What I have asked, though, if there are 1,000 substantiated events--one can wonder. If it increases to 2,000 substantiated events, it increases its reliability. At what point to we begin to trust its historicity? Maybe never for some but eventually some people are convinced.

I was never a "having three people witness a crime is more valid than one person". There could be 100,000 events and every single one could be imagined. Though the purpose isnt historical accuracy.

It almost seems believers are trying to confirm their faith by finding historical accuracy rather than trusting christ himself not scripture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, the Tanakh is a tapestry woven together throughout the centuries and it seems to make a complete story with no mixture of different types of threads.

It seems that way to you, but what do you know?

But, my point is if we find Hezekiah's Tunnel and continue to find supportive evidence of what was written, when can you then accept the written version of the same?

That fully depends on what was written. The possible existence of Hezekiah's tunnel (been there, done that) does nothing to validate the tale of Hezekiah's illness and death, and it is worthless as evidence of, e.g., the Exodus.

* science is always changing what it last said.

^ speaking of worthless ...

(But no one should be surprised to see someone so capable of irrational nonsense demonstrate both ignorance of and contempt for the scientific endeavor.)​

 

[psychoslice]

I get the drift... but the question remains--if archaeological discoveries continue to confirm what is written, at want point does a court of law establish it as a valid historical account.

I don't know if that is true, there is always independent biased people digging for what they want to find, and even if there is evidence of the past it doesn't make the stories them self true, stories can be built around what happened at the time of writing them.

 

[gnostic]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?

Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/56300-gate-shrine-excavated-in-israel.html

Sorry, but Homer in the Iliad wrote of many cities and kingdoms that do exist, does not mean the story Agamemnon, Achilles and Hector are real historical people as it has been narrated.

Archaeological evidences of places don't prove the traditional stories within the bible to being "true", especially stories that contained miracles.

 

[oldbadger]

When we start finding proof of Jewish slavery in Egypt, I'll start listening.

What kinds of proof would satisfy you?

On the side, here in England we have some history, but our archeology specialists can have difficulties in finding very much evidence on some saxon and norman sites. So you might be waiting a while for Israelite slavery evidence from Egypt.

 

[oldbadger]

.................

* science is always changing what it last said.

I so think that most of the bible is based upon true accounts.
But your sentence (above) is wrong. Science does not always change what it last said, it sometimes changes. And sometimes history gets changed.... to mollify or please a different audience or culture.

 

[gnostic]

What kinds of proof would satisfy you?

On the side, here in England we have some history, but our archeology specialists can have difficulties in finding very much evidence on some saxon and norman sites. So you might be waiting a while for Israelite slavery evidence from Egypt.

But that just is, there are no evidences to slavery of Israelites, followed by mass-liberation and mass-exodus out of Egypt during the Bronze Age. There are also evidences to support the Israelite invasion of Canaan.

There are records of such events in Egypt.

What we do have is one little set of inscriptions on the stele of Merneptah, dated 1208 BCE, which recorded his victory against I.si.ri.ar, which archaeologists believe this referred to Israel, since the lines before "I.si.ri.ar" talk of conquest in Canaan.

Canaan has been in Egypt's possession, on and off, since the last quarter of the 16th century BCE.

This stele speak of nothing about Moses or Joshua.

 

[oldbadger]

But that just is, there are no evidences to slavery of Israelites, followed by mass-liberation and mass-exodus out of Egypt during the Bronze Age. There are also evidences to support the Israelite invasion of Canaan.

There are records of such events in Egypt.

What we do have is one little set of inscriptions on the stele of Merneptah, dated 1208 BCE, which recorded his victory against I.si.ri.ar, which archaeologists believe this referred to Israel, since the lines before "I.si.ri.ar" talk of conquest in Canaan.

Canaan has been in Egypt's possession, on and off, since the last quarter of the 16th century BCE.

This stele speak of nothing about Moses or Joshua.

A lack of evidence is just a lack of evidence, it isn't proof of myth.
A while back there was no evidence of the Roman Prefect Pilate, and then this stone turned up!

 

[gnostic]

A lack of evidence is just a lack of evidence, it isn't proof of myth.
A while back there was no evidence of the Roman Prefect Pilate, and then this stone turned up!

Actually, Pontus Pilate appeared in Flavius Josephus, a source outside of the gospels, and contemporary to when the gospels were originally composed, but nothing to connect Pilate with the crucifying Jesus.

Josephus had also mentioned John the Baptist and Herod Agrippa together, but no mention of any connection between John the Baptist and Jesus, and no mention that of John being a prophet. And there were no mention of any dance of Herodias' daughter, and them demanding John's head; according to Josephus, Herod had him killed because he feared rivalry and rebellion.

Josephus wasn't born during the time of Jesus and John, as well during Pilate's governorship of Judaea, however Josephus had access to palaces, the temple, and even to the future Roman emperor, Titus, whom Josephus had befriended, after his capture. Unlike, the gospel authors, sources were accessible to temple and royalty records.

The gospel have showed to be inaccurate when they do mention some events of history.

Take for instance, the census of Quirinius. Luke said the census, not only took place in Judaea, but also in the entire Roman Empire.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

No such census occurred in the last years of Herod the Great's reign. Second, a census would only take place if Judaea became a Roman province; Judaea was a client kingdom, not a province. Third, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was never a Roman governor of Syria when Herod was alive; Quirinius began only when Augustus ousted Herod Archelaus (6 CE) from Judaea, 10 years after Herod's death (4 BCE).

Only when Archelaus was exiled and Judaea became a Roman province, did the census take place, with Quirinius become legate in Syria.

Josephus only mentioned Gaius Sentius Saturninus and Publius Quinctilius Varus as governors of Syria, while Herod was still alive, from 9 to 4 BCE. Quirinius was governor of Galatea, 5 - 3 BCE, campaigning against the Homonadenes in Galatia and Cilicia.

It just show historically inaccurate the gospels can be.