Wyz_sub10

No, I covered that. One, your bed was empty (not your twins'). Your buddy said you were there (unless he was fooled), and your signature was on the ticket.

Now, you could have orchestrated this whole thing with your twin. But the bottom line is still that your bed was empty, which contradicts your claim that you were in bed.

No one that witnessed Jesus wrote the gospels either. What about the Pauline letters? Paul never met Jesus. The basis for Jesus's history is the bible, but there's no shortage of writen records from that time in other cultures. So events can be coroborrated or refuted.

But I am speaking directly to OT history which does not stand up to scrutiny when reviewed in the light of other historical documents.

I would strongly recommend "The Bible Unearthed". It is not a Christian-bashing book at all. It's simply a book on biblical archeology that examines biblical sites, physical evidence and other historical documents. Seriously, it's not a theology book in any way.

Could you elaborate? What do you mean the "copied accuracy"? Several translations exists, there are varied accounts of events even within the bible, and as you no doubt know, several books were left out or added in over time.

I don't think the whole of the bible is completely false. Many figures did exist, many events did happen. But saying that a man named John the Baptist developed a following is far different than saying that Gabriel delivered a message to Mary. Or to use a more "physical" example, that a global flood covered the earth.

No, you aren't wrong because you disagree with me. You are most likely wrong because what we know does not support your version of events. In order to maintain your beliefs you must either discount what we do know, or introduce actions operating outside any measurable process. This is not a reasonable position.

Wallener

A claim is a claim. The burden of proof rests on anyone claiming either historical accuracy or historically inaccuracy.

I'm all in favor of learning as much as can be learned about the early years of Judaism, but in the end, whether or not Abraham or Moses actually existed is far less relevant than the fact that we have some fab stories starring them. Eventually Christianity will mature into the same kind of understanding WRT biblical Jesus.

credoconsolans

Because it wouldn't matter, as others have pointed out. I exchange heated but friendly debates with a Born Again friend of mine who is not an idiot. When his brain finally emerges from his ostrich hole and makes the connections his college education prepared him to make, he instantly ducks under the cover of "Well, it's a matter of FAITH." which ends the argument.

I. C. Unicorns

And the story The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County is a primer on gravity.

SHEESH!

Peter Kirby

One problem might be getting the respectable scholars to attend, given that this would probably not add any prestige to their CV, and might even be detrimental. Who in academia wants to admit that they are interested in refuting or defending biblical fundamentalism?

Take a look at the list of papers being read at the Society of Biblical Literature's meetings (the annual national one is the biggest). The papers have witty titles, subtle argument, and come attached with the names of august professors who are interested primarily in finding the meaning of the biblical text. Sometimes the professor will need to make arrangements, with regards to scheduling or financial aid, at the place they teach. Who will attend, and what universities would sponsor something like this?

Monday Morning
GENESIS 1-11 SESSIONS
"How many animals could really fit on the ark?" -- John Doe
"Is the earth just a few thousand years old?" -- Jane Doe
"In Defense of the Mating of the Giants" -- John Doe
"As Old as Methusaleh: the Verdict of Medicine" -- Jane Doe

Lunch will be served at noon: hot dogs, kosher or non-kosher, with chips or a vegetarian medley.

Monday Afternoon
THE PASSION OF JESUS SESSIONS
"Whether Jesus rode in on two donkeys" -- John Doe
"How many times did the cock crow?" -- Jane Doe
"And the saints came marching in: Thomas Paine corrected" -- John Doe
"The last word on the last words of Jesus?" -- Jane Doe

I don't think that one could get the funding from academic resources, and getting attendance could be just as hard. They would be wondering, "Isn't this all tosh in the first place?" You might find that the place is packed with biblical literalists, depending on how it is organized--and that process of organization would be scrutinized for bias. As someone else mentioned, it would likely blow over as a "Jesus Seminar II"--though, I might add, without the impact on academia that the scholars at Westar have had.

That said, there could be some positives. First, one would raise public awareness of the evidence to some degree. Since I believe that the truth is quite so clearly on the side of non-biblical-fundamentalism, I say that this could only be a good thing. Second, one could arrange it so that, unlike many other seminars, the papers are all available to be read for free by the public. This means that a preacher who sermonizes on the "Bible Fact Seminar" (or whatever you call it) runs the risk of sending the people in the pew to the site to read the papers. Third, it is possible that some scholars might be intrigued enough to engage the fundamentalists, which would be better than the amateur attempts that are so common.

One might reconsider the venue, however. I can think of two others that could be as effective and are definitely more feasible.

The first is a journal. Something like, "Journal of Biblical Errancy." Set it up with degreed academics who are both secular and religiously conservative doing the peer review, including at least one inerrantist. The purpose of the journal would be to field papers pro or con or whatever on the subject of truth and fiction in the Bible. A scholar would be more likely to make the smaller investment of banging off an essay for a journal than to take a week off and jet to some distant city for a conference. Further, an ongoing dialogue would be more feasible than in an event which lasted only a few days (and an event which lasted years, like the Jesus Seminar, is not something I imagine would work easily).

