Do problems with the historocity of the Bible affect your faith (or lack of it)?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't want near accuracy from the Living Word; "as good as any other estimate" does not cut it.

I suppose then that the Bible is as good as any other bit of sacred text.

Or more likely, the numerical value of pi is not a piece of divine knowledge given in the Bible.  The relevant passages are a description of what Hiram did when he made the molten sea and not instructions from YHWH on how to make it.  As such, to expect that the text would contain a greater precision in the value of pi than that available to craftsmen of the era is ludicrous.  Even if the instructions had been from YHWH, it still would be ludicrous for them to use a degree of precision than a human craftsman of that era could possible use.

[The Mikado]

Or, to express it differently: because the Good News does not move my soul - because I do not find it as emotionally true as the Bhagavad-Gita, or as logical as the Law of Mani - it had better be more realistic than these.

But it isn't the history that bothers me. It's the little things, like getting pi wrong, or the exact weight of a talent. If G__ can sweat the small stuff like dietary laws, He can be exacting with His units of measurememt, not sloppy, like those filthy Baalists.

You find the Bhagavad Gita more emotionally true?  Krishna telling off whiny Arjuna to go fight because it's his dharma, it's what he was born to do, and because Arjuna is a Kshatriya fighting is simply is duty?  Krishna then revealing himself to be infinite and then proving to just be a guy pulling a chariot again, simultaneously (basically a Hindu version of the Transfiguration)?  I fail to see what makes the Bhagavad Gita in particular compelling unless you accept the premise of dharma, and I don't see how someone born outside the caste system could find the concept of dharma useful.  Arjuna is about as likable a character as Achilles and Krishna is a smug showoff.

[Meursault]

Exactly.

That's how conscious life is.  Sentient beings fight, are selfish, are petulant, love conditionally, and are generally all-around hot-blooded motherers.

I prefer gods to be so relatable, rather than the numbing, droning Love of Christianity, or the weird anti-personality that is Allah.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Einzige, do you find the figure of Jesus 'numbing' and 'droning' as well? If so, does the extent to which you find Jesus 'numbing' and 'droning' vary at all from Gospel to Gospel, or for that matter from Christology to Christology, or is it more or less constant? I'm legitimately curious. I think I know what you mean by 'numbing, droning Love' as applied to Christian theology more generally, and to that I'd say that there are ways of understanding God in Christianity that do depart from that rather markedly, but they generally depart rather in the direction of 'weird anti-personality' than in that of the clearly delineated and kind of off-puttingly characterized figures of the Hindu scriptures.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Not really.  Even if the Bible could be proven true, the god described seems to be nothing more than a vengeful, jealous, murderous being of the worst sort who decided to grant me the "gift" of life so I could only be so lucky to spend eternity in his celestial dictatorship.  Christianity disgusts me on every level.  

The fact that it's so obviously man-made and poor contrived is just a piece of the pie. 

[anvi]

Such problems did effect my faith some.  I mean, to whatever degree both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures represent "salvation history," then major difficulties with the historical narratives did, for me anyway, whittle away at the credibility of the whole narrative.  But ultimately these historical problems are not what did away with my Christian faith.  I was willing, even after learning about historical issues, to say to myself that the authors of the scriptures were human beings who, though they either made errors or were creating a mythic (not a derogatory term here) narrative, struggled to understand the relationship between God and the experience and history of their people.  Besides, as one political historian of India once aptly put it to me; "studying ancient history is a little like shining a penlight into outer space;" the instruments we have at our disposal are limited too, and there is so, so, so much we don't know about the past that humility and not arrogance is the proper attitude toward it all.  I ultimately turned away from Christianity because of larger philosophical and personal reasons. not because of historical issues. 

[afleitch]

Such problems did effect my faith some.  I mean, to whatever degree both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures represent "salvation history," then major difficulties with the historical narratives did, for me anyway, whittle away at the credibility of the whole narrative.  But ultimately these historical problems are not what did away with my Christian faith.  I was willing, even after learning about historical issues, to say to myself that the authors of the scriptures were human beings who, though they either made errors or were creating a mythic (not a derogatory term here) narrative, struggled to understand the relationship between God and the experience and history of their people.  Besides, as one political historian of India once aptly put it to me; "studying ancient history is a little like shining a penlight into outer space;" the instruments we have at our disposal are limited too, and there is so, so, so much we don't know about the past that humility and not arrogance is the proper attitude toward it all.  I ultimately turned away from Christianity because of larger philosophical and personal reasons. not because of historical issues. 

I had a similar experience I think. Certainly the historical problems were always at the back of my mind. I sort of forgave the Old Testament really, but was less forgiving of the New. Playing around with census dates, making Mary and Joseph move faster than a Roman Legion to Egypt and back in a few days and the ‘raising of the dead’ in Jerusalem after the crucifix which as I mentioned early is not only a supernatural claim but an historic one and so forth were problems, particularly as history was my academic specialism at one time. But it’s easy to dispense with them when you still believe.

What was more damaging were far greater issues surrounding god. You can no longer internalise an entire theological structure built on the Judeo-Christian notions of a god or any notions of a god when that issue gets challenged. It’s left me with a secular world view that took a little while to get used to. People seem to forget that when you no longer believe in what’s been told to you since you were a child, and don’t replace it with something that might be different but similarly structured that you do grieve a little internally. There is a feeling of loss that doesn’t immediately abate. I felt more comfortable dealing with metaphysical ideals standing outside of that particular sand pit. If I ever felt there was a ‘god’, then I don’t really have much stock in Christian theology to revert to type. For me, there’s more structured and persuasive arguments in other philosophies.

There were personal reasons too. Being LGBT and dealing with Christian responses to the same was at times nightmarish. There was always a jarring disconnect there, coupled in part with the fact that the only homophobia I have personally been exposed to has been from a predominantly Christian bent, either from a practicing Christian or from someone who makes appeals to faith, Christian hetero-normism or the Bible itself. I can't say it was a catalyst as I juggled it all fairly well personally from about 12-25 but it certainly zapped me of energy at times trying to defend myself!

[ShadowRocket]

See, I've known for a long time that pretty much every book and story within the Bible were written decades, sometimes centuries, after the events described. So I was aware that there were likely quite a few inaccuracies. But it wasn't until I started to do more research that I learned the full extent of it that it was likely somethings never happened and some figures never existed, like the Exodus for example. The problems with the Old Testament have always bothered me more, as that serves as the basic foundation for the Abrahamic faiths.

Plus, I never realized the extent Canaanite mythology influenced Judaism. Especially the idea that the Abrahamic God may've started out as simply just a god from that pantheon. That's the thing I've speculated a lot about how to reconcile with that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Plus, I never realized the extent Canaanite mythology influenced Judaism. Especially the idea that the Abrahamic God may've started out as simply just a god from that pantheon. That's the thing I've speculated a lot about how to reconcile with that.

That's actually a fairly easy thing to reconcile.  Take the Hindu idea of their various divinities being various manifestations of the Unity and apply it to the West Semitic pantheon.  Indeed, both the visit of Elohim to Abraham before going off to smite Sodom and Gomorah and the whole tale of Balaam more sense if one assumes three semi-independent avatars of the Unity. (Especially with Balaam.) [Not only that, but the similarities we know of between Abram and Balaam are enough that I think it possible that Balaam is the Moabite version of Abraham who is later introduced into the Hebrew Bible by Israelites who don't know that.]