Atheists how come in your mind the Bible has no credibility?

If the Bible has no credibility than History books don't either!





|||The Bible is full of extraordinary claims of a supernatural nature that have no credible evidence to back them up.





Nothing in any history book I've ever read has defied any natural law, and those facts are supported by evidence.





If the Bible has credibility, then so does Spiderman.|||Consider Ezekiel 29-32. In this dated prophecy, which unlike most biblical prophecies was written before the event (it is pretty easy to get a prophecy right 50 years after the event). God predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will defeat Ahmose II, the Nile will reverse course and all Egyptian males will be driven from the land.





In fact, Ahmose II defeated Nebuchadnezzar and this failure made it difficult for him to remain in power for the rest of his reign. Indeed, the prophecy almost happened in reverse entirely. Now had Ezekiel predicted that Ahmose would win, then it would have been a good prophecy.





This is but one of many errors in the bible. The bible lacks credibility because it does not stand up against the independent record of neighboring civilizations nor of the archaeological record of the physical remains left behind that contradict the stories themselves.





It is true that the bible also contains accurate history, but that isn't the rule. Consider the New Testament, there are 400,000 variant passages in the ancient copies which means there are more variants than there are passages. Translators will tell you that there is no way to actually know which passages are true and which are changed and in some cases no original may have been maintained. The Old Testament is harder to judge because of the Hebrew practice of burning old books when they wear out, so there are even fewer copies of the Old Testament than the New.





If you have ever read the Apostolic Fathers, the people trained and ordained by the apostles themselves, you will find that quite often, when they quote scripture, it does not match our copies. This is problematic considering they were the first hearers of the New Testament. Indeed First Clement is older than almost the entire New Testament as is the Didache. When you consider tha Polycarp was one of the editors of John's Gospel, if his quotes don't match, then we have a serious version problem.





The bible has been allowed to become a mythical book rather than a set of ancient writings. This is a shame, because the real value of the books in teaching is when they are viewed spots and all, not as magical documents voiced by a god in the ears of writers.|||Well I'd agree if the history books you're referring to are written by David Irving, but most of the others are subject to rigorous scholarship and review.





Saying that history is always being revised as new evidence and data comes to light, and also in light of the modern zeitgeist. I'd love it if the same was true of the Bible, but I never seem to see a properly edited and reviewed copy with all the errors corrected.





Now here's a circular argument for you. If the bible is credible does that mean all the history books are as well? Does it include the ones that show that the bible isn't credible? You see the little problem you have?|||Is the one major probelm I have with the religoius--the require atheists to use the yardstick of science and logic when we make a case or an arguement, but refuse to apply the yardstick of logic and intellectual honesty to themselves. For example--they take the bible as this divine inspired word that could not come from anywhere else. Therefore earlier writings from other cultures should be about totally different things, right? Well now, the hebrews sprang from an area between egypt and sumeria (babylonian empire), out in the hinterlands between the two. One would suspect that some sumerian and egyptian culture woudl have rubbed off on this group, no? Google the sumerian creation story (creation of men out of the clay of the earth by the gods)-written a thousand years or so before the genesis story. Google the gilgamesh epic--the ark story written a thousand years before the noah story. Find the 10 commandments in the egyptian book of the dead--with the book of the dead being several millenia older than the biblical.


Google the king sargon myth from sumeria (infant placed in a basket sealed iwth pitch and placed in a river--to be found and raised by royalty)--sounds suspciously like MOSES doesn't it? All of these biblical stories can be found in writings much much older than the biblical stories. Doesn't make sense that the devine and inspired word would be the plagarized versions of older stories does it. Adding to this, there is little historical confiramtion for vast swaths of the bible--there is no confirmtion from the highly literate egyptian culture for example that the hebrews were ever in captivity, that there were massive plagues, that there was an exodous, no serious histroical verifcation that the hebrews were in the land of milk and honey until several millenia later. You have this book--based on earlier myths--that is unverifiable historically when you use the yardstick of science, logic, and intellectual honesty--in part this is why I find no credibility in this book as anything more than allegorical writings.|||Most history books still have problems of credibility, too. Stories were written and rewritten with errors and omissions. They were also all written by the winners. The losers in history rarely ever have any effect in our books today. Even when you are an athiest you can still have an appreciation for the stories in the bible. It simply comes down to believing or not believing in a creator/being.|||How come in your mind it does? The bible is a series of what's called "allegories." It's not meant to be taken literally.





Besides, history books have factual data to back them up, and the bible does not. You're expected to take on faith what the bible says without a shred of evidence.|||Heh





My history books don't claim that vegetation and the world existed prior to the sun and stars........





My Jefferson biography is full of likely scenarios, he never once is claimed to have turned water into wine, cast demons into pigs or floated into space like someone let go of a balloon.|||History books are backed up with archaeological evidence, matched up with the historical written record. history books also don't use verse to tell history, and make much more sense. history books also don't try to tell the future.





think a little more before you ask your next question. |||1. Science has blown gaping holes in Biblical myth.


2. There is no proof outside that the god of the Bible exists.


3. The Bible has inspired countless atrocities.


4. The Bible makes hundreds and hundreds of patently ludicrous claims.


5. Evil people use the Bible to justify their actions.


6. The Bible was written with a subversive and destructive political agenda.





And by the way, most history books weren't written for the express purpose of showering the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world with money.|||The tests of a history book are corroborating artifacts and texts from other sources. The events of the Bible have either no archaeological confirmation or only confirmation derived from the Bible itself. (e.g. An old well must have belonged to Isaac because the Bible says there was one in the general area.)





