Bible more reliable than other ancient books?

[Zixinus]

Or perhaps it never happened at all.

Slaves escaping their masters never happened? Doesn't automatically mean that every word is true. Just that it might have happened.

So there's no proof that it ever happened. Right.

And we thus do not view it as an event that have passed with factual assurance. Just that the idea is not closed off as a possibility.

So where's the actual proof that it ever happened at all?

Where's the proof of some other event in some other mythology? It's a myth. The grain of reality it was based upon was most likely a real-world event, and the story is exaggerated and twisted for storytelling purposes until it only vaguely describes the event it was based upon, if not lost at all. That's why its a myth. It doesn't really matter for us now does it?

But attempting to use the Bible as proof of a massive slave uprising and 40 year trek across the Sinai? Absurd.

Who says its proof? And who says that its an assured proof? Sure, the Bible contains allot of bullshit, but there are references and places it describes that are real, and it does references events that has happened, if not the way the Bible tells us.

I'm not seeing any evidence as to why it should be treated as more reliable given all of its hilarious contradictions and inaccuracies. Did I mention the massive translation and retranslations along with the fact that most of its documents were written several hundred years after the events they described occurred by multiple people? Yeah, real reliable source there.

I think the argument is that it shouldn't be treated as LESS reliable, although it doesn't meant that it is MORE reliable. It's a book of fables, and from a historian standpoint, that's what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[General Zod]

Again, no-one is arguing that is should be"more" reliable. Just that it's a historical source like other historical sources. The bits which describe contempory events are quite good, the bits which describe events hundreds of years ago - like any such texts. In fact often when there are contradictions, by identifying the shared elements we can detect earlier strata, divergences and which parts of the narrative are more authentic.

Most of the events described in the Bible were written a few hundred years after the fact. I'm failing to see why we should treat it with any more legitimacy than, say, the vast majority of Homer's works of fiction.

Well, almost all the Bible is avaliable in the original languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. And as I mentioned above, the multiple sources can assist us in looking for the more historical elements.

Until you run into snags like having no evidence whatsoever outside of the Bible to verify an event ever happened.

[Zixinus]

Most of the events described in the Bible were written a few hundred years after the fact. I'm failing to see why we should treat it with any more legitimacy than, say, the vast majority of Homer's works of fiction.

Actually, they don't. And Homer's work of fiction may not be as fictional as you think, at least according to my history teacher. I recall that there was a guy who was able to find a city that fit the geographic description of Troy and it has been burned down multiple times. Doesn't mean that there was a battle of gods.

[General Zod]

Slaves escaping their masters never happened? Doesn't automatically mean that every word is true. Just that it might have happened.

If it can't even get simple facts like massive slave uprisings right why should its legitimacy be taken seriously?

And we thus do not view it as an event that have passed with factual assurance. Just that the idea is not closed off as a possibility.

Except for the millions of Bible thumpers who actually do view it as fact.

Where's the proof of some other event in some other mythology?

The City of Troy was eventually found after hundreds of years of being considered a myth.

Who says its proof? And who says that its an assured proof? Sure, the Bible contains allot of bullshit, but there are references and places it describes that are real, and it does references events that has happened, if not the way the Bible tells us.

Salem's Lot references real events. Does that mean we should treat it as an accurate historical source?

I think the argument is that it shouldn't be treated as LESS reliable, although it doesn't meant that it is MORE reliable. It's a book of fables, and from a historian standpoint, that's what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tell that to the millions of Bible Thumpers that feel otherwise.

[Zixinus]

If it can't even get simple facts like massive slave uprisings right why should its legitimacy be taken seriously?

IT'S A BOOK OF FABLES! STORIES PEOPLE TELL TO EACH OTHER FOR FUN! NOT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS! ITS LIKE EXPECTING A STAR TREK EPISODE TO HAVE 100% CORRECT SCIENCE OR A HOUSE EPISODE TO BE A PORTRAYER OF REALITY.

Except for the millions of Bible thumpers who actually do view it as fact.

They also view the existence of an imaginary deity as factual. And a whole, long list of other things that I am sure you are familiar with.

The City of Troy was eventually found after hundreds of years of being considered a myth.

Does that mean that the Illias is true to every word?

No, just that there was a city named Troy, and it was raided by Greeks. Nothing else. Might not be for that damn woman though.

Salem's Lot references real events. Does that mean we should treat it as an accurate historical source?

Even when attempted to be objective, there is no historical source that is fully accurate.

You seem to assume that it must be either a fully true or not true at all. It is not that simple, especially for historians, who rely on biased accounts anyway.

When it comes to ancient history, a book of fables is often better then nothing, because fables reference places, events, people that did in fact, exist. Doesn't mean that the fables are true.

Tell that to the millions of Bible Thumpers that feel otherwise.

Tell the fact to the millions of Bible Thumpers that they worship a deity that does not exist and they have poured effort and money for an organization that is essentially a scam-pyramid.

If someone takes the Bible as a 100% accurate source of history, then they are obviously wrong and not proper historians.

That does not mean that it is 100% wrong. Grains of information and references may be correct to some extent, enough to be considered occasionally a puzzle piece to give a more complete view of history. If a puzzle piece is proven wrong by more objective evidence, then it is obviously wrong and forfeited.

[General Zod]

IT'S A BOOK OF FABLES! STORIES PEOPLE TELL TO EACH OTHER FOR FUN! NOT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS! ITS LIKE EXPECTING A STAR TREK EPISODE TO HAVE 100% CORRECT SCIENCE OR A HOUSE EPISODE TO BE A PORTRAYER OF REALITY.

Does that mean that the Illias is true to every word?

No, just that there was a city named Troy, and it was raided by Greeks. Nothing else. Might not be for that damn woman though.

You're clearly missing my point. If the most you can get out of it is generalities, then it shouldn't be treated with any more seriousness than contemporary fiction.

Even when attempted to be objective, there is no historical source that is fully accurate.

You seem to assume that it must be either a fully true or not true at all. It is not that simple, especially for historians, who rely on biased accounts anyway.

Please, feel free to use more straw with that rebuttal. My point is that if something is wildly inaccurate then it should be considered no more accurate than fiction.

When it comes to ancient history, a book of fables is often better then nothing, because fables reference places, events, people that did in fact, exist. Doesn't mean that the fables are true.

Except when there's more reliable sources out there and absolutely nothing corroborates these fables.

That does not mean that it is 100% wrong. Grains of information and references may be correct to some extent, enough to be considered occasionally a puzzle piece to give a more complete view of history. If a puzzle piece is proven wrong by more objective evidence, then it is obviously wrong and forfeited.

Clearly you're going for idiot of the day award here. If something makes a claim of an event, there should be proof to verify this outside of that claim. There is little to no evidence for proof of the vast majority of the Bible's claims. Thus, its legitimacy as a historical source is questionable at best.