I'm very confused

[curlyqlink]

A careful reading of the Bible (preferably more than once) would reveal the validity of all three of my points.

Curious, because to me it seems equally obvious that a careful and objective reading of the Bible reveals the validity of my point!

what this means is that you've probably picked out all the negative stuff in the Bible and used it as "evidence" to condemn it, while fully ignoring the plethora of other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments about God's love, mercy, long-suffering, justice, kindness, and compassion for humanity.

First, you seem to be assuming that the reason I don't share your assessment of the Bible is because I somehow read it wrong.

Second, it is the very contradictory nature of the material compiled within the Bible that argues against any divine authorship. Turn the other cheek, or an eye for an eye?

I judge the Bible by the same standards I use reading any other book. Specifically, reading any book that is a written compilation of an earlier oral tradition. Like the Icelandic Sagas. I'm not on a mission to pick out--nor on the other hand to excuse--the appalling stuff in any of these texts.

It so happens that I find a great deal of morally objectionable material in the Bible. Its tone is authoritarian and patriarchal; in this it compares unfavorably with the Sagas, which seem more egalitarian and personal. There is almost nothing in them compelling obedience to arbitrary laws; these were people who seemingly couldn't care less if someone next door worshiped a golden calf or ate things that creepeth. The women in the Sagas seem more complex, more fully developed as characters. They are certainly more powerful.

I view both types of text as products of the age that produced them. A Nordic, seafaring culture is very different from a nomadic desert culture. Neither one, it seems to me, is a particularly suitable source of moral lessons for modern man. As for their comparative literary merit, the Sagas seem to me to be far more coherent.

[Redzeppelin]

Curious, because to me it seems equally obvious that a careful and objective reading of the Bible reveals the validity of my point!

I don't think the Bible can be read "objectively" because of what it claims to reveal - the character of God.

First, you seem to be assuming that the reason I don't share your assessment of the Bible is because I somehow read it wrong.

I imply no such thing. I suggested that what you've done is a common tactic in any case being presented: selective evidence. I can't know how you read the Bible, but I know that people who speak of its "negatives" rarely speak of the evidence that paints God in a more positive light.

Second, it is the very contradictory nature of the material compiled within the Bible that argues against any divine authorship. Turn the other cheek, or an eye for an eye?

This is a good example of apprehending the surface but missing the depth. There is large difference between the laws given the Israelites after their enforced slavery in Egypt and the "revision" of those laws provided by Jesus (hence the term the "new covenant"). The New Testament makes clear that the relationship between God and his people had changed. When the Jews came out of Egypt after 400 years of captivity, they needed very specific laws about how to behave; that is a different matter than Christ coming to Earth to reveal the character of God. Not all "contradictions" retain that title under close examination. Some "appear" rather than "are."

I judge the Bible by the same standards I use reading any other book. Specifically, reading any book that is a written compilation of an earlier oral tradition. Like the Icelandic Sagas. I'm not on a mission to pick out--nor on the other hand to excuse--the appalling stuff in any of these texts.

You may lump the Bible in with other books, but other books don't make its claim to be the revelation of God's character to mankind. That makes it very different from the average book. Might you clarify some examples of the "appalling stuff" from the Bible that makes its "world" so much less appealing than the brutality of the Viking world?

It so happens that I find a great deal of morally objectionable material in the Bible. Its tone is authoritarian and patriarchal; in this it compares unfavorably with the Sagas, which seem more egalitarian and personal. There is almost nothing in them compelling obedience to arbitrary laws; these were people who seemingly couldn't care less if someone next door worshiped a golden calf or ate things that creepeth. The women in the Sagas seem more complex, more fully developed as characters. They are certainly more powerful.

But they're not even in the same class as literature; the Bible isn't about characterization (except of God) and plot, action, etc. You cannot speak of a generic "tone" for the Bible - it is a collection of 66 different books by a number of authors - and within those books the writers utilize different tones among them, often differing their tone within their own book. What "authoritarian" tone? Where? Yeah - it's patriarchal - as were most societies that wrote during the same time period (and for some time afterward). So? Are we to reject ancient literature on the grounds that it doesn't meet 21st century expectations? As if meaning can only exist in a "politically correct" culture?

Who's being "compelled" to obey? God always gives us a choice whether or not to obey.

"Arbitrary laws"? Where are those? By whose claim are these laws "arbitrary"?

Humans don't have to care what their neighbors worship, but God (who knows the consequences of rejecting Him) should care.

