The Bible. Myth or Reality?

As an atheist, I see the Bible as a collection of books that have a little good, lots of bad, and not nearly enough sex.

Until someone presents some genuinely credible evidence that the Abrahamic deity actually exists, I'm tentatively treating it as Bronze Age myths and subsequent accretions designed by human authors to collect and keep political and economic powers in the hands of a theocratic oligarchy.

You are so intelligent! I think you myth the point.

The reality of the Bible is reflected in the World of today . Human nature is the same as it's been for thousands of years and will continue to be, till the end of all time.

As Koheleth has written:

"Only that shall happen,
Which has happened,
Only that occur
Which has occurred;
There is nothing new
Beneath the sun!"

Ecclesiastes ( Chapter 1)

I am schooled in religion, and as an Agnostic I couldnt agree more . I used to argue literal readers should use their God-given intelligence but I have found many to be as dumb as science worshiping Atheists .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher

Scripture is derivative, all scripture. As an example, the flood myth in the so-called bible very likely refers to the Great Deluge story in the Gilgamesh Epic. Gilgamesh might actually have existed, more than 4000 years ago, a "king" of the city of Uruk, an Akkadian city. The stories about him are preposterous, but that doesn't mean he wasn't based on an individual who really esixted.

Whether or not, there is evidence that the flood myth is older than Akkadian civilization. Ryan and Pitman of Columbia University published research in 1996 claiming that the flood myth is based on a catastrophic event more than 7000 years ago when the waters of the Mediterranean broke through land barriers and created the Black Sea. That would certainly have been an event which haunted the survivors and their descendants.

The biblical account has all the hallmarks of a superstitious repetition of a borrowed story. The Pentateuch was revised and re-written after the Babylonian Captivity, an event which is fairly certain to have occurred based on no-Judaic sources. If you're going to swallow the phony-baloney claim that all scirpture is divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant, the Genesis account of the flood is going to give you fits, with its many absurdities and contradictions.

The so-called prophecies during the Babylonian Captivity of the destruction of Babylon are another example of silly distorions and mental gymnastics. In order to claim that the prophecies were fulfilled, it is necessary to completely ignore the details of the alleged prophecies, and then claim that the withering away of Babylon, 1500 years later, constitutes the fulfillment of the prophecies.

The so-called new testament is full of all manner of bullshit, too. The account of the census ordered by Augustus is complete bullshit. and we know that because Tiberius had several huge monumental inscriptions erected to detail the great deads of Augustus--including the lustrums (not censuses) which he ordered. The idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to the place of his birth is preposterous, too. Pontius Pilate was a prefect, not a proconsul. The office of proconsul as a sub-provincial governor did not exist at that time. No other source alleges an earthquake and an eclipse at any time near the years when the putative Jesus was allegedly executed. (Pilate, as a prefect, had no authority to try or execute anyone.

The list of absurdities seems endless. It's not just bullshit in the so-called bible, either. There are any number of hilarious bullshit stories about Siddhartha/Buddha, from the fairy tale of his birth onward. It's in the nature of religious superstitions and their writings, recorded by superstitious and very likely cynical men to dominate ignorant and foolish peasants.

True that. One of the ways that Buddhologists try to distinguish which suttas are older or younger, or corrupted vs well-preserved is by the amount of outlandish embellishment (read: bullshit) in them. The Sutta Nipata, for example, contains very little BS and is considered to contain among the oldest extant suttas. Therein can be found the most skeptical of the teachings attributed to Sid, too. (That's probably why it's not as popular with the laity or the monks who capitalize on the woo found elsewhere to embiggen their purses.) The Dhammapada is, in my opinion, pretty much rhetorical BS from beginning to end.

Using the Pesher technique, "walking on water" is using the jetty to go out to a boat to baptise people without getting your feet wet . "Raising from the dead" is lifting a ex-communication . Turning water into wine is allowing the peasants to drink wine with the upper class instead of drinking water outside the main celebration area . And so on...

There are no miracles in the Bible, it is the priests recording events in a manner so that the stupid can believe too .

The Bible is true as far as it goes, but it leaves out any sort of a prehistory of the planet prior to Adam and Eve. It's basically a kind of a family album. There is an interesting claim which I've seen on the Thunderbolts.info forum that Adam/Eve and Cro Magnon man were separate saltations separated by as much as 30,000 years, genetically more or less the same but the original cultures and technology being totally different.

www.cosmosincollision.com

The word Adam is from the Sumerian word Adapa which means all of mankind . So the creation of Adam was the creation of ALL men and women . Some later writer felt the need to justify women as not equal by writing in the story of women's creation, probably from another Mesopotamian creation story .

Your message shows ignorance the most.

Adam in Hebrew means red-clay. Because was formed from clay dirt. Simple.

And the best of the best. It is more and more accepted that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, this is to say, dinosaurs didn't pass to extinction but degenerate into a new form of species.

The Bible has been vindicated with this scientific acceptance, because from long ago, it has been discovered that T-Rex had feathers, meaning that was a bird. And the Bible establishes that after grass and tress, fish and birds were created.

The bible still is the best book of ancient history.

The embiggening of purses is always a major factor, and a telltale sign of manure spreading.

Purse embiggenment, bad (or no) hair and spotlight hogging. Often accompanied by sex scandals.

History is the story of writing, so literally, history started with the invention of writing . When does the Bible say history started ? Where does it mention dinosaurs and where does it mention radio-chemical treatment for cancers, or for that matter where does it describe radio-magnetic imaging ?

Give to God what is God's, and give to science what is science's .

The Hebrew word came after the word Adapa was taken from Sumerian . Words change meaning all the time let alone when they are taken over by a new language . Are you an Historical Linguist ?

What a crappy ignorance of yours. T-Rex was a bird and is mentioned in the bible as being created BEFORE man.

YOU call it it "dinosaur", but in the bible clearly and without doubts is called bird.

History started with oral repetition of former events generation after generation. When scripture was invented, these oral records were written. So you are completely wrong with your assumptions.

On the other hand, do you have any ancient record -other than the bible- mentioning radio-chemical treatment for cancer or radio-magnetic imaging? And as a curiosity, what the hell radio-chemical treatment and radio-magnetic imaging have to do with ancient history?

[

Are you?

Show your source, I bet it is easy to debunk, because it has no factual evidence but surely is a mere conjecture.

I am impressed by the level of cromulence to which this discussion has ascended.

Er, descended?

It seems I have to point out the obvious to you . Where in your record of ancient history does it mention science because you are using science every day of your life but when it comes to the Bible you argue science got it wrong . Which is it ? Is science right or wrong in your twisted mind ?


https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/andreasen_adamadapa_auss.pdf


Look at all the bombastic fear in your posts..

Why are you so vehemently afraid ? You dont believe in God do you ?

By definition, History started with writing . Look it up . Perhaps you mean pre-History but you are so full of non factual statements it is hard to follow what you mean .

Wrong . Is that what the twit who stands out in front of your congregation told you ? The etymology of Adam is itself uncertain. Is it "soil"/"ground," ('adama) or "red" ('edom), or "blood" (dam)? But you claim to "know" it is a combined meaning of two words . Will proof be forthcoming ? You cant just imagine things you know, you need proof .