Friday, March 8, 2013

Bible contradictions...

...are really not the central issue in why the Bible is not considered reliable information.

The issue is that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of even the most basic facts about the world around them.  They didn't know that microorganisms cause disease, or the the world is spherical and orbits the sun, or that humans have only existed for the merest blip on the time scale of the universe.

The Bible is mythology, the attempt by primitive humans to make sense of things by casting them in terms of angry deities and protector gods.  In that sense, the biblical god is no different from the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians or Sumerians.

What it comes down to is this:  Why should we believe a word the Bible says?  If something in the Bible is true, it can be shown to true without using the Bible.  If Jesus walked the earth at all, why are there no other records of him?  If hundreds of people witnessed a dead man come back to life (which would be pretty big news), why did that not find its way into any other historical accounts?  If the Egyptians have one of the best-documented histories of any ancient civilization, why do they have no record of ever taking the Hebrews as slaves?

Whether or not the Bible is false is not the issue; the issue is that it can't be shown to be true.  It must be assumed to be true, to be taken on faith.  Why should we do that?

The answer to the contradiction involving the age of Jehoiachin goes as follows:  The Bible gives two different ages for when he became king because he became king twice.  Great!  Did we discover historical records confirming that he became king twice, thus putting to rest the idea that one of the Bible passages might simply be wrong?  No.  We say that he MUST have become king twice because the Bible MUST be true.

Apologists will not accept the possibility that the Bible might be slightest bit wrong on anything; they just assume it's always right, for no reason.

I'm not willing to assume that.  I don't give the same benefit of the doubt to the Koran or to Homer or to Norse mythology.  Why should I do so with the Bible?

You want me to believe that any idea expressed in the Bible is true?  Demonstrate that it's true.

14 comments:

  1. There are extra-Biblical records of Jesus. Even unbelieving scholars acknowledge His existence, even if they don't believe He was God or everything recorded in the Bible about Him.

    The Egyptians are like any other civilization. They give their own redacted version of history to make themselves look as good as possible. Scholars are seriously questioning the standard Egyptian history and chronology.

    No historical fact in the Bible has ever been proven incorrect. For years the Bible was ridiculed because it referred to the tribe of the Hittites...until the Hittite civilization was discovered by archaeologists.

    With witnesses in a trial, a judgment must be made on whether or not they are telling the truth. If a witness seems reliable, their testimony is accepted.

    The Bible is a reliable witness. Nothing in it has even been shown to be wrong, so we can assume that even the parts while have not be verified by outside sources are correct.

    I mean, really. People have been attacking the Bible for hundreds of years. There have been many "contradictions" or "errors" announced, but none of them have ever stood up to scrutiny.

    The Koran, Homer, and Norse mythology cannot claim that. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

    Also, your first couple of paragraphs are simply chronological snobbery and guilt by association fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There are extra-Biblical records of Jesus."
    Cite one. Don't bother including Josephus, since that one's widely accepted to be a forgery.

    "Scholars are seriously questioning the standard Egyptian history and chronology."
    Which scholars?

    "Nothing in it has even been shown to be wrong, so we can assume that even the parts while have not be verified by outside sources are correct."
    Non sequitur. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there's a god just because a couple of true things can be cherry-picked from the Bible. That's like saying that since New York exists, we should believe in SpiderMan.

    "The Koran, Homer, and Norse mythology cannot claim that. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof."
    False. All of them have exactly the same burden of proof. They also have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them: zero.

    "Also, your first couple of paragraphs are simply chronological snobbery and guilt by association fallacy."
    False. Who wrote a source, and how qualified they were to discuss what's in it, is a fundamental consideration when assessing the quality of information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You wrote:
    "They didn't know that microorganisms cause disease."

    Do you know that? If so, how?

    By the way, I'm not claiming that the human authors of the Bible knew everything--we don't today either. But my criticism still stands--your opening paragraphs are nothing more than chronological snobbery. Yes, we have made a lot of discoveries, and there are things we know that ancient cultures didn't, but they also had technologies and knowledge that we no longer have as well.

    Just because the Bible doesn't record every single possible fact doesn't mean that the people who wrote it were unaware of it. The Bible was written for a purpose, and only those things that help fulfill that purpose are recorded.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I know that microorganisms cause disease, because that fact is verifiable. Do you not wash your hands between using the bathroom and eating?

