Outside the Bible itself there is very little historical evidence that many of the participants in the stories, such as Moses, David, Solomon or Jesus, ever existed, or that many of the events described there ever took place, any more than did King Arthur or Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> The video "Evidence for a Young Earth" is just a regurgitation of some of the usual creationist claims that have been repeatedly answered by scientists. It just seems the creationists never read these responses, and come out with the same old stuff time after time. - The Israeli effort to show that the Old Testament is in part an accurate history has turned up many proofs that people like David and Solomon existed: I've toured the City of David excavations just outside the wall of the Old City. Remnants of Solomon's Temple have been found. A few years ago the tumbled-down walls of Jericho were uncovered. But proving 'Moses taking the tablets' is not possible, and just makes a nice story. Re' the NT, Josephus certainly clearly referenced Jesus, making his existence likely. 
But George is absolutely correct in his assessment of the OT Bible, with authors writing stories that had been told and re-told over hundreds of years before being recorded as written statement in an ancient language with a tiny vocabulary of less than 3,000 base words, forcing each base word to have multiple meanings. I've pointed out in other threads that the Sea of Galilee is really a 5x13 mile lake, the 'sea' a mistranslation of the Hebrew 'yam', which really to any body of water, from puddle to ocean. - And the NT Bible is the same: it contains a first Gospel, written according to experts about 60-80 years after the cruifixion. Again finally writing down orally transmitted stories many years later. Both Bibles finally set up as compendia of selected material, with many more writings available than were selected, through committees of human beings who are not infallable. - And finally, I view Young Earth Creationists as equivalent to members of the "Flat Earth Society" or to those who think we never reached the Moon. Real science sets out to understand the reality we experience, not to promote a desired idea as to what should be correct, twisting and turning evidence to fit a preconceived idea based on a bible story mistranslated in the KJV. 'Yom' means any length of time, from a moment to an eon. Gerald Schroeder's books best explain how to understand Genesis and the Big Bang.

Christianity exists, so something started it. I think that Jesus existed as a man (or men), because it is unlikely that such a strong movement could have arisen spontaneously so quickly. Also, some event probably triggered the evangelizing, but nothing supernatural. David mentions King Arthur. There were probably real people and events at the base of the legend.
As far as the OT, I'm not sure. It was the writings of primitive shepherd priest passed on orally and then in writing over centuries. Who knows how much is based on some kind of fact.

It baffles me why anyone would base their entire philosophy on absolute belief in this text. It is after all just a compilation of books by various authors and editors. Some of it is literature, poems, biased history and fanciful myth, and much of it written in language now difficult to interpret. > - I can understand where edinburgh comes from as I too believed almost verbatim as he does now from a very early age. This happened to me just as it is happening to him...this is the faith handed down by the "fathers" that we are taught to search and study the scriptures to prove to others and to ourselves "where" our faith comes from....a book, "The Word of God." What I didn't understand then that I understand now, is that I was taught to "use" these scriptures to justify a belief I had already been indoctrinated with since childhood, and not the other way around. I found later, I was able to use this book to verify any and every other doctrine I later chose to believe as well. This was realized in hindsight. I did not purposely move from church doctrine to church doctrine to prove this, but if I had, I would have obviously found what I was looking for. This goes back to what I have observed within my own experience over the years...I can prove whatever I choose to believe with whatever I choose as evidence to prove it with.

I recently came across this excellent atheist site.
The essays (which continue over several pages) with the titles 
"Let the Stones Speak" - on the archaeological evidence, and
"Choking on the Camel" - on whether Jesus ever existed 
are particularly good. - http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html - The main passage in Josephus referring to Jesus is generally agreed, even by christian experts to be a pious forgery, and in any case Josephus was born in 37AD. When I referred to contemporary commentators I was thinking of people like Philo or Seneca who were alive and in the area at the time of the supposed events. They are totally silent on the subject.

Oh dear, I didn't expect anyone to start taking those quiz questions seriously! I've changed the heading of this section of the thread since we seem to have departed considerably from the original subject. - I thought Hell was an adaptation of the Greek Hades. Judging from the story of Orpheus I imagine it was more like a musty cave in the ground, on the other hand it was also presumably the abode of Vulcan (or Hephaistos) whence the fire and brimstone.

