Google
 




Share |


Previous Page                      Back to Table of Contents                        Next Page

 

 

Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions





Argument # 4: The Bible is a reliable historical document because it agrees with recorded history and archaeological evidence.

 

This is one of the silliest arguments based on sophomoric logic that even a juvenile could detect.  Some apologists argue that because the Bible contains actual historical places such as the Red Sea, the ruins of the destroyed city of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. that this validates its reliability and authority. 

 

This is simple to refute.  Just because something contains a fact does not mean at all that everything else in it is factually and historically true.  For example, the Greek legends and myths describe a Mount Olympus where the Greek gods reside.  Now, just because there is an actual place called Mount Olympus in Greece that exists, does that also mean that the deities Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc., also existed and that all their myths and legends are all true?  Of course not!  In the movie The Wizard of Oz, the beginning takes place on a farm in Kansas.  Now, since Kansas is an actual state in the US, does that mean this whole movie is historically true and unquestionable?  Hollywood movies often contain actual places that exist such as New York, Los Angeles, etc. yet the stories in the movies are fiction of course.  Likewise, just because there are cities and events in the Bible that are known to have existed, does not by any means make all the events in the Bible historical facts!  The writers of the time do know of places that exist in their area of course, and it would be natural for them to include those places in their stories.

 

Contrary to this argument, the Bible contains data which is inconsistent with recorded history.   For details, see the Smithonian Statement on Bible Historicity

 

For examples of historical errors in the book of Daniel, see Mistakes of Daniel (in fact, this article shows strong circumstantial evidence that the author of the book of Daniel deliberately deceived its readers about the year it was written, placing it 500 years before its actual date!)

 

 

Previous Page                      Back to Table of Contents                        Next Page


Sign my Guestbook or Comment in my Forum