Ohferpetessake, put down the dumb book.........

There is very little that is historically accurate except in very broad strokes in the Christian holy book.

Actually historically what you have proffered is accurate. The reason we do not have tons of gnostic text is thst they were destroyed by the church.
There is no historical accuracy of the text on two accounts.
First we do not know what the "original text" said they were copied too many times with many errors additions etc.
Second the surviving text are constantly proven wrong by history.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Just as a reference, this wikipedia list of those claimed to be verfied out side of biblical text may allow you to peice together a time line of a puzzle with missing peices but it could help with seeing a broader picture.

The seeming consistency of the bible, is very shallow, and in fact it has very little historical accuracy if any. I think that the idea that it was deliberately rewritten to fit with historical facts, gives too much credit to the church, since if they did that, they made a very bad job of it. And it is hard to see any reason why they would want to, since if historians disagreed with the bible, then obviously the historians were wrong. What we do know also of the bible is, that it was rewritten many times by many different scribes, no two of who agreed. Accuracy was simply not valued in the same way in the past as it is today, indeed rewrittings were often said to be inspired by god, to explain away differences between different versions.

What the church did do however was to keep the bible secret, not allow people to read it or to copy it into popular modern languages. One reason for this being given, that people would misunderstand it, if allowed to see it for themselves. You may see that as meaning, see it for the rubbish it is, if you like.

I'll let you sort out the "fact" from fiction, the "accuracies" from the inaccuracies...
I just know the whole thing is fictitious inaccuracies and leave it at that.
For instance, there was no Moses. No historical record of an Egyptian Captivity, okay?
No historical record of any David or Soloman, either.
Lots of bloody wars, though. A very f*cked up religion with lots of enemies; like all tribes back then, it was survival of the fittest. I'll give 'em this much: despite all odds, Judaism DID survive.
Whether that's a good thing or not, I'll leave to you to decide.

Maybe you should try volunteering somewhere? You seem to have intelligence & plenty of energy & you are wasting it all on this dreck......

In the 4th century CE, Eusebius, an important Bishop wrote a book called "Church History" The following quotations from Eusebius' book show that he recognized that the Bible was corrupted

Eusebius
The Church History Paul L. Maier (1999)
 
 
They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study “geometry” [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above. Some of them study the geometry of Euclid and revere Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some virtually worship Galen. In using the arts of unbelievers for their heresy, they corrupt the simple faith of the Scriptures and claim to have corrected them.
 
That I am not slandering them anyone will learn who compares their writings, which are in great discord, for those of Asclepiades do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their “corrected” –though really corrupted-texts. Nor do these agree with the texts of Hermophilus, while those of Apolloniades are not even consistent among themselves, earlier copies differing greatly from later ones subjected to a second corruption. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed. They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia....proof that the Vatican realizes the text was corrupted and we really have no idea what the original said.
[newadvent.org]

The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the manuscripts were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i.e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.

Raid the Vatican library. I’d love to have half a day in there!

As an analogy, one might consider the Adventures of Alice in Wonderland. There is no question that rabbit hole does exist as well as there being a queen of hearts in a deck of cards among other things. The story, however, takes one beyond that which is known and builds from it a fantasy. This is no different than the storybook-fairytale Bible. Yes, our world was created by the fact that it exists. Two thousand years ago man had no idea how, but we do now. Yes Egypt is real because we know for a fact it exists. Take those realities and build upon it a fantasy and you have Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The accuracy of the text is really of no importance to an Atheist but of great importance to a Theist. If one were to examine the true history of Christianity in, say "The Faith" by Brian Moynahan, one would understand where all these arguments were spawned. Also, if one were to agree that the world was created in seven days, that would still not be verifiable evidence of a God. Footnote: The power of the Church was derived through war which began with Pope Leo IV in 846 A.D. The sabers have rattled for 1173 years to this day when Americans fight for "God and Country". Any evidence against the Church was considered heresy and proponents were burned at the stake for it. Physical evidence has found its way to the pyre or the basement of the Catholic Church in Rome.

A compilation of fairytales written by men who believe that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Men who wanted to enact their own agenda and beliefs and morality upon the masses. It is a book of contradictions and misinformation. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings also followed books of fairytales about many gods and magic. Over a billion Hindus still follow a book of fairytales about many gods and magic. No big surprise.

Yes, the bible. A talking snake, a cloud as big as a man's hand, and a talking ass. (I think he's in the White House now.) If the bones of a dead prophet (Elisha) can raise you from the dead who am I to question the biblical creation story? It must be true because it said it was true. Later we find that god dictated everything to Moses who put in in a book called "How I Did It."

It only gets worse when American court houses everywhere decided that we got our laws from god and displayed the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and "do not covet thy neighbor's wife." Then law enforcement decided to trust in god and had this put on all their vehicles. These are but a few of our symbols of gullibility.

There have been more changes in the bible than there are words in the bible.

One simply has to read/study the Bible from beginning to end to see that it does not even "seem" to be consistent. The god in it changes (it goes from being one of many gods to being the only one and from needing angels to let it know what was going on to being omniscient). Also, there are competing versions of stories (creation, the flood, the "ten" commandments etc). There was no hell until there is a hell, Jesus was a human until he was turned into the god of the universe etc...etc...

I always recommend two books that helped me on my journey and can be used when dealing with believers: "Who Wrote The Bible," by Richard Elliot Friedman and "101 Myths of the Bible," by Gary Greenberg. These help with the Old Testament. For the New Testament, I recommend reading various books by Bart Ehrman.

My usual first question is, Which Creation story? There are two.
And the I'll move onto the other 792 contradictory statements in the book as well.
( I just made up that number, I lose count real fast because there are way too many of them).

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, that book lost me at the talking snake.

And I think even that was being tremendously generous.

The bible is NOT a reference book.

My understanding is the geneology listed in biblical text prior to Moses was not literate much and most stories passed on as verbal until moses put them in written form.

Things in writting have a better value as evidence as opposed to something only verbal. The fact the biblical text has been preserved in writing give for some to be analyzed for other corroborating evidence or to be verfied as false. Lack of corroborating evidence does not mean false, It just means unverified or no additional support.

Put puzzle peices together. Here is just a piece . [breakingisraelnews.com]

There is zero archeological evidence for most of the events in the bible, and the few that do, are based on ancient stories that were appropriated by the writers.