Prophecies of the bible/historical innacuracies

[John Train]

It's very rare I'll hear anyone "seriously" discussing the prophecies of the bible or the historical inaccuracies of the bible. These are two things that seem essential when attempting to convert someone of Christian faith to atheism/agnosticism, which isn't something I do necessarily. I'm just very curious to hear what others have read on the subject.

Please limit your amount of references to The Davinci Code.

[red_orchestra]

..humm, dude...this belongs in the "religion forum". The bible is a translated, re-translated...overworked piece of literacy which has as much truth as a salesman at a used Car dealership..to put it mildly.

[Lord Testicles]

The propheceys in the bible will never happen for one reason the bible was written by human hands so the people that wrote it had no more of an idea of what will happen in the future as me or you do today. Worshiping the bible is ridiculus, it would be like looking to Alice in wonderland for gideance in 2000 years time.

[redstar2000]

False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html)

Science and History in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

A good reference (though now somewhat dated) with particular emphasis on historical errors: Asimov's Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1968-69.

Recent scholarship is more critical than ever, particularly regarding the Old Testament. It seems quite certain now that there was no Moses, no exodus from Egypt, no "empire" of David and Solomon (who actually ruled only Jerusalem and some minor adjacent territory), etc.

King Herod (who was not a nice guy) never "massacred the innocents" and there was no Roman census at the time of the birth of "Jesus". There was no "flight into Egypt" -- "Jesus" lived his entire life (if he existed) in Palestine.

The early Christians considered themselves "Jews plus"...and not the founders of a new religion at all.

And so on.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[guerillablack]

Not tryna start a debate, but how can you prove Moses or Jesus didn't exist?

[redstar2000]

There has been a lot of pretty intense archaeological exploration over the last few decades in the "holy land".

One of the findings has come as a bit of a shock...the inability to find any evidence of the "exodus" in the Sinai Peninsula -- as one researcher put it, "not so much as a piece of broken pottery."

"Moses" has been under suspicion for some time. It's not a real name -- it comes from an Egyptian word that means "son" (Ramses = son of Ra; Thutmose = son of Thoth, etc.).

Then there's the problem that Egyptian inscriptions make no mention of "Hebrew slaves" -- and the Egyptians generally boasted about the peoples they enslaved.

Modern scholars think that the myths of Moses, the Exodus, and the subsequent "conquest" of the "holy land" were invented during or immediately after the Babylonian captivity. This was done to provide a "claim of entitlement" to the "holy land"...in that era (c.500BCE), the highest and most widely-accepted claim to a territory was "proof of conquest".

As to the existence of "Jesus", the problem is the complete lack of contemporary evidence of his existence. The first mention of him is in the authentic letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul")...which were written at least 20 years after his "death". The earliest gospel -- probably "Mark" -- was written some 40 years after the "death" of "Jesus".

If "Jesus" is a myth, the probable inventor (or at least popularizer) would have been "St. Paul"...though his motives for doing so would be puzzling, to be sure.

What would settle the matter, of course, would be the discovery of some contemporary account of "Jesus" in Jerusalem, the crucifixion, etc.

My personal opinion is that he did exist...not as "the Son of God" or the founder of a new religion, but rather as a "country preacher" thoroughly unhappy with "big city Judaism" -- a kind of a Jewish fundamentalist, as it were.

But for now, it's a big problem.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[John Train]

Interesting links, thank you.

[John Train]

The link you've provided is full of inaccuracies. Most of what's on that web site are simply mistranslations of the original Hebrew text.

[Rasta Sapian]

I have not and will not read the Divinchi Code for my own reasons.

Anyway,

This talk about inacuracies in the Bible, focusing on Exodus with Moses leading the Isrealites across the Red Sea, ect. and there not being any archiological evidence, this is an inacuracy itself.

Scuba divers have been finding plenty of evidence throughout this decade alone, everything from Roman Chariots to spears and sheilds dating back to the time before Christ.

Faith cannot be defined by scientific fact. The percentage of paleo specimans and archiological artifacts are so minimal on the decades before and even after the Roman Empire.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

[Raisa]

If the peope made it up, then we got to ask ourselves why they would make up such an inspiring tale.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:56 PM
If the peope made it up, then we got to ask ourselves why they would make up such an inspiring tale.
whats inspiring about it, i wouldnt be pleased if i found out god was real and had to live up to his expectations :(

[John Train]

If the peope made it up, then we got to ask ourselves why they would make up such an inspiring tale.

People have done that and come to some pretty satisfying conclusions.