The Bible

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
ChristianAskingQuestions's picture
The Bible

Hi Everyone! I have a question I have been wondering for some time concerning what atheists believe about the Bible and why specifically they believe it to be inaccurate due to its focus on religion. Totally just asking questions here and I want to let you all know that I genuinely respect you as a person and will respect the beliefs you have and the answers. I'm just curious as to what your specific views on the Bible are. Thank you!

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
I've read it. The whole

I've read it. The whole thing. For the most part, I think it's pretty boring.

ChristianAskingQuestions's picture
Ok why do you think that? I

Ok why do you think that? I mean, if what it says is actually true then it wouldn't be boring at all- it would make everything different

Sir Random's picture
I think the bible has far too

I think the bible has far too many issues to be true, or even slightly credibal.

CyberLN's picture
Have you actually read the

Have you actually read the whole thing?

Sir Random's picture
Me? Or him?

Me? Or him?

CyberLN's picture
Him.

Her

Sir Random's picture
I now count myself a

I now count myself a hypocrite, as I told someone off for not checking a posters gender before hand. I also apologize for my assumption.

ChristianAskingQuestions's picture
lol its cool :)

lol its cool :)

ChristianAskingQuestions's picture
Ok! Which issues specifically

Ok! Which issues specifically?

Sir Random's picture
1. The Earth is not flat(The

1. The Earth is not flat(The bible does suggest this at points)

2. The Earth is not 6,000 - 10,000 years old

3. The Earth was not formed in six 24 hour periods

4. The Exodus has no archeological or historical evidence outside the bible

5. The bible condones genocide

6. Deontological codes are inherently imperfect and unjust systems of ethics

7. Many prophecies of the bible failed to come to fruition

8. The bible contradicts itself on certain doctrines on numerous occasions

9. The miracles in the bible are not possible

10. Christian religions have historically been extremely violent and sects of particular Christians still kill one another as they have done for centuries. This is counter to the instructions contained within the Pentateuch

11. There is no consensus on "Christian truth", as evidenced by the huge number of denominations who assert their interpretations of the bible as an exclusivist truth

12. A God who is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent by definition foresaw and willingly chose any and all paradigms which exist, meaning that prohibitions against intrinstic natural phenomena like homosexuality or sexual promiscuity are diametrically oppositional to the paradigms which God himself chose. God is a self-contradictory tyrant in that regard.

13. If God is omnipotent yet suffering exists, God is not omnibenevolent. If God is omnibenevolent yet suffering exists, God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnibenevolent then he is malevolent (why worship him?) and if God is not omnipotent, then he is in some or many ways impotent (again, why worship him?)

Harry33Truman's picture
1. Go see Isaiah 40:22

1. Go see Isaiah 40:22
2. It never said that
3. The word used in genesis translated as day in Hebrew can mean a day, but usually just means a period of time.
4. Yes there is, there are referances to the people of Israel in a Egyptian block of granite, and references to some of the ten plagues in ancient papyrus
5. No.
6. How so?
7. Such as?.
8. Where?
9. Just because you don't see them as likely does not refute them.
10. Yes. I know.
11. So??
12. No, he gave us a freedom of choice and punishes us if we do evil, you make the assumption that G-d made people gay, but no one is born gay, they chose gay.
13. You criticise G-d for not obliterating evil, but when he does act you criticise him for that also. Hypocrite

Sir Random's picture
"Hypocrite"

"Hypocrite"
No. He m just a skeptical anti theist that views religion as harmful to society

Dave Matson's picture
Harry,

Harry,

Your superficial response to Tieler needs to be examined!

1. The Earth is not flat (The bible does suggest this at points) -- Tieler
1. Go see Isaiah 40:22 - Harry

Isaiah 40:22? Do you mean the verse that depicts God looking down on a flat, pancake earth and seeing its circular boundary? Doesn't sound like a description of a spherical earth to me! Do you see the Hebrew word for "ball" anywhere in that verse? Since God is not that high up (doesn't the sky look rather close?) his keen eyesight, with a bit of poetic license, sees people as mere "grasshoppers." That poetic license would be grossly inappropriate if God were looking at a spherical earth tens of thousands of miles away.
In that same verse the heavens are stretched out like a curtain, spread out like a tent to live in. The sheet-like nature of the heavenly vault, which holds up an ocean (separating the waters above from the waters below) is attested by a number of verses in the Old Testament. If you want a thorough tour of the flat-earth and Babylonian cosmos-reflecting verses, read David Presutta's book "The Biblical Cosmos versus Modern Cosmology". Metaphorical usage can only be stretched so far!