BBella: This goes back to what I have observed within my own experience over the years...I can prove whatever I choose to believe with whatever I choose as evidence to prove it with. - This is exactly what is wrong a religious upbringing. First you choose what to believe, then you seek out evidence to confirm the belief and try to ignore anything that counts against it. I was brought up in the English empiricist tradition, as exemplified by science and the detective story, that you look at the evidence first and then you decide what you believe.

This is exactly what is wrong a religious upbringing. First you choose what to believe, then you seek out evidence to confirm the belief and try to ignore anything that counts against it. I was brought up in the English empiricist tradition, as exemplified by science and the detective story, that you look at the evidence first and then you decide what you believe. - Not exactly, George. We all grow up with parents who, if religious, give us an introduction to their religion, really an indoctrination. Most stay with that result, but some of us do think and study and make other choices. I come from a Jewish family, not very religious, but as first-born male grandchild had a Bar Mitzvah. Later I became agnostic until I began my study of cosmology, particle physics and evolution. That you and I have come to different conclusions from (I assume) the same studies, in part relates to childhood teaching but also to adult logic.

I was encouraged by dwh's describing a kinder form of Christianity in his acquaintances. The Christians I meet seem to be of the born-again variety, who's attitude is "I don't make the rules. Everyone has the same choices available." But, religion in the US is more of a private matter, so I just may not be talking to the more mellow variety of Christians. - I find that the Born-Again Christians I know in Texas are of two general types. Those who 'witness' and try to convert you, and the 'true' born-again who witnesses only by living a life that emulates Jesus. That latter group are really the true and proper born-agains and they are the vast majority in my area.

Perhaps I was exceptionally lucky in not being brought up in a strongly religious family. My mother was mildly religious, in that I understand she taught at Sunday School before her marriage, and we were never able to persuade her of evolution in preference to the Adam and Eve story. However her favourite religious book was Pilgrims Progress and, coming from the Lancashire area she was a strong supporter of the Cooperative movement, and thought a lot of the social reformer Robert Owen. My father was a sceptical atheist involved in the trade union movement, an avid reader of H. G. Wells, and detective stories, and engaged in an Engineering trade requiring geometrical understanding (reading blueprints). Consequently I was left to make up my own mind on most issues from an early age, and fortunately had an excellent local library, one of those built by the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie, in which to indulge my thirst for knowledge. It was only when I went to Grammar School at age 11 that I really encountered Religious Instruction and daily religious assemblies with hymn singing, and the occasional church ceremony. Trying to sort out all this theological rubbish caused me a great deal of unnecessary intellectual anguish. Fortunately, in my readings in the library, I found people like Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer and other rationalists to guide me on the right lines.

Carl: "I was encouraged by dhw's describing a kinder form of Christianity in his acquaintances." - You came on the scene at the tail end of a long and interesting series of discussions with Mark, who is a Reverend and who very sadly appears to have abandoned us. You may recall contributing to the thread relating to the sermon which he sent us. Here are a few quotes from his post under "How Do Agnostics Live?" (June 19 at 16.27): - "You refer to the stories of Noah, Sodom & Gomorrah and John 3:18 ["he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"]. This raises the issue of how to read the Bible, which could itself fill several threads." [It has!] - "I do not take all such OT stories as historical fact. The Bible doesn't claim to be an inerrant piece of history in the sense in which we now understand history." - "The faith cannot be understood by studying the Bible in isolation from the church and its traditions of interpretation. The church existed before the Bible." - "[John is not] discussing the issue of those who have not heard of Jesus, so the church at its wisest does not force his words to apply to contexts which were not considered. If that were done with John, then one would have to say that everyone BC is lost, and it is absurd to believe that John thought this." - The church in the UK is split into all kinds of factions, some more liberal than others. Bear in mind that the above are statements by a "professional" preacher, i.e. paid by the Christian church to spread the word. Of course, he phrases his beliefs very carefully, but you and I might say this actually means that some of the stories in the Bible are a load of old cobblers, and the rest is a matter of interpretation. From then on, see BBella's perfect formula!