Historically, there is no Egyptian evidence of an exodus of slaves, no physical evidence of Israelite encampments in the Sinai desert, no evidence of the Amalekites, Edomites, or Moabites in the areas specified at the time they were said to have existed, or even any evidence of the "United Kingdom" from the Tenth Century BCE. There is no historical evidence for Jesus unless you count references to his followers. Several gospel writers clearly did not know the geography of Palestine. Without independent corroboration, the Bible can't be depended on as an historical source.|||You are right , History books are more or less colored by the opinion of the writers (or winners) , as in WWII history


As to the Bible , it was written some 2000 years ago when people were VERY superstitious and very much behind in knowledge of scientific facts.


I would be foolish to live my whole life by the writings of middle eastern savages of 2000 years ago.





|||seriously?? way to show your ignorance and bigorty there kid.History books have written documentation to back them up. What does the bible have besides myths and lies? There is a little credibility in the bible, but religious people put too much faith in the book simply because a few facts are correct.. Too much is wrong about it to be used as a history book|||Do you even know the history of the Bible?





If not, the links below might be beneficial to you then.





The basic problem I have in believing most of the Bible is simple. Most of the events and people cannot be verified by another source. Not even Christ.





Some of them can. Recent evidence shows that King David was probably real for instance.





So I do not dismiss the Bible in it's entirety. I see it as a collection of intermingled mythology and ancient history.|||Stop with your straw-man argument. It doesn't make any sense. And when you say that our history books have no credibility, you are obviously wrong. We can prove what happened with science and because there are people alive who actually experienced it. And while they will not always be proven they are more recent, and thus, havent been diluted by word of mouth over the 6000 years that the Earth has supposedly been around. Noone walked on water, not now, not 2000 years ago, not ever. If I'm lost at sea should I find a whale to live in for three days? Moses exhists only in the Bible. And so do Jewish slaves in Egypt. And so does the story of a trek of 40 [I've heard 60 from some] years in the desert and parting the Red Sea, walking on the floor of this sea without drowning in the mud that was probably 10 feet deep and crossing the 60 mile wide sea.


Jesus may have exhisted, but if he did. He most certainly was not born in December, the celebration of this probably comes from Yule, a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solestice. Have you ever wondered why we hide eggs on Easter? It's because this too is a pagan holiday celebrating the spring solestice. Spring is associated with new life. And rabbits and eggs are seen often in spring.


So in short, we believe it lacks credibility because it does.|||The bible has some credibility in a historical sense.





However, there is a big leap from believing that an influential Jew born in the first century preached love and compassion, and that donkey and snakes can talk.





|||Skippy, sit down, my friend. Now, are you ready for this? It might hurt a bit, but don't worry.





History books are based on things called facts drawn from evidence collected over time.





The Christian Bible was written by a bunch of men living in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago. They were so poor at keeping in touch that the four main gospels all contradict one another in some way. They are also terrible at relating facts. In this book, it is written that a man named Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. That, my friend, Skippy, is not possible.





Add: And I'm familiar with "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and "A People's History of the United States." I don't just swallow history whole, but view it with a critical eye. The Bible, when viewed in this manner, just doesn't hold a drop of water.|||Many history books have actual pictures from events that happened, thus proving the events actually occurred, or they also have images of things from that time period, like ancient Mayan and Incan pyramids, for example.|||Spiderman comics have New York City in them, that does not mean Spiderman exists, nor does it mean New York City exists. History books are history books because they record facts in them. You can pick a lil book about the city and I guarantee it will have sources.|||History books do not contradict themselves. When they do, people do research in order to resolves inconsistencies. Unlike the Bible where any error, contradiction or inconsistency is ignored or denied with great passion.|||I never said it had no credibility - I simply do not believe it is the word of a god...





Harry Potter books are also credible - after all, they speak of historical landmarks in England. Does that mean that they are true? |||Your statement is illogical. History books have their facts checked out. The Bible has to be accepted on faith. Watch the recent Nova (on PBS) on the Bible, and see how many of their "facts" are disproved by evidence.|||History actually happened.





Before loadsa religious people start having a go...





Example: WW1 WW2?





Evidence YES... Books/artifacts/People








Religion.. evidence.... a book?|||I'm not an atheist but I think the Bible is primarily ethical rather than historical? So I'm not sure the same criteria apply; the history in the Bible was written according to different critical standards.|||history books have authors and editors and foot notes that are all credited





Do you know who wrote the bible? Nope


Do you know who, when or how many people edited it? NOPE








but somehow its still the word of god???????|||that is sooooooooooooooooooooo funny!





do you know that history books are based on real events, despite being biased towards the historians own views.





the bible is a mess.|||Well....you stole the words from me....The Bible was man written, so was History books, so why is it, we look down upon for believing the Bible...when people believe what happened durring the Civil War.|||You're right. All history is subjective. One has to look at the facts for oneself and conclude whether or not it's a believable or credible source. |||Not really, but nice try.





I have never read an analysis of the Norman invasion of 1066 in which a sky fairy knocked up Duke William's wife while he was galavanting about the Hastings area.|||Just because you put ideas and theories into a book doesn't mean it's credible. History books have sources. The Bible doesn't.


Fail of the epic nature!|||Stop wasting your time trying to start an argument about religion over the internet.





|||http://www.eternal-productions.org/101sc鈥?/a>





That website lists facts in the Bible that should deem it at least Scientifically credible. I don't understand how those things listed there are false.





Why did I get thumbs down? What possible reason is there? That's Scientific facts listed there that were in the Bible before Science listed them as facts. What's bad about that?





Seriously? Why the thumbs down? Please answer me? What possible reason is there? What?