The bible

[Angrboda]

Yet another dishonest Christian who is just .

JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim that one is "Just Asking Questions". The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners' views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the denialist that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. It is often associated with denialism in general.

— RationalWiki

[Minimalist]

dishonest Christian

Redundant.

[FallentoReason]

I would like to ask the question why is the Bible not historically correct? Can someone in some detail tell me why it cannot be correct or where it is said to be contradictory and also where it has mistakes?
thank you.

---THE GOSPELS---

No one knows who wrote them. My recent research has shown me that the four names we accept on a whim (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) only started getting used at the end of the second century. Prior to this, not one reference is made to e.g. the Gospel according to Matthew. This gaping hole in knowledge about who wrote them makes perfect sense with what can be known about the Gospels, primarily, that the 'tradition' that we get fed about how the Gospels came to be isn't true at all.

Mark was the first one written and it is evident that Matthew and Luke used it (Luke also heavily used Josephus) as a basis for what they would be writing. This is rather devastating considering that the original version of Mark wouldn't of had the ending depicting several eyewitnesses to a risen Christ (this is known from the earliest copies we have which don't have verses 16:9 onwards). What's even more devastating is the fact that 'Matthew', a supposed eyewitness, needs to borrow from 'Mark', who according to 'tradition' itself, wasn't an eyewitness. This makes it clear that 'Matthew' wasn't any sort of eyewitness let alone an Apostle of Jesus Christ. John is no better because it has shown itself to be theologically advanced when compared to the Synoptics. This is fairly typical of hearsay--the truth gets stretched. It's clear that 'John' wasn't any closer than 'Matthew' to being an actual eyewitness.

So in a nutshell, it's evident the events we get told about come from people who never saw Jesus for themselves. 'Mark' even leads me to believe he wasn't writing literal history either because so many of the scenes he depicts have come straight from the OT. He has intentionally grabbed verses and used them for the story Jesus would be in (Mark as allegory).

---Paul the apostle---

This self-proclaimed apostle always seems to speak in a way that undermines everything that Jesus 'achieved' here on earth. Some on this forum have argued that he didn't need to mention events because that's for young Christians that can't handle the deeper theology just yet. Well, you can only wonder why Paul keeps referring to the mysteries of Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 4:1, Romans 11:25, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 1:9, Ephesians 3:4, Colossians 1:26... the list is endless) and how he was made aware of them through spiritual revelation. The man (Jesus) was just on earth! What's the mystery here? Well, guess what.. Paul goes one further and says the gospel he preaches came from no man, but that he received the gospel through revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). This directly contradicts the notion that Jesus the Christ was a person walking on earth.

Paul's way of talking resembles very closely the mind of the time. People had no problems in believing that their saviour gods had achieved certain things in the heavenly realms. Paul is simply telling us that through revelation and the prophets (OT) he has been made aware that Jesus was crucified somewhere in the heavens, much like Mithra killed a bull in the cosmos and NOT on earth. Paul's preaching style makes it evident he is not referring to any Messiah that walked on earth like the Gospels make it out to be. This idea that Jesus never existed on earth is strongly backed up by the fact that no NT writer claims to even have met the man. In fact, no one in history tells us about Jesus. All we have left is non-contemporaries who supposedly wrote a brief sentence or two, but these have been shown to be forgeries by later Christian historians a few hundred years later.

Conclusion?

Well, getting back to the original question, I see many many reasons why the Bible isn't historically accurate. The whole image that the church portrays about Jesus today is a bunch of claims that cannot be supported through historical evidence. There are gaping holes where there should be evidence if a god-man had actually showed up 2000 years ago.

[Minimalist]

This self-proclaimed apostle always seems to speak in a way that undermines everything that Jesus 'achieved' here on earth.

The earliest remaining xtian work of any length...and which is doubtlessly authentic...is Justin Martyr's First Apology to Antoninus Pius c 156 AD. In it, he never mentions anyone named "Paul" or "Saul" which indicates that that portion of the story had not been invented, or, "Saul/Paul" was a creation of the heretic Marcion who was later surgically removed from Marcion's canon and "rehabilitated" along with all the fantastic bullshit that they later wrote about him.

Also, Justin never mentions the gospels of Mark Luke, Matthew or John. In fact, the only "John" he does mention is John the Baptist.

In this way we can track the development of the story.

[Cato]

ThereisaGod,

Give me a break with your, "Mommy, the atheist man on the internet is being mean to me" moral high ground bullshit. If you wish not to be addressed as a fucktard, try not exhibiting its characteristics.