    "Yes, we have made a lot of discoveries, and there are things we know that ancient cultures didn't, but they also had technologies and knowledge that we no longer have as well."
    What knowledge or technologies did they have that would be of benefit in the 21st century?

    "Just because the Bible doesn't record every single possible fact doesn't mean that the people who wrote it were unaware of it."
    That doesn't change the fact that they didn't know the first thing about lots of things that we know today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding microorganisms, I wasn't asking how you know they cause disease. I was asking how you know the people who wrote the Bible didn't know that? There are laws in the Bible regarding sanitation and disease.

    As for ancient technology, here are a couple of examples:
    Ancient batteries in Iraq:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804257.stm
    An ancient computer used for astronomy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

    The people who wrote the Bible didn't know about YouTube, Dancing with the Stars, or Xerox copiers. So what? The Bible talks about God, the human condition, and other timeless truths.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's no evidence there's a God, and we know way more about the human condition (and pretty much everything else) than the Bible's authors.

    If you have evidence that the Bible's authors understood germ theory of disease, let's see it; otherwise, that's baseless conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Comment from Thoughts For Young Men censored for repeating refuted claims (namely that the Bible is evidence) rather than supporting them.

    The comment includes a request for me to support my claim that we know more than the ancient Hebrews did; honestly, I'm baffled that there could be debate about this. Just to name a few things, they didn't have medical technology, space travel, water treatment, the internet... The list of examples I could provide is nearly endless.

    The comment also included a request for support for my claim that ancient Hebrews had no knowledge of germ theory of disease. Would you accept Wikipedia as a reliable source?

    "The germ theory of disease refers to the discovery in the late 19th century that some infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms, small organisms too small to see without magnification, that invade the host."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

    ReplyDelete
  8. I looked at the Wikipedia article. I don't dispute that the modern germ theory of disease wasn't discovered until the late 19th century. What I am disputing is your claim that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know that. The Wikipedia article doesn't address that. There are many examples of knowledge that was lost and later rediscovered.

    Again, I'm not saying that the people who wrote the Bible did know about microorganisms (although they may have). What I am saying is that your claim that they didn't is simply unfounded speculation.

    The same is true regarding your claim about medical technology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning), space travel, and water treatment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_filters). I will admit that they didn't know about the Internet, since obviously it hadn't yet been invented. Yes, they didn't have a GE Discovery XR656 or other modern technology. Yes, we have more detailed and specialized knowledge in many areas.

    But your initial claims were, "The issue is that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of even the most basic facts about the world around them", and "The Bible is mythology, the attempt by primitive humans to make sense of things by casting them in terms of angry deities and protector gods", are false. You have not backed them up with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've provided a source confirming that germ theory wasn't discovered until the 19th century; you're welcome to provide your own that ancient Hebrews knew about it.

    Since germ theory is a basic fact about the world, I have backed up my first claim with evidence.

    Here is the evidence that the Bible is mythology:
    "In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form,[2] although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[3] Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form".[4] Myths typically involve supernatural characters and are endorsed by rulers or priests. They may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

    The Bible fits that description.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Comment from Thoughts For Young Men censored for repeating refuted claims.

    ReplyDelete
  11. DVD,

    Since you keep censoring my completely valid comments, I have created a website where you can't censor arguments just because they don't meet your hypocritical standards.

    http://www.theinconsistentatheist.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good for you. If you were not repeating claims that I'd already addressed, I'd have published the comments. Don't count on seeing me at your website, since you've only created it to be vindictive against me personally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DVD,

    Thanks for inspiring me. I didn't create it to be vindictive against you personally. I created it to allow for honest discussion, since you aren't willing to allow that here. You seem to think that just because you respond to a claim that means you refuted it.

    Your arguments are full of logical fallacies, including:
    Argument from ignorance
    Appeal to probability
    Argument from repetition
    Argument from silence
    Begging the question
    Shifting the burden of proof
    Circular reasoning
    Equivocation
    Etymological fallacy
    Moving the goalposts (raising the bar)
    Red herring
    Appeal to authority
    Chronological snobbery
    ...and probably some others as well.

    You obviously are intelligent, and seem to have a decent grasp of logic and argumentation. Unfortunately, you don't apply those skills to your own beliefs. You are hypocritical and inconsistent, and there are many more like you, hence "The Inconsistent Atheist".

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm sure you'll forgive me for not taking your criticisms of my logic seriously. Since you're Christian, and that's what they do. Supposedly.

    ReplyDelete