Currently trying to get my mom off my back about religion. But, recently she's showed me some things, and I'm still having doubts about whether I should be a Christian, or Agnostic. Is the bible historically accurate? Like they have sites, and things that show people actually existed. But I see other people point out how the bible isn't historically accurate. I am confusion.
No, itâs not historically accurate. There are some real places and people described in it, but that doesnât make it accurate.
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/
https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
Iâm going to skip over the fact that Genesis is historically inaccurate. Everything we understand about the world contradicts special creation, a worldwide flood, and people living to 900+ years. Instead, Iâll give you a few simple examples that are based on history, rather than science that she might reject and/or not understand.
1. We know the Exodus never occurred. If about two million people (Exodus 12:37: âabout six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and childrenâ if we grant each man, on average, a wife and one child) migrated from Egypt to Israel, it should have been noticed. Egyptâs economy should have been decimated by this huge manual labor force leaving. There should have been a record of all the dead firstborn. There should have been a huge cultural shift in Egypt as a result of both. There should be traces of this huge migration throughout the region. There should be stories of two million people wandering around lost in the 429km between Cairo and Jerusalem - that you can traverse on foot in two weeks - for 40 years. One estimate suggests that if they walked ten-abreast, with comfortable distancing between each row, complete with animals, etc, the parade should have reached half the distance of the direct route. That is, by the time the last ones left, the first ones should have reached the halfway point.
Instead, there is nothing. No physical evidence, no local tales. Jewish scholars recognize this as myth.
2. In the âCleansing of the Temple,â Jesus goes all rampagey through the temple, disrupting the money changers. This is a story that could only have been written by someone who didnât know anything about Jewish worship practices.
Jewish tradition held that you were to make a sacrifice at the temple. Pilgrims would travel from afar, but it was impractical to drag a sacrificial animal with them the whole way. Instead, theyâd bring their money and buy one locally to be sacrificed. As any traveller knows, money in one location can be different from that in another. And thatâs what the money changers were there for. To exchange foreign currency for local currency, so that pilgrims could buy an animal for their offering. The money changers were absolutely crucial to Jewish worship.
Jesus should certainly have known this, if he existed at all. This supposed âanti-capitalistâ gesture would actually be regarded as one of the most anti-Semitic scandals for decades to have reverberated through Jewish culture. But, again, nothing.
Only someone who didnât understand how all this worked would invent such a story.
3. Crucifixions werenât conducted in the manner described. The Romans only crucified the absolute worst criminals. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was a crackpot blasphemer, which was not a crime that earned crucifixion. Even if we accept that the Romans were scared of Jesus, he was said to have been crucified alongside two men who were merely thieves. And who were, conveniently, unidentified. Thieves would not have been crucified. So, thatâs nonsensical in itself.
Even if we leave that aside, the Romans left the dead bodies strung up to act as a warning and deterrent to others.
âWhen we crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offence than with the example.â
- Quintilian (first-century Roman rhetorician)
If heâd been crucified, Jesus would never have had a tomb in which to kick back for a day and a half. The Romans wouldnât have given a shit about Jewish sensibilities, and Jesus would have decomposed on the cross where he was nailed, as a warning to others.
To say nothing of the in-story inconsistencies of how many of who went where, when, and what they saw, which is irreconcilable from one Gospel to the next. And that the Gospel of Mark ended (Mark 16:8) with the women running away when they saw the empty tomb; Jesus is never actually seen.
âTrembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.â - Mark 16:8
Everything beyond this point in Mark is an addendum a forgery from a later author. And Matthew and Luke, which âborrowâ from Mark, simply absorb and replicate this retcon, as if it was always there.
Bonus: Thereâs tons of lots of little things. According to the bible:
The first ever rainbow didnât occur until after the worldwide flood, so there was no water cycle for all that time.
Fictional versions of actual people such as Herod and Pilate; actual historical records describe them very differently than their scriptural fictional counterparts. Herod even died before Jesusâ supposed birth.
Every human spoke the same language, until the Tower of Babel episode.
Literal giants (Nephilium) existed.
The Sun and the Moon stopped moving for an entire day to allow Joshua to finish his killing.
You may enjoy some books by David Fitzgerald, Michael Paulkovich or Richard Carrier.
Thereâs bigger problems though.