2. The Earth is not 6,000 - 10,000 years old - Tieler
2. It [Bible] never said that - Harry

Not in so many words, but a reasonable interpretation of the Bible's generations and other details puts the age of the Earth close to 6000 years. At least that is the finding of some 200 odd studies done long before anyone had a clue as to how old the Earth was. The data from those Bible studies forms a bell-shaped curve whose peak is about 6000 years. If the most learned men of a previous age came to such a conclusion, men fully capable of reading the Bible, that being their best interpretation of the Bible, then I think it is reasonable to say the Bible says as much.

3. The Earth was not formed in six 24 hour periods - Tieler
3. The word used in genesis translated as day in Hebrew can mean a day, but usually just means a period of time. - Harry

A word may have 12 meanings, Harry, but the only one that counts is the one that is right for the passage. You need look no further than your Tanakh to see that it is translated as "day." I've never seen a serious Bible translation that handled it any other way! How absurd to bring in an "evening" and a "morning" (markers for the Hebrew 24-hr day) to describe a long period of time! Moreover, a god who creates everything in 6 days is pretty big stuff in ancient eyes; a god who needs eons is a puny weakling! Genesis is not going to insult God! The only reasonable interpretation is 24 hour days.

4. The Exodus has no archaeological or historical evidence outside the bible - Tieler
4. Yes there is, there are references to the people of Israel in a Egyptian block of granite, and references to some of the ten plagues in ancient papyrus - Harry

How do these references support your gigantic exodus? Harper's Magazine had a rather nice article in March 2002 entitled "False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History" (p.39-47) by Daniel Lazare. Here are a couple of quotes regarding the Exodus:

"Not so much as a skeleton, campsite, or cooking pot had turned up, Finkelstein and Silberman noted, even though “modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world.” Indeed, although archaeologists have found remains in the Sinai from the third millennium B.C. and the late first, they have found none from the thirteenth century."

"Then came a series of archaeological studies conducted in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. … Whereas previously archaeologists had concentrated on the lowland cities where the great battles mentioned in the Bible were said to have taken place, they now shifted their attention to the highlands located in the present West Bank. The results were little short of revolutionary. Rather than revealing that Canaan was entered from the outside, analysis of ancient settlement patterns indicated that a distinctive Israelite culture arose locally around 1200 B.C. as nomadic shepherds and goatherds ceased their wanderings and began settling down in the nearby uplands."

5. The bible condones genocide - Tieler
5. No. - Harry

The tales of Joshua (now discredited given that the Exodus has no credibility) speak of divinely sanctioned slaughter of whole cities, man, woman, and child--and even animals in some cases. That may or may not technically be genocide, but it's close enough for our purposes!

6. (Skipped)

7. Many prophecies of the bible failed to come to fruition - Tieler
7. Such as?. - Harry

How about the prophecy stating that Nebuchadrezzar would totally destroy the island nation of Tyre? The rock on which it was situated would be scraped bare and become a place for repairing fishing nets. Not only did it NOT HAPPEN but it was such an embarrassment to the Bible writer that he came back, admitted the failure, and made another false prophecy! (Nebuchadrezzar would get the wealth of Egypt instead. Didn't happen.) How about the biggest prophecy in the New Testament, that Jesus would return soon, that he was already knocking on the door? Dr. A. J. Mattill, Jr. noted that there are some 91 verses giving voice to that prophecy.

8. The bible contradicts itself on certain doctrines on numerous occasions - Tieler
8. Where? - Harry
Get a copy of C. Dennis McKinsey's "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" which devotes some 500 pages to the many errors in the Bible, most of those being contradictions. If you would like to seriously look at some contradictions, start a new thread. Would you like a book-sized contradiction in the Bible? The Book of Ruth contradicts the extreme racism of the books Ezra and Nehemiah. The latter two are so rabid about pure blood lines that they order every Israelite man who had married a foreigner to "get a divorce." Ruth, on the other hand, depicts such a marriage which is blessed by God.