The second is a book or, more likely, series of books. Simply pair off two scholars who have opposed views on a subject of biblical errancy, and let them write a few essays and respond to the other's contributions. If possible, pit two guys pro against two guys con; for example, on the New Testament (or some subset thereof), a Jew and an agnostic against a Catholic and a Protestant.

Does the original poster or anyone else genuinely care about getting something like this started?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

There is already Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy and Farrell Till's Skeptical Review, which is devoted to Biblical Errancy (and other sources here.)

I don't think that there is a lot of academic interest in Biblical inerrancy, so I doubt that you would be able to recruit a respectable Inerrantist as an editor in a project that would indoubtedly show up his side of the argument.

Sheshbazzar

How could you dis-prove the bible when the very translation of its words is the matter of so much disputation? Which bible? Who knows what was the original or the correct reading?
Going as far back as we have documents to compare one against the other, there have always been textual differences, with every translation following this, that, or another reading, and then each 'translation' or commentator putting in their own particular spin upon the text, ( "we believe the LXX is more accurate here..., "we believe the MT is better followed there,...."The Samaritan text reads....," The DSS attest to....") blah-blah-blah, ad infinitum.

Of the making of many books their is in end; And books will always provide something to argue about for anyone who is so inclined.
Take away all of the books, and love, hope and faith alone would remain the refuge them of that believe, and if they had lacked in these, their 'belief' had been in vain anyway.
Far better that men of faith should lift up their hands, their eyes, and their voices unto the heavens, than holding a book in their hands, should fix their gaze thereupon, and lift up their voice against their fellow man; such is not the heritage of Abraham.
And you unbelievers, who think it is a vain thing to lift up hands, eyes and voices to the heavens, -for there is no one hearing, and no answer to be expected-Who amongst you will also despise and scorn the value of sincere love when it is made manifest in the midst of human hatred, and of sincere hope, when in the depths of misery and despair, it lifts up the spirit and renews the will?
Today, sitting in your comfortable chair, with your full belly and fat upon your bones, surrounded by your wealth and comfort, it is easy to despise all that old term 'faith' implies.
The contents of books can be used to for good or for evil, to lift up or to cast down, to give comfort to, or to condemn.
The Bible, -and the Holy books of other faiths- are yet needed to give us a sense of direction, a moral compass, and their warnings to preserve us from the evils that men without morals are certainly capable of.
After you have "dis-proved the bible" to the satisfaction of most men, (and I accept that you are progressing very well, and will ultimately succeed) then evil men will turn ears against all wisdom and justice, and blood will flow like water, and no word will be found to assuage the suffering, nor to give any hope to the victims, nor to reprove the evil deeds of evil men.
Your children will assuredly inherit the heritage you are preparing for them today, already they are killing one another in the schools and streets, yet you withhold from them any of the ancient words of wisdom or reproof that might restrain their hands.
Though it was written, "and all thy children shall be taught of Yahweh", you have not, no, they have not so much as heard of "The fear of Yahweh" from your lips.
Indeed you say the more unto them, "there is no god"! and "fear not"! for there shall be no judgment, nor any punishment", therefore "whatever you can get away with, it is acceptable". The "fear of Yahweh" having became contemptible to you, the fear of men shall devour your children, and you will be proved right about this, Yahweh shall not deliver them.

Peter Kirby

Sheshbazzar fancies himself a prophet?

There is, at least in the U.S., a negative correlation between crime and atheism. Less religious countries in Europe have less crime. If history is any indication, the best way, long-term, to reduce violence worldwide would be to raise the standard of living. It would not be to increase fundamentalism.

It is important to realize that Atheist and Biblical Literalist are not the only two options available. Biblical Literalism can lead to people supporting many ideas that are retrogressive, including the prohibition of interest, slavery, repression of homosexuality, and the "submissiveness" of women among them. I rather like it where I can get a loan, and I am not a slave. I hope that the emancipation of women and homosexuals continues to progress. I also would rather avoid wars (and less bloody conflicts) that have religious reasons. Biblical Literalists are less likely to be tolerant than people who recognize that their own traditions are not entirely without fault.

best,
Peter Kirby

[ed: minor edit]

spin

Fool. If thou wert my fool, nuncle, I'ld have thee beaten for being
old before thy time.
Lear. How's that?
Fool. Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise.

andrewcriddle

Do you mean Europe is less religious than the US and has less crime than the US ?

In which case I would agree.

Or do you mean that the less religious countries in Europe have less crime than the more religious countries in Europe ?

If so I'm dubious. Could you give a cite if that's what you mean ?

Andrew Criddle