M
Medjai
Guest
Many people have barraged me in the past with attempts at convincing me of the Bible's accuracy...
They fail to realize a few things...
1. A historically accurate document is not infallable.
2. In every "historical document" of elder days there are supernatural and/or unreasonable events that are removed to maintain the accuracy of the document (e.g. Ancient Egyptian writings were very precise and accurate yet made the pharohs out to be living Gods, the Greeks were accurate, yet attributed many events to the anger or pleasure of the Gods, there are many more examples).
I believe the Bible has historical significance in that the whole of Europe was drastically influenced by it. Further, the Bible has many accurate depictions, yet it claims causation of such events to things that we can not logically take into account.
Most ancient texts that involve wars, started by the side who is writing the text, are the will of their God or Gods.
The idea that people lived hundreds of years is absurd, and and obviously false. I can go into the biological reasoning behind this of course if you need (it has to do with telomeres).
The idea that donkey's and snakes could speak is absolutely absurd. There mouths aren't shaped for it, and snakes don't have voice boxes.
The idea that snakes "eat dirt" is absurd. There isn't one snake on the planet that does this.
Now, you call the Greek dietys of old, "Myths". And you justify this by calling on much of their absurd notions. Yet you must remember, at one time these "absurd notions" were perfectly reasonable to the masses.
The Bible speaks of places that actually exist and of people that actually lived. To this I agree. Of course it is not likely that all the people in it and all the places discussed within its pages did in fact exist, I suppose its possible.
Than again... the Iliad spoke of Troy and other factually existent cities and nations... did it not? Charles Dickens, "A Tale of Two Cities" spoke of actual people and definately actual places (in great and accurate detail) yet we all agree this masterpiece was a work of fiction.
Fiction can be written with the aid of factual information, it adds to the believability of a given text, it helps the reader visualize things as well.
Anyways, I fail to understand how the Bible being a valid source of "history" (which I don't take it to be in totality or even majority) in any way makes it the infallable and unchanged divine word of a supreme being. Please explain.
They fail to realize a few things...
1. A historically accurate document is not infallable.
2. In every "historical document" of elder days there are supernatural and/or unreasonable events that are removed to maintain the accuracy of the document (e.g. Ancient Egyptian writings were very precise and accurate yet made the pharohs out to be living Gods, the Greeks were accurate, yet attributed many events to the anger or pleasure of the Gods, there are many more examples).
I believe the Bible has historical significance in that the whole of Europe was drastically influenced by it. Further, the Bible has many accurate depictions, yet it claims causation of such events to things that we can not logically take into account.
Most ancient texts that involve wars, started by the side who is writing the text, are the will of their God or Gods.
The idea that people lived hundreds of years is absurd, and and obviously false. I can go into the biological reasoning behind this of course if you need (it has to do with telomeres).
The idea that donkey's and snakes could speak is absolutely absurd. There mouths aren't shaped for it, and snakes don't have voice boxes.
The idea that snakes "eat dirt" is absurd. There isn't one snake on the planet that does this.
Now, you call the Greek dietys of old, "Myths". And you justify this by calling on much of their absurd notions. Yet you must remember, at one time these "absurd notions" were perfectly reasonable to the masses.
The Bible speaks of places that actually exist and of people that actually lived. To this I agree. Of course it is not likely that all the people in it and all the places discussed within its pages did in fact exist, I suppose its possible.
Than again... the Iliad spoke of Troy and other factually existent cities and nations... did it not? Charles Dickens, "A Tale of Two Cities" spoke of actual people and definately actual places (in great and accurate detail) yet we all agree this masterpiece was a work of fiction.
Fiction can be written with the aid of factual information, it adds to the believability of a given text, it helps the reader visualize things as well.
Anyways, I fail to understand how the Bible being a valid source of "history" (which I don't take it to be in totality or even majority) in any way makes it the infallable and unchanged divine word of a supreme being. Please explain.