Terry Hurlbut #fundie

Terry Hurlbut #fundie examiner.com

The Bible is the most exact "Holy Book" of any of the world's widely-practiced religions. The Qu'ran is mostly a collection of high-flying oratory; the writings of Buddha are a collection of essays on how to live ("Noble Eightfold Paths," etc.). But the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals, including genealogical annals (like the Annals of Adam and the Annals of Noah), royal annals (the Books of the Kings), and more specific historical documents (like the Annals of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which include the Log of Noah's Ark). Contrary to Giberson's dismissal of them, these records make the most highly specific claims of historical events of any "holy book," and indeed closely rival contemporary "secular" histories in the specificity of the claims they make. And unlike those other records, the Bible is scrupulously honest about the causes of the rise, and fall, of the military and mercantile empire known initially as the United Kingdom of Israel and then as the Kingdom of Judah, as well as of the breakaway "Kingdom of Israel" to Judah's north.

54 comments

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

So the mind numbingly long lists of lineages are a selling point for the bible, huh Terry? Okay then, check out the lineages for Jesus that Matthew and Luke give. They do not agree: one or both of them has to be wrong.

And please, spare me the tired old apology that one is listing Mary's lineage and the other is listing Joseph's. There is nothing in the bible to support that assertion. Besides, the ancient Hebrews did not record lineages for both parents. And don't tell me that one or the other list includes names that have changed or nicknames unless you have some solid documentation (or even a bible verse or two) to support this claim.

Or, you can just admit that you've never actually read the bible and you are just parroting what other apologists have said. If it makes it any easier, you can start by admitting that you've never read the Qu'ran or the writings of the Buddha. Its okay, I'm willing to bet that none of the other conservapedia "experts" have read them either.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"The Bible is the most exact "Holy Book" of any of the world's widely-practiced religions."

Exact in what way?

"The Qu'ran is mostly a collection of high-flying oratory; the writings of Buddha are a collection of essays on how to live ("Noble Eightfold Paths," etc.)."

And?

"But the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals, including genealogical annals (like the Annals of Adam and the Annals of Noah), royal annals (the Books of the Kings), and more specific historical documents (like the Annals of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which include the Log of Noah's Ark)."

None of which can be verified in any useful way and many of which have glaring errors that any non-biased historian of the era and cultures of the region would gladly point out to you.

"Contrary to Giberson's dismissal of them, these records make the most highly specific claims of historical events of any "holy book," and indeed closely rival contemporary "secular" histories in the specificity of the claims they make."

Yes, but it's the veracity of those claims that is important, not how specific they are.

"And unlike those other records, the Bible is scrupulously honest about the causes of the rise, and fall, of the military and mercantile empire known initially as the United Kingdom of Israel and then as the Kingdom of Judah, as well as of the breakaway "Kingdom of Israel" to Judah's north."

Except that it's fucking wrong in what it records.

old comment by Prayster

Prayer For The Book Of Books

Dear God in Heaven, thanks for giving us, your poor servants, that magnificent tome of Godly inspiration, the Bible.
We thank thee O Lord for such an accurate scientific text without which we may well have floundered as a kind.
O my good dear God, it's absolutely brill, we thank thee ever so much for the wonderful Theory of Evolution without which we may have been as dim bulbs.

We also thank thee O Mighty Smiter for the world's greatest history book.
My dear Super Lord, the world's history of its tribes is laid out for all to see in a clear and precise, er ..interpretive fashion, in which it is conclusively revealed in a kind of delightfully haphazard way that ... er, ... Anyway, thanks.

Please heed our prayers O Supreme God of White Men, and let my team win on Saturday. I will know that you fully appreciate me when you let my team win. Thanks O Wonder God.

Amen

old comment by Canadiest

@Prof. Bill Hill said "My dear sir, have you ever wondered why the scientific west has the Bible as its main textual reference,"

The Bible has lost it's influence since the dark ages of Christian rule, Europe has become increasingly Atheistic since then and this is when the advancements have been made.

America has become increasingly more religious over the last 60 years and has been falling behind technologically, mostly due to the Evangelical and Baptists brands hatred of real knowledge. Look to nearly all of Americas advancements in this time and you'll find Europeans, Asians or Russians behind them.

As your country is the result of immigration from all over the world you'd think American (and Canadians)would get this.

old comment by Skyknight

Right, I'm getting sick to undeath of all this commentary about "four-legged with wings" being an automatic inaccuracy. You do realize that if it has six legs, it already has four legs, right? Just has a fifth and sixth, as well.

Basically, I think we're just looking at an idiom with regards to "four-legged" (i.e. better thought of as "at least four legs"); a quick catch-all for insects and lizards, bears, etc. Unless there's an actual reference in the Bible to something (besides an angel or the like...) with six, eight, etc. legs. The idea of a rabbit chewing the cud IS good for bringing up that there are scientific flaws in there. Insects described as four-legged...I'd sooner chalk that up to Hebrew idiom than scientific error (you think they didn't see legs five and six?!).