9. The miracles in the bible are not possible - Tieler
9. Just because you don't see them as likely does not refute them. - Harry

Do you believe in Hindu miracles and Muslim miracles? How about the miracles of Native Americans? Isn't the burden of proof on the shoulders of those who claim that miracles exist? Did God really make an iron axe head float so that it's owner would not have to get an expensive replacement? Did a snake and donkey really talk? Did God really make the sun stand still so that Joshua could slaughter more people? Is there any end to silliness in the Bible?

10. (Skipped since both parties agree.)

11. There is no consensus on "Christian truth", as evidenced by the huge number of denominations who assert their interpretations of the bible as an exclusivist truth - Tieler
11. So?? - Harry

Isn't that sure sign that the Bible was poorly written?

12. A God who is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent by definition foresaw and willingly chose any and all paradigms which exist, meaning that prohibitions against intrinsic natural phenomena like homosexuality or sexual promiscuity are diametrically oppositional to the paradigms which God himself chose. God is a self-contradictory tyrant in that regard. -- Tieler
12. No, he gave us a freedom of choice and punishes us if we do evil, you make the assumption that G-d made people gay, but no one is born gay, they chose gay. - Harry

Horse manure! They choose gay like you choose straight, right?

13. If God is omnipotent yet suffering exists, God is not omnibenevolent. If God is omnibenevolent yet suffering exists, God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnibenevolent then he is malevolent (why worship him?) and if God is not omnipotent, then he is in some or many ways impotent (again, why worship him?) - Tieler
13. You criticise G-d for not obliterating evil, but when he does act you criticise him for that also. Hypocrite - Harry

So, God obliterates evil some of the time and ignores it on other occasions. Weird! Sorry, Harry, but that does not answer the problem of evil which is still very much with us. The free will defense fails since there is no logical contradiction in God making people with free will who always choose to do right. The ability to choose evil does not entail that the choice must be made unless God put so many obstacles in the way so as to assure failure.

Pitar's picture
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Read the entire essay.

It's a chronological contrast of the historicity of the bible versus the archeological record taken from Egyptian, Roman and Greek public records, as documented by historians of the time. Remember through your reading of the essay that the characters in the bible, portrayed as they have been portrayed in the period covered, and the events the bible records, were not recorded by the characters in the bible. They were illiterate, simple people, by the virtue of their portrayed characters by title and trade in that writing. Moreover, the bible does not attest to any literate person or persons in their company who may have chronicled their mere existence, much less the events the bible records.

------------------------------

So, who in the biblical period of time Jesus and entourage were said to exist recorded into the archeological records what the bible claims as truths? No one. There's no archeological record of the bible's characters outside of the known Roman personages of the time. And, the first known biblical writing (by Paul, nee Saul) comes to us more than a half-century CE. The bible is not a concurrent account of what it contains but rather a collection of various contributions by persons unknown in pseudepigrapha following Paul, when they wrote under the pseudonyms Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Isaiah, and a whole host of others, between Paul's first assemblage of writings and followed by some initial formalizing into a collection 300+ years later by Emperor Constantine (by political edict, not word of god) when he ordered the early christian bishops scattered in Diaspora to get their heads together and write a story that was at least believable about Jesus, his life and all that the early christian writings had already distributed.

For instance, there never was a town of Nazareth. The writer contributing a story about Jesus using the name Mark mistakenly translated "Notzrim", Hebrew for Nazarene, as Nazareth and considered it a town. In fact, it was a cult. But, because that which was recorded as "Mark" was used by the writers who followed, Nazareth was widely accepted to be a town. Emperor Constantine sent his mother to Nazareth to acquire artifacts for enshrining in a church of his pending decision. She reported back that no such town existed (in the region or its cartography) so he commanded her to find an existing town in that region that seemed suitable and rename it Nazareth. He did this because the writings of Mark and others had been in circulation for at least 150 years and the truth just wouldn't do at this point.

