Just because I'm atheist, doesn't mean that I rebuke any historical value. What easier way to take short cuts in writing than to add real locations, people, and events?
The difference between myths and legends can easily come into play here.
If you want to classify the bible, it can be considered a book with various myths and legends.

Who says there's no truth in it? There's truth that was relevant at the time to the control freaks who wrote it. Religion is ALWAYS about control. And how do YOU know what "the message of the christ" is? If he even ever existed.
Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Sounds like a message to me.

OK, having read the Bible very thoroughly...

The key story of the Bible is Moses. Moses received the original revelation and the Law. Without that, you have nothing. Jesus is the Son of Who exactly?

Guess what, you don't have that. We know that there is essentially zero history in the OT until after the fictional conquest of the Land in Joshua.

Also, Jesus taught these key immoral lessons

1. Have no care for tomorrow, no saving or thrift
2. Shun your parents and family (cult anyone?)
3. Vicarious redemption of sin

Not to mention, the historicity of Jesus has enormous problems. There are no contemporary accounts and the earliest Gospel was written more than a generation after the alleged events. The Pauline and Gospel Jesus could hardly be more different. It's a mess.

Tough question, do you really know the Bible?

I am sure that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt and Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Yup...I believe that.

The best, actually the only recorded history of the era that Jesus was suposedly doing his thing is that of the Romans. They had scribes everwhere writting down. everything. No mention of Jesus. I don't know how you went about your researech but if you found a single speck of evidence substatiating the bible I'd love to see it.

Dida - from what I've seen, there is a tendency for Atheist and Agnostics alike to come across as rejecting all things connected with religion (the notion of Christ, of a God or Gods, and Religious literature, such as the Bible and the Torah). Since many of us spend so much time defending our own belief, and non-belief, we can come across sometimes as very closed minded, which is usually not the case.

There is much truth in the teachings of Jesus; living with a kind heart, trying to love and care for those around you, none of that is a bad idea. Personally, I can't reject those notions, no matter where they are documented. As for the historical side of the equation, many people don't know their history; and much is just being uncovered that corroborates Biblical documentation.

Its easy to come across as a naysayer, especially with the Bible. For me, is holds a lot of truth, twisted to create a lot of deception and control. While I can't take the entire document at 'face value', I won't reject the obvious bounty of both moral and historical information it holds.

Mostly because it's their job to prove to me. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to disprove their theory by reading their books. I mean a lot of us dismiss Scientology but I sure havent read their stuff. Same with the book of Mormon.

I have read it. Several times. I know more about their book than a lot of "christians".

"ignoring the bible because of religion seems to be closed minded to me and not much different than simply believing without evidence."

I think you are way off base.

I think you made a lot of assumptions. I spent 10 years as a christian trying to prove the faith. REALLY studying the bible and it's formation along with archaeology, actual history, science, and understanding how to remove bias made the book look like the complete fabrication it was.
Once I was honest with that it fell apart and I realized I was atheist.
A large number of atheists became atheists because they actually studied the bible and didn't engage in cognitive dissonance.

For me it was a few things..like the talking snake & ass..and the rampant incest, murder & general mayhem..

Why oh why do you assume that? I myself have read the babble cover to cover (okay, not the begats) 3 times, looked up things many more more. Most of the people on this site have are formerly from religious backgrounds and simply got smarter! I cannot help but notice kind of anasty phrasing to your query and wonder why?

Apparently Dida quit and ran away.

I guess we'll never know if she changed her mind, but I have my suspicions...

I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the Bible as complete nonsense. Actually there is lot of truth and wisdom through its pages. Yet what is written there should not be taken literally and non-critically (which essentially most churches demand). For sure it is not the unquestionable Word of God, as even if it is inspired by Him (if He exists in the first place), it is still a work of Man and as consequence bears all the inherent imperfections of such a work.

