david f,

<<The Bible is a compendium of legend and is not a source of reliable facts. It is not a peer reviewed journal, a scientific text or a reliable chronicle.>>

You need to do more homework. There are ample peer-reviewed journals and books to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. See:

+ K. A. Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" (Eerdmans 2003). This is a magnum opus of 662pp by a Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool.

+ F. F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" (Inter-Varsity Press 1960). This is by the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester.

You are ill informed about the reliability of Old and New Testaments.

Hi OzSpen

David f’s view of the bible is not ill-informed (though I don’t fully agree with it).

There are peer-reviewed books across the theological spectrum, from authors who think almost everything described in the bible is historically accurate, to those who think almost nothing is. The great majority of scholars are at neither of these extremes.

Few mainstream scholars nowadays would accept the analysis of F. F. Bruce, for example. His early dating of the Gospels and their sources, and inclination to believe the authenticity of the disputed Pauline epistles, has not stood the test of time. More importantly, his assertion that the historical accuracy of the miracle stories is the most plausible explanation for their presence in the Gospels entails circular reasoning and brushes aside the reasonable demand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don’t think the Gospel writers were lying. But they used poetic, symbolic and literary language as well as historical information to convey the truth of who Jesus was. For example, both Matthew and Luke have given us beautiful and profound birth narratives exploring the nature of Jesus’ identity. But neither is plausible as an accurate historical account (and it takes extraordinary mental gymnastics to synthesise an account in which both are historical)

Rhian,

<<I don’t think the Gospel writers were lying. But they used poetic, symbolic and literary language as well as historical information to convey the truth of who Jesus was.>>

Historian, Craig Blomberg's, "Historical Reliability of the Gospels," (Apollos, Academic, 2007) disagrees with you: https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079

Dear OzSpen,

Those who accept the Bible as authoritative live in a self-imposed cocoon of ignorance. They choose to ignore the contradictions and errors found in that book.

The Bible is an unreliable authority because it contains numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false. The biblical contradictions therefore prove that the book has many false statements and is not infallible.

Examples of Old Testament Contradictions

The contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis chapter 1 lists six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.

The above was taken from:

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

Examine your own Bible to see if this website is accurate.

Dear OzSpen

We can each give hundreds of references to authors who support our positions.

I think some of the most influential theologians of the past 150 years would be closer to David f’s position than yours. So whether or not you disagree with David f’s position, to dismiss it as uniformed is to ignore the intense and ongoing debate about what is historical in the Gospels, what is not, and how much it matters.

One of Australia’s leading bible scholars is Sean Winter. This is his take on the question of the historicity of the birth narratives:

“The reason why things are contested is because our sources (in the Bible) don’t give us anything other than much later interpretations of his life. When you read the gospels you are basically looking at the equivalent of an omelette and it is very difficult to separate it back out into the yolk, which is historical, and the white, which is interpretation.

“Almost every detail of his birth or how it was narrated or what historically is in the Christmas story is open for significant debate. My view is the Gospel stories about Jesus’s birth are almost all interpretation.”

Quoted in
https://victas.uca.org.au/the-birth-of-jesus-what-is-fact-and-fiction-probably/

Rhian,

<<I think some of the most influential theologians of the past 150 years would be closer to David f’s position than yours.>>

You mention not one of them and give no quotes and sources. That's poor documentation.

<<One of Australia’s leading bible scholars is Sean Winter. This is his take on the question of the historicity of the birth narratives:
“The reason why things are contested is because our sources (in the Bible) don’t give us anything other than much later interpretations of his life. . . .>>

Who is Sean Winter? He is a promoter of death for the Uniting Churches, the very theme of this thread. "Sean is currently the Academic Dean, Co-ordinator of Studies in New Testament, and Associate Professor within the University of Divinity. He teaches across a range of New Testament subjects, is involved in the formation of candidates for ordained ministries within the UCA [Uniting Church of Australia]", https://pilgrim.edu.au/about-pilgrim/faculty/research-profile-sean-winter/

Sean endorses the theology of death in the Uniting Church that this thread is all about.

In contrast, Dr Paul Barnett of the evangelical Sydney Anglican Diocese, former Archbishop of North Sydney, and ancient historian, whose church does not promote a culture of church death. He teaches/has taught ancient history at Macquarie University and wrote: "There is a sound historical basis to the New Testament" ("Is the New Testament History? rev, Aquila Press, 2003, p. 12).