The point to be taken from the essay and other extant works is the bible contains no evidence of the historicity of a god, a jesus or any of the other jesus movement characters, events, prophesies, miracles, deaths, etc, it claims to be true, and the court records of Emperor Constantine give us evidence that the early christian bishops he ordered around conspired together to become the architects of the creation of the jesus story from thin air and recorded it as the first formative telling of the jesus story we know now as the bible. They knew they were making this stuff up on-the-fly, or were working with known myths that predated them, and it's in the court records of that Roman emperor as evidence.

So, with this archeological evidence in hand why do people allow themselves to embrace the notion of a real god, jesus and the bible?

Welcome to atheism. Atheism is actually a question, in purpose, and heretical perspective by theism's convention.

--------------------------------

Also, give this a read-through. Marshall Brain is a bit less objective than Scott Bidstrup. But, Scott's scholarly objectivity walks us through the bible without emotionalizing it.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm

-------------------------------

Also, for a better understanding of Emperor Constantine's role in the bible you might read the Nicene Creed and the Arian controversy. Wiki gives a decent condensed recounting of it and the links are generous and quite informative. This controversy cements the reader's perception that our early christian architects were basically puppets of political intrigue and secular comfort than an assemblage of holiness ascribed to them by any "word of god".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

algebe's picture
ChristianAsking...

ChristianAsking...
"Ok! Which issues specifically?"
Genesis: The story of creation, and the Biblical chronology leading back to the supposed date of creation, make no sense at all. It's been disproved by geology, biology, astronomy and physics.
Genesis: The story of Sodom & Gomorrah, including the death of Lot's wife and Lot's behavior with his daughters is totally repugnant and immoral.
Genesis: The story of the Great Flood and Noah's Ark are stolen myths from other cultures. The god in that story is genocidal and cruel.
Exodus: There's no historical or archaeological evidence that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, let alone escaped from it.

New Testament:
The idea that a virgin could become pregnant is based in mistranslations.

That's just for starters.

Harry33Truman's picture
The flood was stolen from

The flood was stolen from other cultures? Excuse me?
No, the flood was a global event, so obviously every culture us going to have a flood story, and they do. The Egyptians, Hindi, Native American Tribes, the Greeks, and the Jews never had contact with most of these.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - "No, the flood

Harry Truman - "No, the flood was a global event"

You seemed like a reasonable dude at first, but you just burned that bridge.

algebe's picture
There are flood myths

There are flood myths everywhere because floods happen everywhere. Over the past few weeks I recall seeing news items about floods in Europe (Germany?) and Japan. The one in the Bible is probably linked to various Mespotamian myths, such asthe Epic of Gilgamesh. Are you suggesting that they all refer to a single worldwide inundation?

"The flood was a global event"
Are you serious? Is there any geological evidence of a global flood? Where did all that water come from? Where did it go? A lot of coastal land was submerged when sea levels rose after the end of the last Ice Age. But even that was not a global flood.

Dave Matson's picture
Wake up and smell the coffee

Wake up and smell the coffee Harry! A global flood a mere few thousand years ago would have left a HUGE amount of evidence. No geologist worth his rock hammer will vouch for such a flood. Forget about Henry Morris (one author of "The Genesis Flood") and the other deniers who are determined to save their literal Bible at all costs. The evidence is non-existent. Look at any university text book on geology. Visit any real university and talk to the professors in the geology department. That should convince anyone who is not deep into denial.

People all over the world have experienced flooding, so why shouldn't flood myths be widespread? Look at these flood myths carefully, Harry, because most of them bear no resemblance to the biblical account. Some reflect river flooding; some island versions imagine the ocean around them rising. At least one flood myth in Northern Europe appears to be based on imagination and a slow rise of the sea level over several centuries.

If you think that the Genesis account of Noah's flood was original, maybe you should check out the older, Babylonian version. The parallels are so remarkable that one might be excused for saying that the Bible stole that story. More accurately, the Bible borrowed and customized a version that had long been popular in the Middle East. The story might have been taken directly from the Babylonian account in that Genesis was put into its final form about the time the Jewish elite was deported to Babylon.

ThePragmatic's picture
Make a new thread, where he

Make a new thread, where he can explain the total lack of evidence of the "global event"?