George has referred us to an interesting atheist site called ebonmusings. - I read the (rather long) essay called 'Choking on the Camel', which sets out a stimulating thesis that Jesus never actually existed. The main arguments seem to be that there are no eyewitness accounts, contemporary historians barely mention what should have been world-shattering events, the famous Josephus passage is a forgery (convincingly argued, in my view), the gospels ... written long after the events ... clearly build on their predecessors, and how do narrators actually know what happened if they weren't there and had no written records to consult? The author believes that Paul's epistles only refer to a spiritual, not a physical Christ (Paul's only personal contact having been through a vision). - Since Edinburgh4 is the only contributor to this site so far to take the Bible literally, I suspect that most of us will agree that many of the stories are fictional or at best symbolic. The idea that Jesus never actually existed goes one step further. The argument is sometimes circular. If the miraculous events claimed by the gospels were just fiction (as we non-Christians believe), it's hardly surprising that contemporary historians didn't mention them. Nor is it surprising that the comparatively few eyewitnesses did not include an historian. There were others also claiming to be the Messiah, so why should outsiders bother about one more? Only the eyewitnesses would have been convinced. But the fact that later writers embellish a story doesn't mean that the main character didn't exist. Tiddlers turn into whales, given enough story-telling fishermen. It's surprising that the author doesn't mention St Peter, who is said to have been an eyewitness, to have met St Paul on more than one occasion (and quarrelled with him), and to have been crucified under Nero (who certainly existed). I'm in no position to argue about history, but since Peter was the 'rock' and provides the human link between Christ and the church, I find it hard to believe that either he didn't exist (whereas Paul did) or his story revolves round events that never happened (i.e. Christ's human life and death). The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, the three-day darkness ... as far as I'm concerned, they all sound like the product of the propagandists. But I'm not convinced that Christ and his contemporaries were fictional, or that the latter suffered their appalling martyrdom for what they believed to be a fictional character. - The author finishes with praise for the "freedom and enlightenment of atheism". I think he's confusing religion with theism. We all agree that there is some colossal creative force out there. What we don't know is whether it's conscious or not. Even the main religions, despite their myths and symbols, may yet have an element of truth in them, so the self-congratulating "enlightenment" might be a bit premature.

Jesus didn't exist?
It is possible, and easy, to be sceptical about anything, but it seems harder for sceptics to be sceptical about their scepticism.

This may be old news to everyone else, but I found a video of Richard Dawkins lecture at Berkley at the Richard Dawkins web site.
 http://richarddawkins.net/article,2989,Richard-Dawkins-Lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,Richard-D... was my first opportunity to hear him, and he does seem mild mannered, which agrees with what George said.
I haven't had time to watch it all, but what I have watched is enjoyable.
He did avoid the probability trap on his scale-of-one-to-seven agnostic analysis. I know I am being pedantic, but probability requires quantification. If you knew there were one hundred universes and forty nine of them had gods, then we could accurately say that the probability of God existing in our universe was .49, which would make us agnostics. But in a population of single universe where god is true or false, it doesn't make sense to discuss probabilities. I understand that it is just a shorthand way to discuss perceived likelihood, which is intuitive.

George has referred us to an interesting atheist site called ebonmusings. 
 
> I read the (rather long) essay called 'Choking on the Camel', which sets out a stimulating thesis that Jesus never actually existed. 
>The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, the three-day darkness ... as far as I'm concerned, they all sound like the product of the propagandists. But I'm not convinced that Christ and his contemporaries were fictional, or that the latter suffered their appalling martyrdom for what they believed to be a fictional character.> - I've also read "Choking on the Camel", and appreciate George pointing out the website. - If you google "Hebrew word for virgin" you will find Christian apologist websites that try to justify the Greek translations of Isaiah that introduced the 'virgin birth' concept. Also there are Jewish Biblical scholars who point out that The Book of Isaiah uses the Hebrew word for 'maiden' in the prophesy that the Christian world uses as the supposed announcement of the coming of Jesus and the specific word for virgin five other times in other places in his writings. Remember that the entire Book of Isaiah was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dates to a time around that of Jesus. The Jewish scholars are adament that 'virgin' is a mistranslation of 'maiden', granting that maiden can imply virginity, since there was an explicit word for virgin in the Biblical writings at that time.

A more impressive video of Richard Dawkins is this one from 2006. - http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richa... - Particularly impressive is the patient way he answers hostile questions at the end, mostly by students from Liberty University, a hot-bed of creationism.