Reply to “The Bible is unique”.
StefanGoosen - The Bible might be unique according to the Oxford dictionary. However that’s not the point is it, when your premise is that uniqueness is somehow superior. The problem with your argument is that all cultures have some unique features otherwise we would not be able to distinguish one culture from another. Thus, choosing any particular feature X as the one deemed to be superior will always be an arbitrary choice. Moreover, the biblical uniqueness argument falls apart because of the increasing number of Ancient Near East religious parallels and ideas found for what previously had been deemed to be unique to the Bible - so no the Bible is NOT unique.
The way you argued using experts for Bible endorsements in your article, that plead the veracity of the Bible is nothing other than the “argument from authority.” Your authority figures were/are devout and committed Christians; some lived pre Darwin and new nothing of evolution - which is the scientifically proven alternative to the Bible creation myth in Genesis. They suffer/ed from confirmation bias of the highest order. Therefore your argument using their biased opinions is fallacious and holds no water.
This is important because a Christian archaeologist like William Albright will look for evidence to support and fit in with preconceived ideas garnered from the Bible. We have to let the evidence speak for itself if you may. When archaeologists have done this a different story emerges; one that the Vatican and over thirty six thousand Christian sects have wisely kept from their adherents, for there own long term survival.
The archaeological pursuits of Finkelstein and Silberman have unearthed hither to unknown facts about the Hebrew Bible; that have blown the Bible and Christianity out of the water. The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. The Exodus never happened. If 600,000 migrants sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are NO traces of any significant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.
The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was a far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise. Those that had walls were taken out by earthquakes - a natural phenomenon.
While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt; during the time of David, Jerusalem was a little village and not the great capital of a prosperous nation as portrayed in the Bible.
Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. Much of the composition of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. Anyone who thinks the Bible is an accurate history book should definitely read “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman.
The Bible is only known today, because all other religions and sacred books where banned, persecuted and destroyed when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Obviously State religion will always persecute and extinguish the minority competing religions in order to gain total political and religious power. We all know this. Thus the argument of the Bible being so successful fails. Of course it is everywhere and still used today; it is the official Christian manual for life. The question should be is it really true, divine, infallible and inerrant or littered with error, contradictions and childish superstitious pre-science Bronze Age morality and ideas.
You mentioned Josh McDowell the author of “Evidence that demands a verdict”. Like most Christian apologists he relies on circular and emotional reasoning which seems to impress the converted but does nothing for sceptics. His new book has also been totally debunked. (*) There is no evidence. More recently he said that the internet is the greatest threat to Christianity. Josh is right to be worried about the internet destroying Christianity.
Wail as he might, Josh McDowell and his mind and information control machinery of the Christian juggernaut has been neutered once and for all. Gone too, happily, are the days when religious apparatchiks were in control of the flow of information. Gone also, ever so happily, are the times when right-minded and honest people who put truth before dogma were egregiously branded as blasphemers and heretics.
No longer is the Christian juggernaut regarded as the bastion of truth and fairness. The birth of the internet is the beginning of the end that Christians fear most. It is the end of Christianity, rather than the end of the world, an end to their contrived worldview. The internet is dangerous to their faith as they are not preaching to the converted. Here on MyNews24 if you publish faith based articles you will face scrutiny. And if Christianity can't survive because truth is around, it will flounder and perish.
There is no reason to believe that there actually is a God, Satan or heaven and hell. The Jews don't believe in Jesus. And no they were not blinded by Satan. They do not think much of God's grand New Testament plan because the Old Testament does not predict it. The Messiah was supposed to be a man like David and deliver them from Roman oppression.
Yet Paul explains that Jesus is the “second” Adam and died as the Son of God to atone for our sins, inherited apparently before we were born, by dying on a cruel cross. The book of Revelation can be interpreted so many ways, it is absurd. So can all the so called Messianic prophecies. Genesis obviously wasn't literal since biological and galactic evolution and the Big Bang is true. So what does it mean metaphorically speaking? The failed apocalyptic prophecies in the NT reveal that Christianity is a fraud, no matter how Christians try to deny it, Jesus said he would come back in his generation and did not.