Dave Matson's picture
Having rebutted many of your

Harry,

Having rebutted many of your points, I await your reply.

Dave Matson's picture
ChristianAsking...,

ChristianAsking...,

Tieler and Algebe have brought up a number of points. With respect to prophecy, we could add the failure of Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Tyre, and Jesus' failure to return immediately (some 91 verses allude to that prophecy as listed by Dr. A. J. Mattill, Jr.). Then there's Jonah and the whale, a whale of a tale so to speak! Beyond the obvious absurdity, we have the absurdity of Jonah going to the capital of Assyria (an ancient's brutal version of the Soviet Union) and instantly converting everyone to his god! That would be like Billy Graham going to the USSR in the days of Stalin and converting the whole country to Protestant Christianity! It's beyond absurd! If that didn't round out the silliness of Jonah, we have a totally erroneous statement concerning the size of Nineveh. Morally speaking, we have in Job the disgusting scene of God taking bets with the devil regarding whether Job would remain loyal despite loss and torture! Morally speaking, in the New Testament we have that all-time winner, the idea that a just and loving God would create hell knowing full well that most people, who he defectively created, would wind up there--and often for trivial reasons such as not believing that Jesus was really God who sent himself down to be born of a human, to be tortured and die on the cross. How can any working brain really believe that? If you need further errors in the Bible, you need only count up the hundreds/thousands of contradictions. However, you have to take care not to define contradictions out of existence as Norman Geisler and Gleason Archer have done!

In short, we reject the Bible because it is filled with historical, moral, logical (contradictions), prophetic, and scientific absurdities. It also has plenty of miracles that would immediately be dismissed by Christians if found in some other holy book. It is also poorly written and poorly organized. I trust we have given you enough material to think about. Unless you were acclimated to it, the central doctrine of Christianity would be totally bizarre.

algebe's picture
The Bible is an amalgam of

The Bible is an amalgam of translations across multiple languages. It's a collection of books selected from various sources. Many other books were arbitrarily omitted, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, for example. This checkered past ought to call the authenticity and reliability of the Bible into question. Christians brush off this criticism by saying it was written/translated/ compiled under divine guidance. Although the Bible is still used for swearing in court, it wouldn't be accepted as evidence in one.

ChristianAskingQuestions's picture
Ok thanks for all the

Ok thanks for all the information! Here are a few things I would say.

In response to the point about the Genesis creation story, I think that it is misrepresentative of Christianity to say that every Christian believes the story is literal. I personally define myself as a Progressive Creationist, meaning that I believe the account of Genesis to be allegorical, not literal, and that the days were not literal twenty-four hour days. I also believe in micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution.

About not having evidence for the occurrence of the Exodus, I would say that you are right. The Bible is lacking evidence for every single event recorded. However, there have been many other archeological discoveries to verify certain facts about the Bible. One is the Mernetptah Stele, an Egyptian tablet that mentions the nation of Israel by name.

I would agree with you also that certain people groups over time who have called themselves Christians have perpetrated a lot of violence. Personally, I would argue that these were not true Christians in the first place.

The fact that there are many denominations who have varrying opinions is interesting, but it does not mean that there is not one certain, Christian truth. Denominations simply disagree on non-orthodoxical ideas, not those pertaining to orthodoxy.

In terms of suffering and God contradicting Himself, if I'm being honest I do struggle with that sometimes. What I believe though is that, if God is actually a supremely perfect being, the idea of allowing suffering in the first pace would be abhorrent to Him if He did not think that allowing suffering could lead to something greater (an intimate relationship with Him).

algebe's picture
ChristianAsking

ChristianAsking
"the idea of allowing suffering in the first pace would be abhorrent to Him if He did not think that allowing suffering could lead to something greater (an intimate relationship with Him)."

Mother Teresa used to say something like that. I think it's a dangerous way of thinking, because it leads logically to the view that if suffering brings us closer to god we shouldn't even try to prevent it. And from there it's just a short step to the view that we should actually cause suffering in god's name.

Mother Teresa put the first of those ideas into practice. Examples of the second you'll find throughout history. I'm sure the inquisition torturers thought they were saving the souls of their victims. (They also eased their path into heaven by relieving their souls of the burden of wealth.)

