Is the Bible Just a Myth?

[Scuba Pete]

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

There are historical references mentioned in the bible giving it some historicy and windows as to the day and age. Like some people and places. It ends though as many of the stories and accounts themselves are completely impossible to ever had happened in real life. Its a matter of recognizing and distinguishing myth and the realities of life by which myth and legend are based upon.

The Bible is no different.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

What exactly gets confirmed and what context by which confirmation is made?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, we know that the bible is not a myth. One reason are the prophecies that have come to pass. Look at Daniel for just starters. Daniel saw the different Kingdoms that would take over Babylon. Look at Jeremiah, he told Israel that if they didnt go back to God, He would send in Babylon to conquer them. Israel to become a nation again, that happened in 1948. The Jews would go back to their land, that is happening now. Just too many to list. But who are we to question the power of our Creator.

Did Daniel name them? Saying that cultures experience regime change is like saying water is wet.

It helps to fulfill prophecies like Israel getting put back on the map if there are those who work hard to "fulfill" those prophecies themselves. There is so much racism involved in that entire scenario, both pre and post, that it's sad, really.

edit:

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

Witnesses are how Jesus got executed, IIRC. How well established is it now?

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.

So, if you find a transcript of a court case and verified all it contained, that must mean aliens were blowing the judge under the bench?

If I can't trust the Bible in what it said of Christ, then how can one trust Christ?

You could ask Christ. "If I find out tabloids are full of crap, how can I trust the people they are talking about?"

If one does not trust what the prophets said, how can you trust what they wrote?

"judging the tree by its fruit"

What animal has a full English conversation with its master?

Depending on how picky you want to get, any animal (mostly primates) who can use ASL are "speaking" in English.

So you might be waiting a while for Israelite slavery evidence from Egypt.

On the other hand, we have invoices and such from actual ancient Egyptians that show Egyptians worked the kinds of things movies tell us the Hebrew slaves did ... AND they were paid and if not, actually held strikes until they were.

A while back there was no evidence of the Roman Prefect Pilate, and then this stone turned up!

Did it contain evidence that he spoke with Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

Josephus had also mentioned John the Baptist and Herod Agrippa together..................

No..... you're wrong there. If you can't get everything correct yourself, you shouldn't knock the gospels for making the odd mistake. True?

JtB and Agrippa never met and never even lived at the same times.
However, JtB was arrested by Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and taken to Perea where he was executed. Yes, Antipas was worried about John's popularity but John may well have criticised Antipas's unlawful marriage. Nothing to knock there.

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,

True, but all irrelevant.
Josephus was the Commander in Chief of all Galilean forces before his defeat and capture, and he could easily (most probably) have met Galileans who knew Jesus in his lifetime or who had heard the oral-tradition about him at first hand.

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

What.... like you, you mean?
I don't chuck babies out with the bath water. If I rubbished every statement I ever read because of a mistake or error then I would have rejected the lot.

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

It took place in Iudea...... which included Judea, Idumea and Samaria.

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).

Yes, yes........ but Judea was not a client kingdom on its owm, it was part of Iudea, which included Samaria. Idumea and Judea.

Otherwise you're bang on. Look, Luke wrote his gospel, mostly copied, about 50 years after Jesus's death and he was ........ enthusiatic about Christianity. None of his waffle can prove that Jesus never lived, it can only prove that Christianity was a spin on J's life and true vocation.

It just show historically inaccurate the gospels can be.

Well, you know, your post showed how inaccurate you can be, but the accurate parts were valuable. So it is with the gospels.... you learn to suss out the value from the rubbish.

 

[oldbadger]

On the other hand, we have invoices and such from actual ancient Egyptians that show Egyptians worked the kinds of things movies tell us the Hebrew slaves did ... AND they were paid and if not, actually held strikes until they were.

Fair enough, but we don't really know the accurate timeline for biblical claims, I think.
If Egyptians worked the papyrus marches and reed beds then they were nuts, if they could enslave other folks to do that. No right thinking Egyptrian would have been found dead in those..... ha ha ... actually, if Egyptians had farmed those marshes then they would probably have been found dead in them... the diseases, blooming great crocs, nasty big hippos, snakes, pestilience..,.... yep, I reckon that slaves did farm thoses huge reed-seas, and because only they knew the creeks and channels, and hard tracks, only they knew how to cross the reed-sea to get out, on an astronomical lowest tide just after a spring equinoctial full moon, probably after three days of South Easterly storm........ which of course would be followed by the highest flood tide of the year with a storm-surge and tidal bore ........... nasty, and sudden..... unbelievable unless you've seen one. We never believed much about sunamis until recently, did we?

Did it contain evidence that he spoke with Jesus?

Nope....... but G-Mark is a good account, if somewhat interferred with by ardent evangelists.
You know me....... I don't believe in the Pauline Christ, just the handworker who started a mission for Galilean peasants.... and failed.
But I do think that we need to place any judgement about biblical records on hold rather than totally trash them out of hand.

 

[Notanumber]

All religions were devised as a means to control and rule over the populous, the bible was one of the tools that religions used to achieve and maintain this state of affairs.


Mohammad used this system very effectively.

 

[gnostic]

However, JtB was arrested by Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and taken to Perea where he was executed. Yes, Antipas was worried about John's popularity but John may well have criticised Antipas's unlawful marriage. Nothing to knock there.

You are right. I just got couple of these Herods mixed up; I am writing from memory.