I view both types of text as products of the age that produced them. A Nordic, seafaring culture is very different from a nomadic desert culture. Neither one, it seems to me, is a particularly suitable source of moral lessons for modern man. As for their comparative literary merit, the Sagas seem to me to be far more coherent.

You are free to view the Bible as such, but I think that's a mistake, because the Icelandic Sagas make no claim to transcendant meaning - the Bible makes that claim. As such, you're really comparing an apple and an orange. It doesn't matter whether you think the Bible is divinely inspired or not; by simple virtue of the book's claims and content, it is different and should be judged differently - just as a Shakespeare play should not be compared to a historical chronicle.

[curlyqlink]

You may lump the Bible in with other books, but other books don't make its claim to be the revelation of God's character to mankind.

I'm currently reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. It very much reveals the character of the gods.

Of course, these are "false" gods, not "the one true God." But wait a minute... if we assume from the beginning that the Bible is divinely inspired, then it is of course perfect and above criticism! If the Bible seems convoluted or contradictory, or too violent or arbitrary or immoral, then these faults must lie with us, in our limited understanding.

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

To me, it seems that the Bible's God (both pere and fils) are products of the times of their respective disciples.

What "authoritarian" tone? Where? Yeah - it's patriarchal - as were most societies that wrote during the same time period

Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

All of which undercuts the claim that the Bible is "different".

Are we to reject ancient literature on the grounds that it doesn't meet 21st century expectations?

Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm currently reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. It very much reveals the character of the gods.

Of course, these are "false" gods, not "the one true God." But wait a minute... if we assume from the beginning that the Bible is divinely inspired, then it is of course perfect and above criticism! If the Bible seems convoluted or contradictory, or too violent or arbitrary or immoral, then these faults must lie with us, in our limited understanding.

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

To me, it seems that the Bible's God (both pere and fils) are products of the times of their respective disciples.

Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

All of which undercuts the claim that the Bible is "different".


Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

A couple of thoughts. First off, I'm not sure Ovid reveals the gods the same way the Bible attempts to reveal G-d (whether you believe in the existence of G-d or not). From the point-of-view of the Bible and its various writers, quite clearly the majority of them believed in G-d.

Ovid most likely didn't really believe in the Roman gods. Ovid makes a great deal of fun of the anthropomorphic qualities of the gods. His tone is always playful and almost always ironic. Part of what Ovid seems to be doing is showing how the anthropomorphic qualities of the gods is a silly concept. He almost wants you to share in on the joke. In another work Ovid is quoted as saying: "It's useful that there should be Gods, so let's believe there are." This seems to me a rather cynical statement that hints that Ovid is only interested in the gods for playful literary purposes.

My point here is that Ovid doesn't really reveal much about the character of the gods in the same way that other religious texts do, even pagan ones that have genuine belief behind their writing, because it is important to remember that Ovid probably heavily manipulated his stories from the original Greek stories for typically Ovidian purposes: pornographic sexual acts (see in the context of his other works), to show off his own learning to an elite Roman audience, and to playfully mock at the gods and beliefs. So it would seem he manipulated or at least exaggerated the quality of the Roman/Greek gods for his own literary purposes.

Which is very different I think from the perspective found in the Bible whether you believe in G-d or not. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Redzeppelin]

To me, this is no way to be an objective reader.

Like I said - I don't think the Bible can be read "objectively" - its assertion to be the revelation of God means that it is either a) exactly what it says, or b) just another ancient work of fiction - which means that its ability to guide us and instruct us as to the character of God is highly suspect.

The Bible may claim to be the revelation of God's character. (Or, to be accurate, some may make that claim on the Bible's behalf.) My response is: where's the proof? What the actual document reveals I can easily see as a nomadic desert people's conception of a "perfect" god. A powerful male authority figure who takes care of his tribe an woe unto the others. (Jesus being a variation on the theme, better suited to later peoples living under Roman, rather than Egyptian rule.)

Anybody who knows history will acknowledge that we really don't have "proof" of anything. How do you know the events of the American Civil War happened? How do you know that France and England had a Hundred Years' War? The only "proof" we have are documents that claim eyewitness accounts - and most grad students in history will tell you that the reality is that history is created by individual perspectives. Or, to be more cynical, that history is "written by the winners." What all this means is that the doubt you cast upon the Bible is equally deserved by most historical texts because history is highly subjective and much of what we take for "fact" cannot really be proven - at least in the empirical way you seem to wish for.

That God is personified as male is a convention of sorts that I cannot pretend to understand. But, Genesis claims that man and woman are both made "in the image of God" which suggests that God contains both the masculine and feminine characteristics within Himself - that the source of masculinity and femininity is God.

