Exodus story reveals Bible's dishonesty
By Marc McDonald
Although some might be loath to admit it, many educated adults (even non-fundamentalist Christians) are aware that the Bible is perhaps not the best source of history.
I mean, how many people still take the story of Adam and Eve seriously any more? But I suspect that most people are still unaware of just how totally wrong the Bible is as far as anything remotely approaching real history.
This wouldn't be that big a deal, except for the fact that so many people take the Bible very seriously as a profound book of wisdom. The massive and growing population of Fundamentalists continue to believe the Bible is nothing less than the divinely-inspired, inerrant Word of God.
But the Bible is profoundly wrong in its historical accuracy. The Exodus story (now the subject of a big-budget Hollywood movie by Ridley Scott) is a good example. Some people might question certain fantastic aspects of the story (like the parting of the Red Sea). But I think most people accept that there must be at least a kernel of truth to the story's main points (such as that there really was once a big enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt). Many people continue to believe that this has been confirmed in the archaeological record.
But there's a big problem to this belief: it's simply not true. Nothing in the Exodus story has ever been confirmed by any serious archaeologist, despite long quests to try to confirm anything remotely related to the Bible story.
The fact is, even many Bible apologists have quietly abandoned their quest to try to confirm the Exodus story. The problem is that there is simply not a shred of historical evidence that any of this really happened. Forget wild tales like the parting of the Red Sea -- there isn't even the slightest bit of evidence that there was an Exodus captivity in the first place.
This whole story is a fairy tale. The fact is, the story of Exodus is one big lie. And if this well-known Bible story is a lie, then, really, how truthful is any aspect of the Bible?
The Bible is a dishonest book, period.
A lot of agnostics spend their time attacking the absurdities, contradictions and sheer nonsense of the Bible's philosophical teachings. But if they're trying to convince believers, they're wasting their time. The Bible is so vague and archaic that the sort of people who take it seriously are never going to be dissuaded via that approach.
What agnostics should be doing is attacking the historicity of the Bible itself. People should be aware of just how many of these Bible tales lack the slightest shred of historical evidence to support them.
It's time for humanity to move beyond the fairy tales, nonsense and superstition of absurd books like the Bible.
In much of Europe, this is already taking place. Sadly, in America, large numbers of people continue to take the Bible seriously (and try to ram their twisted beliefs down the throats of other people).
(Cross-posted at BeggarsCanBeChoosers.)
Although some might be loath to admit it, many educated adults (even non-fundamentalist Christians) are aware that the Bible is perhaps not the best source of history.
I mean, how many people still take the story of Adam and Eve seriously any more? But I suspect that most people are still unaware of just how totally wrong the Bible is as far as anything remotely approaching real history.
This wouldn't be that big a deal, except for the fact that so many people take the Bible very seriously as a profound book of wisdom. The massive and growing population of Fundamentalists continue to believe the Bible is nothing less than the divinely-inspired, inerrant Word of God.
But the Bible is profoundly wrong in its historical accuracy. The Exodus story (now the subject of a big-budget Hollywood movie by Ridley Scott) is a good example. Some people might question certain fantastic aspects of the story (like the parting of the Red Sea). But I think most people accept that there must be at least a kernel of truth to the story's main points (such as that there really was once a big enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt). Many people continue to believe that this has been confirmed in the archaeological record.
But there's a big problem to this belief: it's simply not true. Nothing in the Exodus story has ever been confirmed by any serious archaeologist, despite long quests to try to confirm anything remotely related to the Bible story.
The fact is, even many Bible apologists have quietly abandoned their quest to try to confirm the Exodus story. The problem is that there is simply not a shred of historical evidence that any of this really happened. Forget wild tales like the parting of the Red Sea -- there isn't even the slightest bit of evidence that there was an Exodus captivity in the first place.
This whole story is a fairy tale. The fact is, the story of Exodus is one big lie. And if this well-known Bible story is a lie, then, really, how truthful is any aspect of the Bible?
The Bible is a dishonest book, period.
A lot of agnostics spend their time attacking the absurdities, contradictions and sheer nonsense of the Bible's philosophical teachings. But if they're trying to convince believers, they're wasting their time. The Bible is so vague and archaic that the sort of people who take it seriously are never going to be dissuaded via that approach.
What agnostics should be doing is attacking the historicity of the Bible itself. People should be aware of just how many of these Bible tales lack the slightest shred of historical evidence to support them.
It's time for humanity to move beyond the fairy tales, nonsense and superstition of absurd books like the Bible.
In much of Europe, this is already taking place. Sadly, in America, large numbers of people continue to take the Bible seriously (and try to ram their twisted beliefs down the throats of other people).
(Cross-posted at BeggarsCanBeChoosers.)
Labels: Christianity, Judaism, religion, The Bible
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:26 PM
4 Comments:
I think that a good place to start with dedicated fundamentalists is to point out that there is no "Bible"--there's just a translation based on a bunch of old texts--all of which disagree about various details and in some cases major points in theology. Then there's the obvious problem of actual factual disagreements in different parts of the Bible (including the Gospels). Why would anyone in their right mind think that an old book like the Bible would be accurate about anything. People should certainly study it but there are plenty of other old texts that should be looked at as well. I'm concerned about the latest Hollywood drivel based on Biblical stories. A blockbuster movie doesn't make any of the events more likely.
By
Karlo, at 1:08 AM
Marc,
Either you have not read the Bible, or your reading has been without understanding. But that's not the point.
Your article is BLASPHEMOUS
If you say Bible is a lie / dishonest - you have called Quran a lie.. cause it contains the same creation account.. of Adam & Eve. and has a similar account of Moses, Exodus and Pharaoh etc.
By calling the Bible dishonest and a lie.. you have called Quran a lie too... and now I challenge you to go tell that to a muslim / write a blog about it
It is easy to take potshots at the Bible. When you know no christian would physically harm you.
By
mark, at 8:56 AM
Hi Mark, thanks for the comment.
I always get a bit queasy when I hear about all these mean Muslims out there who are supposedly wanting to do me harm. Yeah, and they also "hate my freedoms," right? I mean, if Bush said it, it must be true.
The fact is, I live in a country that has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children civilians on its hands in Bush's war for oil. And every day, many more Muslims are slaughtered via cowardly U.S. drone strikes that kill god only knows who. How many Muslims were tortured under Bush? And we have the gall to claim that they're the savages.
You are painting all Muslims with the same broad brush. The fact is, most Muslims are moderates. As a matter of fact, I have Muslim friends and acquaintances. And yes, I have told them to their face that I feel their religion (like all religions) is based on lies. (Actually, it was the Christians who I spoke to who threw the biggest hissy fits over my comments on religion).
Listen to an interview sometime with Malala Yousafza, the brave 17-year-old Pakistani woman. As she points out, not all Muslims are extremist crazies. Yousafza has more guts and integrity (and smarts) than virtually any U.S. politician.
re:
>>When you know no christian would
>>physically harm you
This is laughable. From the Crusades to the "witch" burnings to the Spanish Inquisition to the various wars of religion, Christianity has the blood of millions of people on its hands. It, like all religions, is a cancer on the human race.
By
Marc McDonald, at 10:06 PM
Exodus was a very hard pill for me to swallow as a Christian. History reveals that most of this events ocurrs by the forces of nature, and the killing of the very first born was a slap on my face , why a loving God killed the innocent first born of the Egyptians, why not?
God took his beloved son life to show how much love he has for us and commanded man not to kill man, because he is the only one with his divine power to decide when is your last day on Earth, regardless of your race and beliefs.
By
eequihua, at 6:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home