Atheists: Do many of you realize that the Bible isn't one book?

Just because there are 66 books,

it doesn't mean that one has 'more chance' to be real than the other

And yes, I was aware of all of those facts.

Your additional details shows the problem. How do you know that every single book was meant to be truthful? What if the author(s) were deliberately writing fiction and as such it sounds real, just like Harry Potter? How would you tell the difference? We know people had the capacity for complex fiction and I'm pretty sure neither greek nor hebrew has specific grammar for lies/fiction.

That being said, yes there is history in the bible, but very few of the books have been verified as history, and take your own advice... just because there is some contain truth doesn't mean every book is true.

"Most of us" do no such thing.

In fact, it's the religious bible believers who do that, not us.

"Basically, don't you think common sense dictates that, to reject the entire Bible, you must prove that each of the 66 books is not a credible source in its own context for its own reasons? "

No, that's not only not 'common sense,' it's a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. The bible stories make claims, those claims are worthless without evidence to show them correct.

Oh, by the way, your claim about when the "gospels" were written is false.

There is a tiny bit of credible (meaning it's been verified by evidence) historical information in the bible. Some city names, some names of kings and nations, etc. But not much. And a great deal more has already been shown false by more than ample evidence.

I reject as worthless ALL claims that have no supporting evidence.

Seems like you've drawn a lot of fire, here, Macadamia. Next thing you know, they'll be calling you a nut! But usually, a tempest such as this is caused by touching some nerves. Let me see if I can help address some of the defenses offered by the dissenters.

We see, for example, the criticism that the number of books does not, alone, suggest that by the mere force of numbers, one of them is bound to be right. And that's TRUE - the weight of numbers has nothing to do with credibility. However, the criticism discloses the evident intellectual deficits of your detractors. You DID NOT SAY the number of books was related to the accuracy of any one of them. What you referred to was books that were INDEPENDENTLY AUTHORED, which books plausibly present a credible historical source. And that is exactly correct, and, in fact, is what scholars rely upon to establish the historicity of the texts. They are compared to one another, and to other data. The purpose is not to establish that the content itself is true, but rather that it is authentic.

Someone has suggested all the writers were mentally retarded. The characterization seems probably to be a self-reference.

One person suggested that scholars agree most of the material comes from pagan sources. Well, we might argue that SOME of the material refers to pagans, but the identity of the the Old Testament with the history and culture of the Hebrews is not disputed in scholarship. No doubt, the ancient Hebrews were informed by pagan influences -as they were by civilized society- but it is flatly wrong to imply that the Bible is basically a reprint of of pagan folk tales.

Now as to the yammering about being credible, and the "truth." Credibility requires some definition, here. Is the Bible a credible source of information about God? Arguable. But is it a credible collection of what the writers, and others in their culture, believed or imagined? Probably. Certainly none of the writers knew their work would one day be presented in a single book. So, they obviously were not writing for our benefit. And, as you say, the books were written to be taken as truth. Which is vastly different than saying that they ARE true, "on the facts."

Your point, overall, was to address the commonly held idea that the Bible was produced as a single work, at a point in time. Many DO seem to assume this. You have adequately demonstrated the long stretches of time over which the material was written, and the multiple authors and sources. Even though most have gone into attack mode, they at least appear to be better informed about the thing which is so often a target of their misguided criticism and woefully under developed intellect.

Do you realise most believers claim the entire bible was written by your god?

"Basically, don't you think common sense dictates that, to reject the entire Bible, you must prove that each of the 66 books is not a credible source in its own context for its own reasons?"

No, I don't.

If you have a book that combines facts with fiction, is that overall book fact or fiction?

A lot of those books are simply repeats in the Old Test as well. Judges repeats Kings, that sort of thing.

As for credibility in each book, that's what scholars are for. And most of the best scholars agree that a majority of the books are simply stories taken from pagan cultures. There's no reason for me to go over ever little letter in each book when historians and scholars have already shown that the Bible doesn't really have much creditibility.

You do realize that a majority of the myths in the world don't have authors... but almost all other writings do. So I see no reason NOT to place the Bible in the category of myths when that is what has been shown over and over again.

re:

But most of you seem to imagine that the Bible was a single book written by one or two bronze age goat herders.

^

MOST do not, in fact. I've been on here long enough and I do not glean that from atheists.

And its usually atheists who know more about the bible than religious folk.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-...

Doesn't make any of it true, though.

re:Does it really seem plausible that out of 66 independently authored books from history, not one of them is a credible historical source?

^

Given the time it was written is, yes, highly plausible that its just mythology.

re:

Basically, don't you think common sense dictates that, to reject the entire Bible, you must prove that each of the 66 books is not a credible source in its own context for its own reasons?

^

No, all I have to do is ask for actual proof of just one.

Your bias is overwhelming.

.

Yes I realise it's a collection of books

As for a credible historical source, its a religious text and so any actual historical events included will be highly mytholgised.

I don't reject the Bible as a religious book, but it's not my religion and though some of the stories are interesting there's no reason to take any of them at face value. They are interesting records of the religious stories told at the time of their writing.

Much like any ancient religious texts, after generations have tinkered with them to make them more suitable to their changing beliefs, any historical data has to mined out of them rather than just accepted.

I was once a Christian and yes, I do know the Bible is made of many books. The problem with your Bible is not that flaws have been found in a few parts but that they deal with the existence of a mystical being. This is a flaw that exists in all books of the bible. This is like if you took all the books about unicorns and compiled them into one huge book. This is why it, and all other text that spawn religions are flawed.

As far as books about unicorns being written for fiction, what is better, writing a book of fiction that is suppose to be taken as fiction, or writing a book that is fiction that is suppose to be taken as truth? Because that kind of sounds like a lie to me.

Yeah, I knew. I wonder how many Christians know that since so many Americans who are Christians can't even locate USA on the world map.

Also, just because it "comes in different genres, written by at least 40 men, and consists of 66 individual books" doesn't mean anything. Who says the authors weren't mentally retarded?

It sounds like you're admitting that not ALL of the Bible's 66 books are credible historical sources. I agree 100%.