You stroll in here with your historical accuracy open question bullshit. Using your exact phrasing, Google returned over 2.6 million links. A quick review of the first few pages suggested there was a good smattering of both skeptical and apologist sites in the mix.

If you are over the age of about 10 or 12 and still believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, you are a fucktard. If you understand this and don't see its obvious connection in proving the lack of historical accuracy in the bible (in the very first book no less), you are a fucktard.

Your clear demonstration of intellectual laziness and dishonesty is why I am under no obligation to treat you with any civility (you inappropriately used the word respect).

[DeistPaladin]

I would like to ask the question why is the Bible not historically correct? Can someone in some detail tell me why it cannot be correct or where it is said to be contradictory and also where it has mistakes?
thank you.

Let's go over the highlights of the OT

1. Garden of Eden story (ridiculous for many reasons, such as it takes more than two to sustain a species).

2. Global flood and Ark story (also laughably ridiculous for many reasons, see above for one example).

3. The Tower of Babel and creation of different languages (do you really think you could build a tower to reach Heaven?)

The Exodus (zero evidence for any of this)

4. The bloody path to the promised land (zero evidence)

5. The glorious Davidic empire (zero evidence apart from an inscription that mentions "House of David")

...and then there's the whole Jesus story. What a coincidence I just uploaded this video:

---

The earliest remaining xtian work of any length...and which is doubtlessly authentic...is Justin Martyr's First Apology to Antoninus Pius c 156 AD. In it, he never mentions anyone named "Paul" or "Saul" which indicates that that portion of the story had not been invented, or, "Saul/Paul" was a creation of the heretic Marcion who was later surgically removed from Marcion's canon and "rehabilitated" along with all the fantastic bullshit that they later wrote about him.

Min, something that always struck me as strange about Paul.

Marcion held him up as the prophet of Jesus and yet according to Paul's "authentic" epistles, Paul believed in a Jesus wholly inconsistent with the one Marcion believed in.

So did Marcion not bother to read Paul, did he promote Paul and hope no one would read his writings or do we not have the original epistles of "Paul" as Marcion originally discovered them?

[Minimalist]

5. The glorious Davidic empire (zero evidence apart from an inscription that mentions "House of David")

Maybe. I highly recommend George Athas: The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction

Athas finds it to be a place name.

[DeistPaladin]

5. The glorious Davidic empire (zero evidence apart from an inscription that mentions "House of David")

Maybe. I highly recommend George Athas: The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction

Athas finds it to be a place name.

Sure. But even if it WERE authentic, it's completely unconvincing of anything other than some-guy-named-David. It still wouldn't offer any proof of a grand empire that spanned from the Euphrates to the Sinai.

[Anomalocaris]

I would like to ask the question why is the Bible not historically correct? Can someone in some detail tell me why it cannot be correct or where it is said to be contradictory and also where it has mistakes?
thank you.

If you were an early iron age Bedouin from 700 BC who has been shut up in a tent since your were born and while away all your spare hours fucking your sister, then you may be excused for not being able say with certainty whether majority of what is in the bible is complete bullshit or not.

But you apparently live in 2012. Your sheer stark insensibility to what your species have discovered since the bible was perpetrated is mind boggling.

[Minimalist]

Sure. But even if it WERE authentic, it's completely unconvincing of anything other than some-guy-named-David. It still wouldn't offer any proof of a grand empire that spanned from the Euphrates to the Sinai.

Of course, as archaeology has shown that there was no "city" located at the site which is now "Jerusalem." It was, at best, a miserable little village and Athas makes the case that it was in fact a fortified manor house for the local rulers...akin to medieval castles for dukes and barons.
Aramaic, the language of the stele, uses dots as word dividers and there is no dot between byt and dwd.

---

So did Marcion not bother to read Paul, did he promote Paul and hope no one would read his writings or do we not have the original epistles of "Paul" as Marcion originally discovered them?

Marcion seems to have been the first to champion "Saul/Paul" but who the hell knows what was really in there. Marcion's writings were wiped out by the proto-orthodox. The people who wielded the torches could have written whatever the hell they wanted and said it was by Paul. Who would know? There is precious little which can be used as historical markers in Paul. I've already mentioned one - the Damascus thing which dates that passage in 2 Corinthians to somewhere between 84 and 64 BC. The city of Corinth did not even exist at that time.

As for Marcion himself. We don't know what he believed. We know what his enemies said he believed but what does that mean? Why would we assume they were any more truthful in their categorizations than Romney and the other republicunts are being about Obama?