The Bible is Assembled from Older Literature...true ?

I'm going to give this type of argument a name: " The Sun-baked Goat Herder Argument " ( Or, simply: The Goat Herder Argument )

Here, we have a typical statement made online, I screen-captured this in a chatroom, to use as an example

This is a common type of claim to encounter online, and in a chatroom it's not something that can be effectively addressed

It sounds good to the person making it, but... does it stand up under scrutiny ?

If it's a correct statement that the Bible uses other, older sources, then what proceeding argument will support that as being a necessarily positive argument against the Bible's veracity ?

The statement captured in the chatroom clearly shows it makes an additional specious claim, which is essentially the Goat Herder Argument:

" They knew much less than we do ", or " they had a simplified worldview, thought the earth is flat ", etc "





People often like to think of this approach, looking for obvious connections between older literature and traditions as an attack on the Bible and Abrahamic religions in general

What's amusing, is that whether they're easily offended religious folks upset at this supposed " attempt to deface the Holy word of God ", or atheists, agnostics and polemicists attempting to cheapen the Bible by making an argument that hinges on the assumption that it's essentially " The best parts " from older literature that was meant to best reflect the blending of the primitive worldview of sun-baked goat herders with their archaic religious beliefs...

...this type of approach is seen as a valid attack on the Bible by either " side "

This Goat Herder Argument relies on a specious assumption ( Superficially plausible, but actually wrong )

It's often used as the basis for modern polemics, for example, Dawkins and his comrades-in-arms argue that the Bible and science are not unrelated magisteria but overlap in the sense that religious faith and its sacred texts such as the Bible have primitive evolutionary origins and are subject to scientific deconstruction

So right off the bat, Dawkins' statement of " primitive evolutionary origins " is a fancy way of presenting the Goat Herder Argument

Where he really fails though, is the statement the Bible is " subject to scientific deconstruction ", because in his mind, the Goat Herder Argument supports what he thinks is an additional valid " attack " on the Bible ( The call for scientific deconstruction )

Let's consider that irony for a second, side by side with Maimonides' suggestion:





" Use science "...as suggested quite some time ago by the rabbi Maimonides

Whether or not Dawkins has actually read The Guide for the Perplexed is doubtful, and certainly he doesn't know anything about what was considered science by priests in the antiquities


let's go on with Dawkins' statements, they get even better, and by " better " I mean worse :

‘To be fair’, Dawkins conciliates, ‘much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together
anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and “improved” by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors, copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. If we want to retain the Bible "..– and Dawkins concedes that we should – .." it can
be given a place in our literary education: so many expressions in novels and plays would not be understood if we lost our knowledge of biblical stories "

This type of claim is often used to support the Goat Herder Argument, it's technically called " spreading " in debate circles

This is when someone attempts to undermine something by presenting a heap of objections or raising multiple points of contention all at once

This is a cheap tactic, in my opinion, for I feel one single well-formed argument in a debate will easily crush an opponent's claims, without relying on excessively worded baseless assertions to overwhelm someone in a debate

Clearly, Dawkins' approach to the Bible, as well as his subsequent arguments, are flawed for a number of reasons

In this video titled " Why Richard Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists " he essentially says it's beneath him, intellectually, to debate such foolishness

Now, is Dawkins correct in his view of our ancestors ?

It's easy to claim they were uneducated AKA The Goat Herder Argument, but does that stand up to scrutiny ?

Is it supported by evidence of this supposed simple-minded way of life in the antiquities ?

To quote another well-known polemicist: “ That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence ” ― Christopher Hitchens

Dawkins' entire stance seem to rest entirely on the Goat Herder Argument, it completely ignores the rich traditions of math and science in Mesopotamian and Egyptian societies

This is an academic, committing major fallacies in logic