What makes people claim the Bible as a myth?

We can conclude (at least some of us) that the Bible is a huge history book of the Jewish people and Gentiles toward the latter half of it as well as God's Word (to those who believe in it). There are some very telling clues that point to the Bible being more than a myth as some people claim it is. The Bible speaks of David, King of the Jews but up until 1993 it was only regarded as a myth. Then a discovery turned that myth into solid evidence of his existence.

In 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend. Then in 2005 Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar found King David's palace relying on the Bible as one of her many tools. She says, “What is amazing about the Bible is that very often we see that it is very accurate and sometimes amazingly accurate.”

In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago.

Now let’s look at the era from Solomon to around 400 BC where the Old Testament ends. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history not spiritual teachings.)

R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

Finally let’s look at Jesus. What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:

"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.

Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:

"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve." That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.

24 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Best answer

    There isn't any reliable evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt. Even the Israeli archeologists recognize this, and they have the most to gain from a divine real estate agent. Thus, the whole Moses story is just a myth. There's also no evidence for Abraham, so his story is just a myth.

    The evidence shows that Jesus is just a mythical character and never existed.

    As you noted, the claimed writings by Tacitus were about 80 years after Jesus supposedly existed. They also show no more knowledge than the Christians of the time were saying. Tacitus' reference was not noted by Eusebius or Origen or Clement of Alexandria in the third century. It was probably added in the 1400's (likely in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice), because no mention is made of it in any known text prior to then, but there are many later references.

    The Jewish Rabbinical writings were not done at least the 300's, and are thus not reliable sources.

    For Jesus-believers, here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases:

    All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time.

    The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

    Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

    If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Note that to Paul, Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of the a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.

    If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, and were written in Greek - which the disciples would not have known. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness acounts of Jesus - anywhere.

    If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father") and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus).

    If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

    Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

    The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, and Dionysus). Some early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

    Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus -- whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

    There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths -- Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

    For much more evidence, see the links.

  • 7 years ago

    A stone carved with "House of David" does not prove David existed. it means people believed in David at the time the stone was carved.

    "This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago." Separate from what? I don't think people are going to argue that point, and I'm unsure what argument you think would be made.

    If the first quote was from Rabbinical writings, it was not from a pagan. It was from a Jew, probably one who lived the same area as Jesus. And explaining why Jews did not accept the teachings of Jesus would have been a serious rabbinical question.

    Tacitus is describing Christians. The fact that he mentions Jesus's execution as fact doesn't prove anything. He is repeating the stories of Christians and he has no reason to question those stories when it comes to the execution. Remember that the flow of information in the ancient world was very slow. It's not like he could get on the internet and check a governmental list of recent executions.

    Besides which, many historians believe Jesus was likely a historical figure, and he could have easily been executed. Why would someone deliberately make up a story about their leader being executed as a criminal? Terrible public relations.

    There are plenty of references in the Bible that agree with historical record: the Babylonian captivity, King Nebuchadnezzar, existence of Pontius Pilate, King Herod, etc. But that doesn't suddenly prove everything in the Bible is true.

    Which is not to say it isn't true. I'm just saying your understanding of the evidence is severely flawed. There's some very basic problems in the way you are treating your sources.

    Why do some people consider it myth? Because much of the Bible records events that simply cannot be proven by history (which, again, doesn't mean its false, but it does put it in the category of myth), some of which we haven't yet found evidence for (but we might in the future), and some which runs contrary to history.

    In regards to Jesus, the lack of contemporary sources is a big problem. Why weren't his literate followers writing in, say 20 CE? Why wait 20 or more years? The lack of outside sources is also problematic: all info about him comes from people who have an active stake in convincing other people to believe as they do. Having a contemporary Roman record of him would be a historical jackpot...but its highly unlikely such a record exists today.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The Bible is full of contradictions. The stories are a myth, too. The Old Testament says Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But science says Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Read the book "How to Overcome Superstitions" to find out more. It will be free on Amazon in a few days.

    Source(s): Title: How to Overcome Superstitions Author: Ron J. Varman
  • 7 years ago

    What a biased look. Come on dude, it feels like I'm reading talking points here.

    - "The Bible mentions places and people! Therefore it's true." So does Harry Potter. What is amazing about Harry Potter is that very often we see that it is very accurate and sometimes amazingly accurate.

