Interesting! Pretty obviously some sloppy science but I'm not sure that's a debunk. For something in the Bible to turn out to be based on real events with religious overtones added. Religions are always poaching from history, to find some truth to a story in a religious work is not surprising, nor is it a confirmation of the religious aspects of it.
That would seem to raise serious questions about the veracity of anything biblical, then. So if you discounted any evidence in the bible, based on the supposed dubiousness of other things there, what's left to build a case on.
It still provides limited credibility to the idea that the Bible can be used as a historic document. Their teacher seemed to be using it to say the Bible is literally true, which is a ridiculous argument as Gilgamesh has examples of people unrelated to Noah surviving.
Louis, this sounds like a conspiracy theory. A huge, controversial claim with misleading points, a belief that everyone is biased yet only you are "looking at the facts", a fervent desire to keep arguing on a technology-focused forum, and an ignorance of the links shared in the thread so far.
If you really want to set the record straight, the place to do so is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books. You can edit the page and see what the theologians and experts on Wikipedia have to say about a frontend enthusiast's view on Biblical Historicity.
I think if that were true there would not be enough controversy in the field to write an article like this.
I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
I don't believe a single translated passage in the Old Testament book of Genesis captures the entirety of the Christian worldview on this particular subject.
The Bible is not evidence. It's a bunch of stories written down by a bunch of people, written well after any of the supposed events they wrote about. Perhaps some of those stories can be corroborated by actual (physical) evidence, but Exodus is not one of them.
> By the reaction of the relevant parties you can see who accepts humility and science.
Guilty as charged...so take my bias with a grain of salt...but this article really doesn't present any science to support the title or claim.
It basically makes a bunch of assumptions about literacy levels and some how makes a massive leap to when the bible was actually written down in it's present form.
The lack of evidence has never been proof of something not existing.
The author writes...
One of the longstanding arguments for why the main body of biblical literature was not written down in anything like its present form until after the destruction and exile of 586 B.C. is that before then there was not enough literacy or enough scribes to support such a huge undertaking.
It's hardly science, and I wonder if your bias is also prevalent in your post.
If this post is misinformation, which you are asking for evidence of, why don't you refute it, as the article suggests?
I disagree that the Bible is misinformation now; it's historical literature - a very long novel, much like other fantasy novels. The same is true for the other stories you mention.
If you're going to tell us that the Bible is not composed of historically accurate accounts by contemporary writers, that's really nothing new.
I wonder about the camel thing, though. Did the authors/editors of the texts consider camels ubiquitous? Did they know that camels were very special and wanted to mention it? Was it a mistranslation?
It could be real, could be fake. Theirs lots of evidence for it being fake which the new work doesnt adequately deal with.
If they are real, it poses problems for modern critical scholarship because the words for god are not sympathetic with modern theories and establishes a date for deuteronomy far earlier than modern critical scholarship supports.
On the other hand, they're very likely a forgery - the motivation for the forger would be to validate traditional dates for deuteronomy vs modern critical dates that are much earlier.
> As with most of the stories in the bible, they tied them into some real events to ground them to the people, to myths of the age, then wove into them a fantasy story perhaps with enough grounding to reality to state "based on a true story", but probably not even that
To the extent that the bible is inaccurate, it's certainly less a conspiracy to mislead and more a gradual loss of accuracy due to being passed down generations orally before eventually being written down.
EDIT: I’m perplexed that this is a controversial opinion. What evidence is there that supports a conspiracy explanation?
reply