Jack the Bodiless

...Hoewever, Robert, your post bears no relationship to reality.

Everything you have claimed above is false.

Cross-referencing between the Bible and historical sources (and between books within the Bible) frequently reveals errors. There was no Genesis creation, no Noachian Flood, no Tower of Babel, no Exodus. The Tyre prophecy failed. The Babylon prophecy failed. The Book of Daniel gets the names of kings wrong. The Gospel of Mark even gets the basic geography of Palestine wrong (including placing towns on the wrong side of the river Jordan, and getting the positions of Tyre and Sidon mixed up).

Jack the Bodiless

I should also add that the pattern of Biblical errors and contradictions is important for Biblical scholars, who can use it to date the authorship of Biblical books.

For instance, when a Biblical author gets something right, this is a good indication that the book was written at the time of the event it describes. When it gets something wrong, this is an indication that the author was either trying unsuccessfully to predict the future, or using erroneous sources (or pure invention) to describe the past.

For instance, we can be pretty confident about when Ezekiel was written: at about the time of Nebuchadrezzar's siege of Tyre. This is because Ezekiel falsely "prophesies" Nebby's victory, then has to deal with Nebby's defeat by "prophesying" that he will take Egypt as compensation for the failure at Tyre (this didn't happen either, but the book ends before this second failure). Likewise, Daniel is inaccurate regarding the time in which it was supposedly set (6th century BC), then becomes increasingly accurate in its "prophecies" up to the Maccabean Rebellion (168-164 BC), then "loses it" when failing to predict the fate of Antiochus: it was clearly written at this time.

Johnny Skeptic

As Farrell Till basically said, a person can go to the library and find many religious and non-religous books that make secular claims that are widely believed to be true. You obviously are not aware that there is a big difference between secular claims and supernatural claims. Skeptic historians would be surprised if the Bible DID NOT contain a lot of accurate secular historical claims. It has always been common for people to accurately record lots of ordinary secular claims that pertain to where they live. Surely you do not believe that the writers of religious books commonly lied about secular events that took place where they lived, and about rivers that were where they lived. Why would they do that? On the other hand, there are lots of good reasons that account for why religous writers make up false claims, not the least of which are the desires to be immortal and live comfortable eternal lives. At least the writers of religious books have motives for writing supernatural claims. There are not any reasonable motives for religious writers to tell lots of lies about secular claims.

Please state some examples of what you mean.

Kosh

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;5066738]"You keep using that word, I think it does not mean what you think" - Princess Bride

Atheos

Then one should easily be able to go to the Euphrates river, trace it back to its source, and eventually run into a flaming sword that bars entry into the garden of Eden.

Then why is it that real history shows that Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk, who was succeeded by Neriglissar, who was succeeded by Labashi-Marduk who was followed by the last kind of Babylon, Nabonidus. Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and he was never king of Babylon, although someone writing hundreds of years later might make that mistake as he presided over the kingdom as crown prince during Nabonidus's absence. But history shows that Nabonidus was actually in Babylon and occupying the throne when Babylon fell to the Persians. Not the Medes, as the book of Daniel claims.

History demonstrates that there was never a "kingdom of Israel" that was so great that the Queen of Sheba would have been so impressed that she would have made the statement "The half was not told" (I Kings 10:7). The kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon have long since been relegated to the same level of credibility as the kingdom of King Arthur by students of history.

There was never a series of disasters that befell the kingdom of Egypt such as those described by the myth of the "10 Plagues". Such a series of disasters would have left abundant evidence, including records of the commerce necessary to re-supply Egypt with livestock, food and other resources that would have been devasted if these things had really happened. The mass migration of upwards of 2 million people from that region would have left abundant evidence as well. The fact that apologist archaeologists have endeavored to find this evidence for decades and found nothing has to mean something.

It's also interesting to note that during the time Noah's flood was happening the kingdoms of Egypt and China never noticed. They just kept chugging along.

Cyrenius was not governor of Syria at the same time Herod the Great was alive (but this would have to be the case if Jesus was born when both were rulers). Herod never ordered a mass murder of male infants. Augustus Ceaser never ordered people to "return to the land of their ancestors" for a census. Have you ever considered how absurd that would be? Which ancestor were they to pick?

In short, while there are some historical facts contained in the Judaeo-Christian bible that have been confirmed by archaeology, there are a great many that are in stark contrast to what archaeology has revealed.

angelo

How many fiction stories and films have been wound around the events of 1940-45. [ex.]with all the names of various characters and places and dates accurate as can be proved. It still does not make a story true does it? You can not claim ''this tale is true because the tower of London is mentioned''.

Robert Byers

I am making a general concept. The cross-referencing could and should be done by tens of thousands of items. Endless oppurtunities to show the bible is a invented history. Yet all that is brought up are a few points that are so general as to be impossible to discuss.
Names, dates, motives, nations, rivers, mts, hills, endless points that should fail under scrunity.
A big subject and indeed a few people do address about specific prophecies etc but still the concept of cross-referencing is either a gain or loss to inerrancy.
Rob Byers

Robert Byers

Ok you make a few points. Yet there should be zillions of points that should show a invented history.
The Eurprates river and eden is a pre-flood geography issue.
In facy it makes our case that the authors wee saying indeed the rivers out of eden were not like the present world.
Assyrian/Persian kings is beyond me but if the bible and other sources conflict then presume the bible is more accurate and the others screwed up or distored things for human motives.
Rob Byers

deadman_932

According to who? YOU? You're a near-illiterate that couldn't even get the Raelians to believe your nonsense.

There certainly doesn't have to be "zillions" of points that show invented history. All there has to be is ONE that can be established as invented and that's all you need.

I realize that you're not familiar with logic or reason or anything rational, Robbie <edit>, but here's a little secret: All that is needed to invalidate the claim that all geese are white is to show one black goose. Similarly, all that is needed invalidate the claim that the bible is all factual is to show one example where the Bible is wrong.

There are many, many such examples showing that the Bible is not inerrant or invariably correct or contains fantasy, and I'm glad that you don't like that, mainly because you're pretty much just a nuisance hiding behind fractured writing and delusion a mile thick.

angelo

It's the same old story. Everything that is in the bible is accurate. Everything that's not, is not to be trusted. You see the bible is the inerrant word of god!
All the history books in existence cannot match that.
If scientific facts can reconcile with the good book, then fine and true. If not, it's the work of a demon and should be shunned. Galileo almost lost his head because he dared to contradict the good book. Times change but the church and it's followers refuse to join us in the 21st century.