You question should be in the converse. How can so many people be fooled by such a document with no absolute truth to back it up. Have to think about some of the stories. A talking snake? Eve made out a rib? Cain and Abel wives? A boat with the largest zoo ever on it? Losing strength because hair was cut? Turing into a pillar of salt at the sight of an explosion? Parting the red sea, food from the sky? Just a few examples.

I've read the bible. I actually keep a copy of it on my book shelf to whip out in an argument.

(My favorite argument is "if Adam and eve were the first people how did their sons marry wives from the land of Nod, where did these women come from? Did they marry aliens?)

The bible is a collection of stories by primative people to explain natural occurrences in a world before science.

Much like how people of Greece and Rome made gods to be responsible for why the harvest died.

"I guess what I am asking is how can anyone be so certain of things they admit they did not research?" You mean to be asking Christians that quesiton, right?

I've studied it extensively. There is little I'd call history there. The context around it perhaps is history, but relying on the bible for a history of the people leaves much to be desired.

Can anyone else see Dida's comments, or it is just me she's blocked? If so, I have to say I feel rather proud.

I wouldn't look at the bible as anything but an epic mythological saga, along the lines of Odyssey and Iliad. While there is “truth,” for example, archaeologists did find Troy, but it’s more of a story about a particular human perspective on how the world works. In fact, the bible, particularly the Torah, is meant to do one thing... define the legitimacy of the priesthood and determine who’s God gets to rule the day.

There are thee (maybe four) authors of the Torah: P (priest) J (Yahweh—Jerusalem) E (Elohim) and D (Deuteronomist—and some scholars believe that there’s a D2—who might be the same person, writing after the fall of Jerusalem). Then of course there’s the redactor, the guy who put it all together (and it’s a guy).

And it’s all written for one reason. To justify their version of God and vilify the others. P, of the line of Aaron (the Aaronid Priests) elevated Aaron, the temple, and his legitimacy as Moses’ brother. They believed that priests must be of Aaron decent, and could only serve in the temple at Jerusalem.

J and E on the other hand believed that the priesthood should be of the lineage of Moses, and therefore took several digs at Aaron and his legitimacy—but also against the Jerusalem Priesthood. The story of the Golden Calf, for example, was written by E, and has a very political motive. First of all, he’s attacking the worship system at Shechem, AND the Aaronid priests in Jerusalem.

The entire discussion throughout the bible is really pretty simple. Who gets to worship God and where. Since most of the prophets were Aaronid, then it was Jerusalem. That is why they railed against the Israelite kings who allowed “high places,” (these were altars built so that worshippers outside the city could offer sacrifices). The Aaronid priests/prophets HATED that, and consider any king who allowed that an abomination.

This is the story of the bible... legitimacy of God. Because so many people never bother to read its actual history, they remain blissfully unaware of the politics behind it. But that’s what the bible is all about.

Even the New Testament is a political struggle: Paul’s “Christ” versus Jesus’ little brother, James. Paul would win the day because Rome would eventually sack Jerusalem, completely destroying it.

That’s the story of the bible. Who’s God gets the spotlight. It’s a fascinating story, and it’s “true” in that it’s the true story of a struggle for God, the truth is purely political.

The book is not a best seller for its presentation of history of which very little is verifiable. It is a book put together to market religious doctrine. Toilet paper would be the best use for most of it's pages.

Genesis, follow the begatting, and we find The earth is supposedly only a few thousand years old. So it is wrong from the first page. I explain this to religious people, so then they get onto Jesus, so if the old tesstament is all lies, the god dude wasn't there, yet jesus claims to be his son?

Of course there's some truth in the bible. It's almost impossible to imagine a work of fiction that big that doesn't state truth SOME time.

There is, by similar argument, some truth in Alice in Wonderland, and The Lord of the Rings, and other works of fiction.

The problem are those for whom 'it's in the bible' is a claim of reality - and in that there is no justification at all.

No different than any other issues, or ideas that many make firm judgements about without knowing much of anything about them ...

What ? People should use their brains !?