But overlooking my point. The gospels were very specific on how John was executed: a "dance" for a "head".

Josephus say nothing about any "dance", so it is more likely the gospels invented this part.

 

[gnostic]

Josephus was the Commander in Chief of all Galilean forces before his defeat and capture, and he could easily (most probably) have met Galileans who knew Jesus in his lifetime or who had heard the oral-tradition about him at first hand.

You are speculating.

The only thing Josephus wrote regarding explicitly and authentically Jesus, was saying Jesus was "James' brother". The other passage about Jesus, was an a later interpolation, most likely by a scribe.

Otherwise you're bang on. Look, Luke wrote his gospel, mostly copied, about 50 years after Jesus's death and he was ........ enthusiatic about Christianity. None of his waffle can prove that Jesus never lived, it can only prove that Christianity was a spin on J's life and true vocation.

I am not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I am saying the gospels to be unreliable as historical sources, because as I have shown in my examples, it is inaccurate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All religions were devised as a means to control and rule over the populous, the bible was one of the tools that religions used to achieve and maintain this state of affairs.

^ dumb

 

[Kenny]

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

Because the woven story is history, IMHO. Archaeology continues to validate it.

 

[Notanumber]

All religions were devised as a means to control and rule over the populous, the bible was one of the tools that religions used to achieve and maintain this state of affairs.


Mohammad used this system very effectively.

The truth hurts!

Voodoo is another example.

If the chief of a tribe had a reliable witch doctor to terrify the masses into believing what they wanted them to believe, they could retain power over others.

They could even use this power to fight their enemies, as did Mohammed 1400 years ago.

Unfortunately, he was so effective that his fighting religion lives on as strong as ever.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The truth hurts!

Voodoo is another example.

If the chief of a tribe had a reliable witch doctor to terrify the masses into believing what they wanted them to believe, they could retain power over others.

They could even use this power to fight their enemies, as did Mohammed 1400 years ago.

Unfortunately, he was so effective that his fighting religion lives on as strong as ever.

You could take out 'religion' and put in 'government' and you'd get to the same result. Any social institution can and is used as a means to control and rule populations.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe one can validate places and people but not usually stories. However since it is all God inspired it is not myth.

 

[Muffled]

I think calling it either a 'myth' or 'the gospel truth' (pun intended) is incorrect and too simplistic.

I believe that opens up a can of worms. There are those who will discount the miraculous as myth and say the rest is fine. On the other hand sometimes the authors don't have the right information and that can be just what it is a lack of information.

 

[Muffled]

They've excavated What they think is Troy from Homer's Iliad.

It doesn't mean that Achilles was invulnerable, or that a godess handed him a second spear to kill Hector.

Big difference

That makes it mythical but not necessarily fiction. THe difference is that the Iliad is not God inspired.

 

[Kenny]

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.

I don't think that is analogous.

Let's take the scripture reference and apply it correctly:

John 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Yes, scriptures don't save you... but the DO testify of Jesus and one must come to Jesus (in the Christian faith). I never said that scriptures save you... I said that they are tied together as (paraphrasing what I said) they do testify of Jesus. If there is no plumb line of what testifies of Jesus then we could have multiple Christs (as Jesus said there would be but they would be false Christs).

If, as Jesus said, "by thy words you are justified and by your words you are condemned", then there is a uniting of words and people. I know who you are by the accumulation of words that you speak (and actions too) for Jesus also said, "if you don't believe my by what I say, then believe me by what I do" (paraphrased - mine)

So, I don't think I misrepresented my thoughts.

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.

Thus, although what you are saying here about traditions is correct, I am not talking about traditions.

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.

I suppose one can have a divergence of positions in its historicity. However, as archaeology continues to discover, it apparently has more historical content that what they thought 50 years ago. Perhaps over time it will continue to be validated? Only time will tell.

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

Just commenting since there are three positions that are held. 1) Its true; 2) it's not 3) some truth but not all. I am of the position of #1 (obviously)

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 God is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent of what He said... are not the truth of His words and expression of who He is?

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

It's inerrancy of its prophetic declarations.

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

I apply Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14... there is that which is uttered that the natural mind doesn't understand but the hearer hears the translation.

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

I have yet to be convinced of your position.

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.

I suppose that is in the probability factor although 100,000 make it very improbable.

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

I see your point...

Let me backtrack here... I trusted Christ before I understood or knew scripture itself. I thought Adam ate an apple and Job was a place you worked at. A complete Biblical illiterate.

There is a place for the knowledge of scripture as Peter shared: 2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, andof Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

The reason I am approaching historically, in this case, is because there are those who would say "This is a fabricated story with no historical truth"--and thus don't even listed to the truths inside the historical stories as well as the parables and analogies (non-historical in content).

So I would agree that we need to trust Christ... but knowledge of His words produce faith for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word and without faith it is impossible to please Him.

 

[Kenny]

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.

If all around the illness and death are validated historical accounts, why would I then discount what has been validated?

So if an non-fiction story has all the historical content, I should dismiss a portion that said he was sick and was going to die?

I guess it ends up being the capacity of a free-will spiritual agent to believe what they want to believe.

 

[Kenny]

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.

True...

But what a story!! And over 2,000+ years.

 

[Kenny]

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.

So, if I understand you correctly, there are archaeological evidence of a battle but that doesn't mean the Battle of Gettysburg happened?