It actually can't be judged rationally at all.
Interesting. You have my attention.
Those books were written hundreds of years after oral traditions which may have been changed time and time again.
This is an argument not against the rational basis to judge the evidence, but instead, it's an argument against the trust worthiness of the evidence. I.e. you are evaluating, rationally, the evidence.
Not to mention all the translations that the bible went through after it was put together.
A great point, one that points towards unreliability. But from a rational perspective.
At that point they have no evidence any of it actually took place
This is not an accurate statement from a scientific stand point. From a scientific stand point, you'd say something like: "The available evidence relies, in the best case, on the testimony of individuals who did not leave a primary record. The documentary evidence that we have uncovered is at best, many times removed from the persons claiming to be eye witnesses. Additionally, the reliance on an archaic form of written communication - aramaic and an ancient greek dialect, make the original texts we have difficult to understand. Generally the evidence available is unsuited for examination for reliability because of the issues."
Mostly, I disagree with him because of the sudden conclusion he draws. The actual way that he got their can be traced back to theoretical ideas that all have a basis in science. These ideas of his can be rationally and logically debated. You have it backwards because there is noting rational or provable about the bible. In fact, history doesn't support it unless you are trying to bend actual historical findings to your point of view which is a no no.
Mr. Degrasse-Tyson's hypothesis is not falsifiable. It might be an interesting philosophical discussion, and the questions that come from it might be of interest to scientists, but the actual question itself is not a question for science.
You have it backwards because there is noting rational or provable about the bible. In fact, history doesn't support it unless you are trying to bend actual historical findings to your point of view which is a no no.
I am not sure you understand how people accumulate and rate historical events and documents. By your standard, it would be difficult for you to find that Julius Caesar lived.
The way that historical documents and histories are judged are basically by corroborating the events and timelines given with other independent accounts.
Claiming that "there is nothing rational or provable" about the bible is not scientifically accurate. For example, in the New Testament, in one gospel, it is written, from one translation:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, ..."
Saying that none of that is true or rational or can be judged rationally is not scientifically accurate. We can ascertain from many independent sources when Tiberius became emperor, when Pilate was governor, when Herod was tetrarch. These are all facts that can be examined and lined up the account given by the gospel author, known as Luke. Based on other historical accounts in his writing, we can estimate the approximate time of alleged authorship. Then, based on the oldest remaining copy of the writing, we can make a judgement about how many times removed the writing was from the original copy. In the case of Luke, or example, the oldest copy is from around 200 CE, evidence suggests it was written between 60 and 62 AD.
So, I would just sum up: people have been scientifically examining the accuracy and truth of the bible for a long time. People come to different conclusions, but I don't believe based on the available evidence the twin claims that none of it is true or rational and that it can't be judged on a rational basis.