God selected the Hebrews to be his people because Abraham chose to honor and obey God; what the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time dwelling on is that the Earth by and large didn't honor or obey Him; Abraham's choice to do so prompted God to make a covenant to take care of Abraham's off-spring as his "chosen" people. You assume that this was a random choice; more than likely, the other people's of the Earth didn't want God and rejected Him. God is love - so the Bible says - there is no logical reason for God to arbitrarily pick one people over another. There must be an extenuating circumstance.

Yes, it is a product of its times. But wait a minute... how can this be, if it is the Word of God? An all-powerful, omniscient deity who exists beyond time... can it be that his Word is dated?

It is a product of its times because God chose to have human beings write it; it is divinely inspired because it contains principles that transcend culture. As I've said before: a supreme Being wishes to communicate His character to people so that they could know Him in order to better enter into relationship with Him; His word was not created to solve all social ills and correct all problems in culture - those things He left up to us, with the Bible providing plenty of positive guidance (check your history books about the founding of the United States for an example, or the Christian push for the abolition of slavery) about how to better improve our existence.

As for the authoritarian tone. It's in the commandments and pronouncements from on high. Even in the New Testament, there's nothing in the way of discussion-- it's strictly teacher/disciple. Democracy is conspicuous in its absence. Almost as if the people who conceived the book had never heard of it...

Well, come on: if the book is indeed what it claims to be, and God (the creator of all reality, of the entire universe and the human body to boot) is indeed as powerful and perfect as the book suggests, don't you think that that gives Him a healthy amount of authority? If I created Windows Vista, wouldn't that make me an authority on how it works? God is the "author" of all reality - I think that gives Him plenty of authority to say what is and is not good, is and is not right.

Your wish for "democracy" ignores the reality that you can't have "democracy" with a supreme being - it would be like having 3-year-olds in congress tyring to legislate for a wise and experienced president (but much worse). God gives us free will and also gives us a certain amount of responsibilty in being His "hands and feet" (ie carrying forward His work) and He gives us plenty of choice in how we do certain things. Once again, this is you wanting an ancient text to espouse modern "values."

Not at all, and obviously not what I'm suggesting. I don't reject the Bible any more than I reject the Sagas or Ovid. I read them all as products of their time. And I read none of them as Revelation-- not of Jove, or Thor, or of the god of Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems to me the only fair way to read and compare them.

Except that the Sagas or Ovid do not contain the kind of transcendant revelation of God that changes lives; the Bible has changed lives and inspired humans to the heights of noble, compassionate, selfless, loving behavior; I challenge you to show that the other "comparable" works have done anything similar on the same historical scale.

[jgweed]

"Anybody who knows history will acknowledge that we really don't have "proof" of anything. How do you know the events of the American Civil War happened? How do you know that France and England had a Hundred Years' War? The only "proof" we have are documents that claim eyewitness accounts - and most grad students in history will tell you that the reality is that history is created by individual perspectives. Or, to be more cynical, that history is "written by the winners.""
While I disagree with this statement's reductionist conclusion (having been a grad student in both history and philosophy), cannot a similar argument be brought against the religious dogmas with which, in the case, the Bible is interpreted?

I do not see how one can consistently argue, for example, that Lincoln did not exist (or strictly speaking that it cannot be absolutely proved the Emancipator existed, and this depends on a very rigorous definition of truth) and then accept the accounts of the Bible as "fact" or the existence of Jesus as proven.

It seems that the Bible is a very complex document written on many different occasions and for many different purposes, and so is the history of its interpretations (not to mention its provenance and the choice of the canon) over the last 2000 years. Is it enough to understand the Bible from only a religious (or non-religious) perspective, or to omit the influence upon the world and upon how its interpretations have influenced both itself and the world through history?

[Sam?]

But they're not even in the same class as literature; the Bible isn't about characterization (except of God) and plot, action, etc. .

I find this a very interesting statement on your part, considering that the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature. For a being supposedly perfect he's awfully given to wild moodswings and the complete alteration of his basic principles.
It's almost as if he was a fictional character who changed over time to match the changing nature of the world in which the people writing about him lived in...
Why should the all powerful creator of the universe have to pussy foot around local customs? Considering his frequent decisions to murder his chosen people for asking questions (before Moses enevitably talked him around, suggesting that God's initial decision was wrong, which would mean he wasn't perfect after all, and in fact humans sometimes know better than he does), I'd say he could have forced them to uphold any morals he gave them. So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

[dzebra]

So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

You can't change people by making rules. You change people by making them want to change themselves. (or brainwashing)

[Redzeppelin]

While I disagree with this statement's reductionist conclusion (having been a grad student in both history and philosophy), cannot a similar argument be brought against the religious dogmas with which, in the case, the Bible is interpreted?