Any amount of historical accuracy is not the problem. Any number of âhitsâ doesnât address the plethora of âmisses.â The problem is how a book that cannot get basic human events correct could be regarded as reliably conveying an accurate understanding of the celestial creator and ruler of the entire universe. Or that it exists at all. Defending the bible on the basis of translation errors, oral history, metaphors or pretty any other reason casts a shadow over how valid the literally supernatural notions are. Why would we trust a map that has all the landmarks on it in the correct places, but all the roads are wrong? Or vice versa?
Worse than all of this is why is the bible even relevant at all? Why should we care what it says? Isnât this just arguing about who can and canât pick up Thorâs hammer?
Even if James Cameron had avoided all the inaccuracies in Titanic, this still doesnât mean Jack and Rose existed and sailed on it.
Historical stories can have fictional characters. Take Forrest Gump or Gone With The Wind. Xtianity doesnât live or die by whether or not so-and-so was Pharaoh of Egypt, or such-and-such was Emperor of Rome. It doesnât even live or die based on whether a man named Yeshua existed and traveled around preaching love, division and killing pigs. We can concede that such a man may have existed without any pain. Even though thereâs no reason to think such a man did exist, beyond a composite of the Jewish prophets roaming around at the time.
What matters is whether we have any reason to think he was literally magical. Or âdivineâ if you prefer. If he wasnât, then Xtianity is false.
We donât have to prove that he wasnât, but if thereâs no evidence to support this requirement, then we donât have to worry about Xtianity, let alone how historically accurate the bible is or is not.
Whatâs most interesting about this line of argument is what it reveals about the believer: they donât believe in their god. They believe in their bible as primary, not their god. They believe their bible, the bible says the god exists, therefore the god exists. The bible bootstraps the entire process.
âWeird how no one ever hears from Jesus before they hear about Jesus.â - MrOzAtheist
The other option is that they believe in their god, which can be verified without the bible, and therefore they believe in the bible. That is, you can start with the god as primary, then refer to the bible and verify, yes this is the same guy.
But as far as I can tell, almost none of them seem to believe in their god as primary. If they did, they wouldnât spend so much time fixating on the bible.
⏠I know the Good Bookâs good because the Good Book says itâs good. âŞÂ - Tim Minchin
We donât have to âbelieveâ in evolution solely due to On the Origin of Species. We can - and do - ignore Charles Darwinâs book entirely, and still understand evolution. Other scientists around the world and throughout history had previously noticed this phenomenon as well.
In the case of the bible, they seem to have placed their âfaithâ in these unreliable humans, who got history and science wrong, who claim that a god exists and that theyâve captured âgodâs word.â Arenât all the attributes and qualities and properties their god supposedly possesses only supplied by the bible? When youâre told âgod is love,â isnât this only because the bible says so? Isnât literally everything about this god ultimately defended by citing a bible verse?
https://bornagainagain.co/podcast/episode-26-which-came-first-god-or-the-bible
I think that would be a fascinating question to ask her: does she believe in the bible OR does she believe in god. Which one is the starting point for belief in the other? I think, like many, she only believes in the bible, which is where she finds her god, which then authenticates the bible, in nice circular affirming-the-consequent âlogic.â
whether I should be a Christian, or Agnostic.
You donât have to âbeâ anything. You either believe a thing or you donât. Decide that first. If you had to make a list of all the things you believe exist, are you willing to put âa god/godsâ onto that list? This isnât a question about gods, and whether or not they exist, whether or not we can know they exist... itâs a question about you. If youâre not willing to write âa god or godsâ as a positive belief on your list, then Iâd call you an atheist; a belief in a god or gods is not a thing you possess.
Agnostic isnât a middle-ground between belief and non-belief. Agnostic is an adjective, not a noun, and relates to knowledge, not belief.
An agnostic atheist doesnât believe (atheist) a god exists, but doesnât claim to know (agnostic).
A gnostic atheist doesnât believe a god exists and claims to know one does not.
Ditto theism. An agnostic theist believes a god exists, but doesnât claim to know for sure, or claim that itâs even knowable at all. A ghostic theist believes and claims to know that their god exists.
https://religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com/tagged/agnostic
Figure out what you believe and what you donât believe. The rest is just labels. Theyâre not an identity to âbeâ.