Lobstrosity

I have encountered someone who claims the following:

I am highly skeptical of such claims when made by people who advocate Biblical literalism (e.g. this person), but I am not a historian, which is why I turn to you wonderful people.

Tenspace

I couldn't get through Genesis without refuting that claim. Day and night were created before the sun? C'mon.

I suggest you read, "Who Wrote the Bible" at the Straight Dope. You'll find it at:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

Tenspace

Ted Hoffman

Tell him/her to list "cases in the bible where the answer is known by other means with a high degree of reliability" first.
Like in Leviticus, rabbits are known not to chew cud right?
Ask him/her that.

Ask him how Judas died and the two contradictory accounts of his death in Matthew and Acts.

Tell him to list examples so that when you drive a truck through them, he doesnt weasel himself out. I have seen some wesel themselves out of the Genesis example above.

Mageth

The test is whether anyone can find significant error in cases where the answer is known by other means with a high degree of reliability.

The first three chapters of Genesis have been clearly and decisively shown to be myth. So the book starts out with "significant error".

Lobstrosity

This person is an ardent young-Earth creationist who believes all of science points to the accuracy of Genesis. I have been arguing this point for quite a while with him. As such, he would frustratingly not accept such a claim. In fact, this whole discussion came up when I tried to argue that the Bible cannot be infallible (since it was written by fallible man) and thus the position of assuming a priori that the Bible literally tells us the absolute truth is faulty. This is his attempt to justify absolute Biblical literalism (to such a degree that any evidence that contradicts the Bible must be instantly rejected as incorrect).

Mageth

Well, you might try arguing that, for example, the Genesis creation account(s) and the Flood account are "wrong" not because "man is fallible" but because the authors originally and knowingly wrote them as myths, not as historical accounts. You could point him to, for example the Sumerian/Babylonian creation/flood myths which predate the Bible and from which the Biblical myths were derived.

Or you could just :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:.

mike_decock

Here's a post by a history student who is working on his thesis. If you think of the Bible as a "historically accurate" document after reading it, you're sticking your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes and going "la la la la la".

The Exodus: A Dead Issue

-Mike...

triplew00t

I would have to look it up for the passage, but the Bible states the value of Pi to be 3. So has the value changed over the years, or are we wrong? Or is it that the Bible writers were wrong?

-Nero

CX

It is invariably futile to attempt logical debate with strict biblical literalists. There is nearly always a way for someone to fit biblical texts to their preconceived suppositions. Someone whose confessional stance a priori tells them that the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of god is not going to be swayed by rational arguments. Certainly naming any of a number of inconsistencies is not going to do it. For every one you come up with someone long ago came up with an apologetic response. You could ask him "which bible?". The Hebrew Bible, Protestant Old & New Testaments, Roman Catholic OT & NT and Eastern Orthodox OT & NT differ in the books that are included. Further there is a wide variety of different text families that have come down to us none of which are precisely the same. But a better approach would be simply to forget about having such a debate in the first place, unless there are bystanders who may be swayed one way or the other.

Greg2003

The implication is clear. Only Space Aliens are capable of producing ancient document accuracy to within a country mile. Therefore, Space Aliens helped man write the bible.

Now, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.