I do not see how one can consistently argue, for example, that Lincoln did not exist (or strictly speaking that it cannot be absolutely proved the Emancipator existed, and this depends on a very rigorous definition of truth) and then accept the accounts of the Bible as "fact" or the existence of Jesus as proven.

The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I guess) is that many people hold as "proven facts" many aspects of life and history that are no more "provable" than the narrative of the Bible. We "know" history based on eyewitness accounts, reports and whatnot; the Bible claims the same. As well, the specifics of how the OT books and NT books were compiled and authenitcated are far more rigorous than many pieces of "history" that we take for fact. That was the only point I was trying to make. I think sometimes people tend to ask the Bible to have a more strict level of "provability" than other aspects of history which we find less challenging to believe.

I find this a very interesting statement on your part, considering that the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature. For a being supposedly perfect he's awfully given to wild moodswings and the complete alteration of his basic principles.
It's almost as if he was a fictional character who changed over time to match the changing nature of the world in which the people writing about him lived in...
Why should the all powerful creator of the universe have to pussy foot around local customs? Considering his frequent decisions to murder his chosen people for asking questions (before Moses enevitably talked him around, suggesting that God's initial decision was wrong, which would mean he wasn't perfect after all, and in fact humans sometimes know better than he does), I'd say he could have forced them to uphold any morals he gave them. So why didn't he say slavery was a bad thing from the beginning?

This would be more productive if you would give examples of all your charges. I'm used to people posting paragraphs like yours - full of accusations and such - but what I'm not used to is actually having the poster provide the examples from the Bible of these charges. Doing so would allow me to have some sort of specific (rather than general) response.

In terms of "pussy-footing around local customs" - what you seem to assume is that God's job is to correct all social ills in a time frame that makes sense to us. I don't understand why slavery (and several other issues of importance) weren't addressed by God in the Bible - but because I believe God is perfect in His ways, all-knowing, all-powerful and completely just, then I must (logically) assume there is a good reason He chose not to deal with the topic. Remember: this is the God of the universe - just because He doesn't deal with things our way doesn't make Him wrong - any more than the parent who doesn't do things the 4-year-old's way is wrong. We make a dangerous mistake when we decide to pit our judgment against a being who can create the universe and believe that our assessment is superior. We've developed computers and cell-phones and can send cameras into space, can predict the weather (sort of), cure disease and watch Hi-Def TV, and these accomplishments establish that we are of an intellect that can evaluate the fitness of the decisions of God - who called the universe into existence with His words?

[Sam?]

The point I was trying to make (rather poorly, I guess) is that many people hold as "proven facts" many aspects of life and history that are no more "provable" than the narrative of the Bible. We "know" history based on eyewitness accounts, reports and whatnot; the Bible claims the same. As well, the specifics of how the OT books and NT books were compiled and authenitcated are far more rigorous than many pieces of "history" that we take for fact. That was the only point I was trying to make. I think sometimes people tend to ask the Bible to have a more strict level of "provability" than other aspects of history which we find less challenging to believe.



This would be more productive if you would give examples of all your charges. I'm used to people posting paragraphs like yours - full of accusations and such - but what I'm not used to is actually having the poster provide the examples from the Bible of these charges. Doing so would allow me to have some sort of specific (rather than general) response.

In terms of "pussy-footing around local customs" - what you seem to assume is that God's job is to correct all social ills in a time frame that makes sense to us. I don't understand why slavery (and several other issues of importance) weren't addressed by God in the Bible - but because I believe God is perfect in His ways, all-knowing, all-powerful and completely just, then I must (logically) assume there is a good reason He chose not to deal with the topic. Remember: this is the God of the universe - just because He doesn't deal with things our way doesn't make Him wrong - any more than the parent who doesn't do things the 4-year-old's way is wrong. We make a dangerous mistake when we decide to pit our judgment against a being who can create the universe and believe that our assessment is superior. We've developed computers and cell-phones and can send cameras into space, can predict the weather (sort of), cure disease and watch Hi-Def TV, and these accomplishments establish that we are of an intellect that can evaluate the fitness of the decisions of God - who called the universe into existence with His words?

History doesn't claim that night and day were invented before the sun, that almost every oxygen breathing creature on the planet was murdered with a flood that would have required more water than there is, or that virgins gave birth and men rose from the dead. However fallible history might be, most of it has been pieced together from evidence of some kind or another. That cannot be said for the bible.