As an atheist, I see suffering as something that we should avoid and prevent as much as possible. If someone, such as your god, has a plan that depends on suffering, they should go back to the drawing board, because that plan is immoral and evil.

Dave Matson's picture
ChristianAsking,

ChristianAsking,

I'll respond with a few comments.

Some of the people in Genesis do have allegorical roles, standing in for the origin of nations, farmers, hunters and other roles. But what of the Genesis I creation account? As I showed in an older post, it is the standard Middle Eastern version of the cosmos, which I call the Babylonian cosmos because the Babylonian mythology was prominent and the Hebrew authors may have received it from their stay in Babylon. Why would God's book describe the universe as a 3-layer cake: the heavenly dome (a solid structure supporting a heavenly ocean on which the stars are hung), the pancake earth supported by pillars, and the deep, primeval waters below? Why would the second creation account get the order reversed?

The days of the Genesis I creation account are set off with "evening" and "morning" which is how the Hebrew 24-hour day was defined. It would make no sense attaching that to lengthy periods of time!

Regarding evolution, perhaps you are not aware that the same mechanisms for microevolution work for macroevolution. I.e., natural selection works for both. The main difference is that macroevolution is associated with a divergent branching and subsequent isolation of segments of the population, which in the right environments can (over time) lead to new species, genera, families, etc. The evidence for macroevolution is massive. We could begin with the fossil record, go to DNA, look at vestigial organs, etc.

The problem with Exodus is that, according to the biblical account, a huge number of people left Egypt. But where is the massive evidence in the Sinai? Despite an intensive search, no evidence has turned up. Serious scholars now believe that the Israelites were originally part of the Canaanite population that became an independent movement in the highlands. (Their customs are very similar even as their temples were.) There was no exodus, no Moses. The imagined slaughter and conquest is mostly later mythology; many of the "conquered" cities didn't even exist at the time of conquest. When I claim that the Bible is full of historical errors I am not saying that it never gets any history right. The succession of the various kings, for example, is mostly legitimate even though slanted heavily.

A true Christian is someone who accepts Jesus. A Christian is defined by the religious doctrine he or she holds, not by his or her morality. It's like trying to say that true Americans are never bad! Unfortunately, Christianity takes in a lot of unsavory characters!

Christian sects disagree on just about everything, especially when Christianity first arose and had not yet had conformity forced on it by Emperor Constantine. A modern Christian such as yourself would be shocked at some of the doctrines that were popular shortly after the time of Christ.

Keep in mind that the worst atrocities can be swept away, whitewashed, if one is convinced that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God was responsible. Hitler had nothing on the god of the Bible! Rather than whitewashing moral outrage in the Bible, maybe you should consider the likelihood that such actions would be abhorrent to a moral being of the highest order. Maybe you should conclude that the Bible is not the work of a divine being! That seems much more reasonable than trying to justify moral rubbish.

Nyarlathotep's picture
What I believe though is that

ChristianAsking: What I believe though is that, if God is actually a supremely perfect being, the idea of allowing suffering in the first pace would be abhorrent to Him if He did not think that allowing suffering could lead to something greater (an intimate relationship with Him).

This leads to the conclusion that god is not all powerful. Think about it: by implying that he needs to allow suffering to lead to something greater; you have diminished him. An all powerful deity could any goal they wanted without allowing suffering (or anything else they don't want). It's the problem of evil all over again.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ChristianAsking

@ ChristianAsking

Take a look at these statistics. Are there any conclusions that can be draw from this?
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

watchman's picture
@Christianasking...

@Christianasking...

No....sorry...can't let that one slide....

"However, there have been many other archeological discoveries to verify certain facts about the Bible. "

No...this is a common lie employed by the faithfull....places have never been in dispute ...(although some should be)

No..on the whole archaeology has been systematically disassembling biblical narratives for the last 80 or more years...

IE. the wanderings (Kadesh-barnea),Jericho ,Ai & the united monarchy centred on Jerusalem.

ThePragmatic's picture
And even if there where

And even if there where plenty of archaeological evidence, it would lend no credibility to any of the supernatural claims in the bible.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.