Why the bible ISN'T evidence.

[Minimalist]

The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

[KevinM1]

The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

That exodus was a quite a thing, wasn't it?  

[vorlon13]

The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

Ain't it funny, your christer on the street wouldn't pause for even a second to concur with;

"The Muslims are full of shit"

"The Hindus are full of shit"

"The Druids are full of shit"

but if you then informed them it was still an open question about THEM being full of shit too, you're going to see a shit hemorrhage erupt in full technicolor splendor.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Seems to me that the OP is presenting an all-or-nothing view of the biblical canon. I agree that the Bible is not a science book. Likewise many passages reflect cosmologies current in their time, etc. That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all. The fact that some accounts within a larger story reflect different perspectives does not automatically mean that the entire story is a fabrication.

And it depends on what question you are trying to answer with the data. We can certainly glean a great deal of evidence about the culture, customs, and beliefs of the writers and the societies in which they lived. Historical details, once considered fabrications, are sometimes later confirmed with modern archaeological findings. Evidence is not always made from a single piece; but rather, an assembly of several bits of data such as a pot shard here, the inscription on a coin there, and ancient texts that point to a particular historical interpretation. Common themes that run through the centuries can be identified.

I most certainly do not agree with those Evangelicals and others that also insist on an all-or-nothing approach to biblical interpretation. The 66 books of the canonical Bible were assembled over centuries out of everything from poetry and prophetic visions to legal guides and eyewitness testimonies. It is unreasonable to demand that this wide variety of texts must run through only the filter of 20-21st Century science. Why that and not also modern literary textural analysis, linguistics, and semiotics? While it is true that some believers cherry-pick verses to support specific doctrines, it seems to me that many other (atheists among them) are cherry-picking from among a wide range hermeneutics to that support their own bias.

[Brian37]

Even if it was evidence, it would be one more reason for me to steer clear of the whole religion. Trying to convince me they're worshipping a real evil fucker rather than an imaginary one doesn't do them any favours.

Of course, it's not evidence of anything except that people could write some stuff down. It offers some interesting insights about what society might have been like back then.

"Interesting" maybe like TSA figuring out how a plane crash happened. I find nothing valuable about antiquity outside of the artwork. Peppering some kind motifs into any religion is what they all do. The downside to religion back then is that it was still classed based and centered around sexism and tribal kingships.

[Minimalist]

That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all.

I'll grant you that they are "evidence" of the primitive beliefs of primitive men.  I didn't think that was in serious doubt, though.

[Brian37]

The archaeological evidence is that the bible is primarily full of shit.

You don't save history because it is true, you save history because you can learn from it. There certainly are lots of pretty stories in all of antiquity both in monotheism and polytheism, but our species fear of being wrong holds us back far more often than not. The bible isn't the only holy writing that is full of shit, they all are, monotheistic and even the more earthy religions people like to cop out to calling "philosophies" like those of Asia.

If any religion were key to evolution we never would have gotten to our current form 200,000 years ago. If any religion were key to evolution, we'd find monuments cockroaches built to their gods. The only thing that proves religion exists is that humans make them up. The universe has never cared about us, it is up to us to care about us.

[Minimalist]

People rarely learn anything from history.

[Simon Moon]

Seems to me that the OP is presenting an all-or-nothing view of the biblical canon. I agree that the Bible is not a science book. Likewise many passages reflect cosmologies current in their time, etc. That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all. The fact that some accounts within a larger story reflect different perspectives does not automatically mean that the entire story is a fabrication.

And it depends on what question you are trying to answer with the data. We can certainly glean a great deal of evidence about the culture, customs, and beliefs of the writers and the societies in which they lived. Historical details, once considered fabrications, are sometimes later confirmed with modern archaeological findings. Evidence is not always made from a single piece; but rather, an assembly of several bits of data such as a pot shard here, the inscription on a coin there, and ancient texts that point to a particular historical interpretation. Common themes that run through the centuries can be identified.

I most certainly do not agree with those Evangelicals and others that also insist on an all-or-nothing approach to biblical interpretation. The 66 books of the canonical Bible were assembled over centuries out of everything from poetry and prophetic visions to legal guides and eyewitness testimonies. It is unreasonable to demand that this wide variety of texts must run through only the filter of 20-21st Century science. Why that and not also modern literary textural analysis, linguistics, and semiotics? While it is true that some believers cherry-pick verses to support specific doctrines, it seems to me that many other (atheists among them) are cherry-picking from among a wide range hermeneutics to that support their own bias.

The fact that the Bible gets some historical things correct, offers ZERO evidence for any of the supernatural events.

As far as any of the supernatural events, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

[Brian37]

People rarely learn anything from history.

True, but enough do otherwise we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Our species doesn't like change, but at the same time we evolved to be curious. I'd like to think the curious can overcome the assholes stuck in the past.