You want examples of God's inconsistency? Well let's start with the example I gave, and you ignored. God repeatedly gets the ****s with the Israelites during their time in the desert and decides to kill them. Moses points out that if he does that, he'll look silly in front of the Egyptians, after all the effort he went to showing off earlier, and God changes his mind. A perfect being could never change its mind, by its very definition. I'll also point out again that in these stories, from the bible (and this happens a few times) it is Moses who knows better than God, and God admits this by listening to him.
What else? Well, God's always destroying people and civilisations, or telling his people to (Sodom, Canaan, Egypt, the entire world, etc) and then all of a sudden Jesus comes along and hey, apparently it's all about love.
God is supposed to be omnipotent. But before he destroys Sodom, he's talked into sending angels to make sure there aren't any nice people there. Again, a human knows better than God. Better yet, the first person the angels come across is a good person. Why didn't God know about him already?
I could go on and on, and will if you want, but not until you address every one of these examples.

Your 'logic' is about as illogical as it can get. 'Hey, all the evidence points to God either not existing or being fallible, but an old book says he's not, I guess the evidence must be wrong!' Why must you assume God knows best? The world is full of suffering, and the bible full of God's mood swings and mistakes. Isn't it possible that God isn't quite as great as he says he is?

[Pendragon]

When I learned history in the 60's and 70's, we were taught many things which have changed in history lessons today. Part of this is because there were things which the government simply did not want to admit took place, such as the Japanese Containment Camps in the USA during WWII. Other things were also kept secret but latter revealed, such as Thomas Jefferson's dilly-dallying with his black mistress. Some things are hard to believe such as the statement that the founding fathers were simply Deists, not Christian as we know it.

One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history.

God bless

[jgweed]

"One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history."
The Bible (or for that matter, say, The Odyssey) may not have changed during the time you have been alive, but how it is interpreted has (or at least so recently). For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to have had, once they were studied, some influence on our view of local religion during the Roman occupation.
One could also point to the subtle change between 1910 and 1970 in the interpretation of race relations.

Granted, our understanding of historical events is subject to new interpretations as more information becomes known and research encompasses more and more data, but the same can be said for Biblical exegesis, can it not?

[curlyqlink]

I'm not sure Ovid reveals the gods the same way the Bible attempts to reveal G-d

I agree, Ovid seems skeptical about the "reality" of the gods. It strikes me as a respectful and admiring skepticism, and they are in one sense very "real"-- as metaphor.

I would argue that Ovid is much more effective at revealing the nature of the gods than the bible is at characterizing its God. God seems to be presented as a mystery, full of contradictions. He cannot be named, let alone known. For centuries, greater minds than mine have puzzled over His nature, studying the relevant texts and coming to conflicting conclusions. Conflict serious enough to result in much bloodshed. If it is the Bible's purpose to reveal the true nature of God to mankind, it seems to me the The Good Book has made a very poor job of it.

the God of the bible is possibly the most inconsistent character in all of literature

So true. I think the authors of the Bible set themselves an impossible task, and ended up creating a representation of very imperfect Perfection. I think this fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bible is the strongest evidence within the text itself that man creates God in his own image.

[Jozanny]

ISo true. I think the authors of the Bible set themselves an impossible task, and ended up creating a representation of very imperfect Perfection. I think this fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bible is the strongest evidence within the text itself that man creates God in his own image.

Exactly, and that image evolves over time. The most frightening thing about the human animal though, is its need for an ideology or doctrine to be the right one. We simply cannot get past this. Certainly, the West owes a debt to the evolution of Judaism. It was arguably a metaphysical advance over animism within nature, but Yahweh as a character is morally questionable, and *the Christ* which was the next metaphysical outgrowth, has led to so much schism, hypocrisy, and brutality as to border on the absurd. I am not a follower of Eastern religious thought, but I respect Hinduism and its various brands much more than monotheistic tradition, because there is reverence for the life force itself in all forms.

[Sam?]

When I learned history in the 60's and 70's, we were taught many things which have changed in history lessons today. Part of this is because there were things which the government simply did not want to admit took place, such as the Japanese Containment Camps in the USA during WWII. Other things were also kept secret but latter revealed, such as Thomas Jefferson's dilly-dallying with his black mistress. Some things are hard to believe such as the statement that the founding fathers were simply Deists, not Christian as we know it.

One thing about the Bible is it hasn't changed in the time I've been alive. That cannot be said for history.

God bless

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.