Biblical Historicity

Well heres a good ol fact for you:

Libraries have been around for many, many centuries. The Internet has been easily accessable for well over a decade.

A library in a church and a library in a university are completely different. Likewise, you can find things like this on the Internet, and things like this. Either way, you can find bullshit in a library just as well as a scientific report.

They are filled with all sorts of information, including historoical conceptions in the Bible. You have called the bible a fairytale without even knowing, which officially puts you at the bottom of the debate if abundant historical truth is founded in it.

We don't even know if Harry Potter exists. Or if unicorns exist. Or Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or any number of fictional characters, all thought to have been nothing more than a figment of the human imagination. No one has ever proven they exist, and no one claims to know they don't exist, but we still call them fairytales anyways. You don't need to absolutely know if something exists in order to call it a fairytale; we call things fairytales because they lack considerable evidence to be considered a part of reality. If they do exist, and we don't know it, we'll stop calling them fairytales when there's considerable evidence.

But so far as I know, there's no significant evidence that can support anything the bible says because it's not falsifiable, and because just about all of Genesis is effectively disproven.
 
If you believe Alexander conquered around 300 something BC, and not an alleged heretic named Yeshua who started mischief with Jewish intrigue and almost started rebellion among the Jewish tribes and Rome, then there is no point in you even learning any history.

You simply cannot put a scientific bias on history, it's just that simple. Doing so only creates an idea that all history is false until proven, which is the dumbest indirect punchline I've ever seen.
We better start building a time machine and find out, right? Because the events that followed after with the disciples and the Jews just isn't enough, or the proof that Egyptians had Jewish slaves and that somehow Jews became their own substantiated nation just isn't enough either, right? Jewish history is just wrong because it didn't come from a giant such as Rome who was focused on it's own history.

Like I have been trying to say for a long time now, atheism comes with plenty of bias, and just because one speaks on something doesn't mean you should follow suit. For example, I don't believe in a Trinity concept, and I'm Christian.
The historical proof is there in one form or another. You would do well to learn it.
 
Last edited:
You simply cannot put a scientific bias on history, it's just that simple. Doing so only creates an idea that all history is false until proven, which is the dumbest indirect punchline I've ever seen.

Then how do you go about determining what is historically accurate, and what isn't? Why is there any reason to believe that the bible had it right, and that many other resources (or other holy texts from other religions, for that matter) that talk about the exact same time periods are wrong? The only way in which we can determine which of these is most likely true and which isn't is to go about it scientifically, and that's what archaeologists do, and historians build off of it. Now if you're asking for true, rather than most likely true, I don't think anyone has the answer to it, but having a model based off of primary resources and actual artifacts is probably the closest thing we have to whatever happened back then, and if we're wrong, then we're wrong. But last I checked, there's no good reason to believe the bible is an accurate model of history because it doesn't fit in with other historical artifacts (fossils and the ruins in Egypt come to mind), and it's authors are dishonest.

We better start building a time machine and find out, right? Because the events that followed after with the disciples and the Jews just isn't enough, or the proof that Egyptians had Jewish slaves and that somehow Jews became their own substantiated nation just isn't enough either, right? Jewish history is just wrong because it didn't come from a giant such as Rome who was focused on it's own history.

Well, that's precisely the problem. You have not demonstrated that such evidence exists; you've just complained about how many written accounts and artifacts we have from Rome. That we may have not so much of them from Jewish history doesn't mean that they're automatically historically accurate; in fact, we're not even in a position to say we know what happened unless such evidence exists. Now where's your proof that Egyptians had Jewish slaves, and if it came from the bible, how am I supposed to believe that's even remotely true when it wasn't right about the Earth in Genesis, and numerous other prophecies that have failed?

Like I have been trying to say for a long time now, atheism comes with plenty of bias, and just because one speaks on something doesn't mean you should follow suit. For example, I don't believe in a Trinity concept, and I'm Christian.

What part of not believing in a god or gods has anything to do with being biased?

And the fact that you don't believe in the trinity doesn't mean you can't be Christian; there are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the trinity, and many others who do. There are plenty of Christians who believe certain things about the bible and god that other Christians do. And you know why that is? It's because the bible is so vague that it can be interpreted any way by anyone, and they can all call themselves Christians. That's precisely why the bible is not falsifiable, and that's also precisely why it can't be considered historically accurate.

The historical proof is there in one form or another. You would do well to learn it.

And if that's your argument, you would do well to explain it.
 
I was never the one who ranted about it's historical value in the first place. I just offered a more logical way of looking at it rather then dismissing the entirety of it due to it's more supernatural parts.
I might take the time to post some concrete sources and literature. Maybe. It depends if I even feel it necessary, because I have to consider the people I am debating with. Poking holes in history is not like poking holes in scientific theory. It does not crumble when one thing is shown not to be true, which is something I would be dealing with no matter how concrete the proof is.
It'll become a technical game worthy of questioning who the hell the 1st president of the U.S. was.

This is shown by people throwing the idea that Jesus is fictional. Jesus was not fictional, there is too much history, but that will not change the minds of those who simply deny it.
In fact, the events during and after are so overwhelming, the idea of him being fictional is quite a false bias. And I am not even speaking on any ascension or quieting of the seas. In fact, I never stated that any supernatural idea in it's history is true beyond a doubt because it cannot be proven or disproven. I am speaking on the movements and peoples within it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top