    - "Rabbinical records from 40 years after Jesus' death mention him" The average life-expectancy in ancient Judaea was somewhere around 30. These aren't eyewitnesses or people who saw anything, these are people responding and documenting Christian claims about what had happened. No-one is disputing there were Christians around in 70 CE making claims about Jesus. It's the accuracy of those claims that's in question. The same goes to the rest of the historians like Tacitus, they were documenting claims made about Jesus way after he died. No-one denies these claims were being made at the time.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • For one thing, there is historical archeological evidence that disproves much of the scriptures in the bible. Secondly, through all the many, many translations since the original documents were translated; editing, mistranslations, & manipulated translations have changed the content of those scriptures again & again. Many of the stories in the bible were taken from much earlier pagan writings; the names were changed & ancient Hebrews made up a great deal of the original stories, along with using those they "borrowed" from pagan religions.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Your wall of text is full of errors. Tacitus was born long after the supposed Jesus was crusified. That would make all of his claims hersay. Science does not accept hersay evidence, just like courts don't accept hersay for trials.

    The reason people "claim" the bible as a myth is because of all the mythological claims in the bible: talking snakes, man made of dirt, talking donkey and a man living inside a fish just to name a few of all the bizarre and completely impossible occurances.

  • geezer
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    It's considered a myth because it starts off with this story about how the Universe was created in just 6 days.

  • 7 years ago

    very well said. even more than that, the bible says that God's first life on this planet came from the water. both water creatures and birds came forth from the water at his command. science claims that the first life on planet earth came from the water and they are correct. but God said that over 4000 years ago. (genesis 1:20-21).

    science claims that man and animals share dna, but that is no surprise since the bible says that God created man and animals out of the same dust of the same earth, so naturally we would share dna with animals. (genesis 2: 7, 19)

    in addition to all of that, science says that the earth is round and they think it is a big deal, but the bible said that way before when men thought the earth was flat. the bible says that the earth spins on it's axis and that the one large land mass which was originally done on the 3rd day of creation was divided up by God into continents (genesis 10:25) so there are lots of things which the bible says which are accurate and were said way way way before man and science understood them.

  • DS M
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Let's look at it from the atheist's position for a moment.

    Atheists believe they evolve naturally without intelligent involved in the process...not one because one intelligent thought would prove the existence of God. They believe they are intelligent without any scientific proof or without any theories of which elements of the earth naturally evolve into intelligent beings.

    There is not book or any record of the evolutionary process of intelligence making their belief a myth. Yet they cling to their religion like blue collar liberals cling to Obama knowing that as bad as Obama was this year, these were his best years with all his best ideas of how to destroy the country accomplished with the help of rich democrats.

    Sure, atheists can look back and say proudly, "I have no reason to live as I was created without purpose." But like the Black community who still have 15% unemployment after 4 years of Obama abuse, atheists want to say that having a purpose matters and they get to decide their purpose.

    Really? How logical is it for the invention to determine what it was invented to do AFTER it was made? Not at all. That would be like civil rights leaders being able to lead their communities without playing the race card. Have you ever heard civil rights leader switch to representing white people or not back a rich democrat? Neither will you hear an atheist telling you how it is possible to intelligently say they have a purpose.

    In looking ahead, we know that our sun will turn into a red giant and the earth and all its records of humanity will cease to exist. As with being born without a purpose proves the person can do nothing right or wrong, so an earth that erases all evidence of human existence erases the possibility of an atheist being moral.

    This is because, when something or someone is created, the purpose is defined as right and everything else is defined as wrong. No purpose means no right and no wrong.

    As there is no life after death and as all paths lead to exactly the same conclusion, the ability to do right or wrong simply doesn't exist. So those atheists who are trying to say they are right, don't understand their religion and are being hypocrites.

    This is why you don't hear atheists talking about the benefits of atheism...they know at best, there is no difference between a theist's belief or atheists beliefs according to true atheist beliefs...but most atheists don't know what they believe or why...if they did, they couldn't suggest you were anymore wrong than they.

    Hope this helps

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The Bible was a book written in a non-fictional setting, but with fictional twists,plots, characters. etc.

    Such as Spiderman(New York), or Superman. Its just an earlier hero vs villain story book.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.