From the archives: Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable

Now that I’m at Patheos, I expect there will be quite a few readers of Patheos blogs coming to my blog, totally unfamiliar with previous incarnations of The Uncredible Hallq. So I’m going to link to some of my old posts, as part of the extended get-to-know-you process here.

Today’s piece: Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable. Here’s the teaser: 

It seems that most people have gotten the word that the books of the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) may well have been written centuries after the events in them supposedly happened, so they’re not really historically trustworthy.

Many Christians, though, seem to just assume that the New Testament is historically reliable, even when arguing with atheists. I’ve experienced this personally. It’s as if they expect atheists to agree, without any argument, that the Bible can be trusted.

So let me say this very clearly: the vast majority of non-Christians (and some Christians!) don’t regard the Bible as historically reliable. To explain why they don’t, I’m going to give a run down of Biblical scholarship 101.

Read the whole thing.

"Atomsk - Yes, I think the way I feel about it is normal. I think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"The Scientific Method works by testing a hypothesis for implications, contradictions, and ridiculous/false results. You ..."

Pulling some devastating punches: a review ..."
"A bit OT: Found this article and it is imo closely related to the issue ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"Just one thing for now, because it takes quite a bit of time to think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment