Normal

From what I can tell, reasonable scholars take Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, the Exodus, and the world flood as myths. If these are considered myth, why is there so much effort put in to disprove the rest of the Bible? Why not just take the rest as a story and where history lines up with the Bible accept it as coincidence?

One of the most common things said against the Bible, but if you don't believe in Genesis why take those as being literal as well?

Asha'man

Actually, I take the whole damn book as a myth. There is no reason to believe that any portion of it is anything other than a myth, with some portions set in a pseudo-historical setting.

However, many people do take portions of the bible literally. They have no real basis for picking and choosing which portions are literal and which aren't, so they just kinda do it by "feel."

By demonstrating that they have no basis for their choices, and that there is just as much reason to take the unpleasant stuff as literal, we just might get those people to look a little closer.

Echo

Why would I have to take it as "coincidence?" Why can't I look at the evidence and conclude that some books of the bible record historical events, some contain the community's beloved origin myths, and some are heavily embellished or mythologized historical events? I see nothing at all unreasonable about this conclusion, and it just happens to be the same conclusion most people, including Christians, reach when reading other historical documents, including those contemporary to the books of the bible.

Calzaer

Being a myth actually makes the atrocities worse.

If they actually happened, that they were credited to God shouldn't be surprising. The people committing the atrocities needed some after-the-fact justification.

If they DIDN'T happen, that means God was intentionally authored to commit the atrocities. It was in the minds of the original writer that God should be cruel and sadistic. In this scenario, there's absolutely no excuse for portraying God in such an evil light; the acts didn't actually happen, so nobody needed to justify them.

Spaz

Well from what I know (which isn't much) the Israelites didn't have a whole lot of power to begin with. I personally take everything in the bible to be an ego booster for them, because they couldn't really win many wars or anything like that.

pariah

Ok...and how does being a myth make it any better? Even if its a myth, its still supposed to paint a picture of god for us, and that is what it paints.

Kosh

Right on Spaz. And probably designed for the intimidation factor as well.

"Don't mess with the Jews, they got a box that'll take out your army!"

Calzaer

Too bad it went missing before 1936 or so.

conkermaniac

Could someone give me the best examples of atrocities in the Old Testament? I'm arguing with Christians on another forum, and they want examples of atrocities. I know that I can find plenty on SAB, but some of them are a bit questionable...so does anyone have a comprehensive list of the best examples?

Silent Acorns

I don't have a list but my "favourite" has always been the Exodus story. It's an absolutely critical part of the Bible, so it can't be shrugged off. From the point where Yahweh first says "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" to the mass killing of the Isrealites who complined in the desert it's one big mass murder story in which Yahweh kills tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent people simply to show off his power and put the "Fear of G-d" into his "chosen" people.