- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1,005
- Location
- Pacific Northwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Well, yeh. Ayn Rand died poor and on Social Security.
Only if you are into blanket statements. :roll:
Meh considering the bible is in and of itself erroneous not only HISTORICALLY but demonstratively through logic, it is in fact proper to asses that Christians are ignorant of history.
You have two choices blackdog. Either the bible is the word of god and completely right as it claims, or its wrong and its just a book written by a few hebrews who didnt know jack **** about the world.
So what historical inaccuracies in the Bible could you possibly be talking about?
I'll take a shot. Prove the creation story or the flood story ever really happened.
Creation stories are just that, stories. And the flood actually happened, so, you're wrong about that.
I'd rather hear from Hatuey anyway. You opinion is not particularly interesting.
Then you should have no problem producing evidence that a worldwide flood actually happened. Go for it.
Yours isn't particularly sane.
There is ample evidence for a great flood. Deucalion, Noah, Atlantis, etc. Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So that's a real bad example if you're trying to come up with Biblical historical inaccuracies.
Wrong, just wrong... So within the past 2000 years we have had global flooding from a tidal wave (only thing that could cause such an event for a short period) when?
(I could be wrong, just wrong. If I am, please school me)
Sure, no problem. It was way more than 2000 years ago, for starters.
zzzzzz Continue please? (I'm 110% sure that your own fellow christian colleagues disagree because the earth didn't exist "way before that" because jesus hadn't created it, but continue please)
Meh, anyone who quotes sacred text as proof of any argument should really consider taking a college course. It just makes for bad argument. I'm a Muslim so why should I take your interpretation of any bible as truth? I'm a atheist, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth? I'm a christian, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth?
There is ample evidence for a great flood. Deucalion, Noah, Atlantis, etc. Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So that's a real bad example if you're trying to come up with Biblical historical inaccuracies.
I'll take a shot. Prove the creation story or the flood story ever really happened.
There is evidence for lots of smaller floods, yes. There is no evidence for a single world-wide flood. Try again.
The creation story is not literal. The flood story is a local thing as proven by science as a large flood did happen in the area, This is the same reason almost every major religion from Africa, the Middle East and the Americas have a flood epic. They were just large local floods on a massive scale. The geology supports this rather than a global flood. 2000 years ago the Middle East and Africa was the entire world. So world wide flood is accurate by their standards.
This is not rocket science, lol.
I know some Christians believe the literal translation, and I have to disagree with them as well.
zzzzzz Continue please? (I'm 110% sure that your own fellow christian colleagues disagree because the earth didn't exist "way before that" because jesus hadn't created it, but continue please)
The creation story is not literal. The flood story is a local thing as proven by science as a large flood did happen in the area, This is the same reason almost every major religion from Africa, the Middle East and the Americas have a flood epic. They were just large local floods on a massive scale. The geology supports this rather than a global flood. 2000 years ago the Middle East and Africa was the entire world. So world wide flood is accurate by their standards.
You have to see it from their perspective, not our modern view of the world.
Well, look, even a Biblical literalist isn't going to say it was 2000 years ago. I mean, look at the timeline, Noah is purported to have lived about 4000 years before Christ.
But as I said earlier, I am approaching this from a strictly philological perspective, not a religious one. Calling the Bible "historically inaccurate" is a sweeping and wholly small minded thing to say. Genesis is, of course, full of fantasy, but it is a creation epic not unlike Hesiod. It is literary, and very few of the Abrahamic religions take it literally.
The rest of the Bible is as historically accurate as any other comparable ancient text, more some than many. Who won what battle, who begat whom, and so on, are highly accurate. One of the major apparent inaccuracies is in Exodus, since there is no corroborating evidence that the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. But really, that is not a bad record for historicity in an ancient text. The Bible is more "historically accurate" than most comparable works (whatever that means... only a simpleton would think there was an easy definition of "historical accuracy"). Compare Suetonius, a Roman gossip-monger who is a key source of what we know about the Julio-Claudians.
The jury is still out on the historicity of Jesus but if you pay attention to the recent scholarship then you'd know that the weight of evidence is tilting in favor of the fact that there was a historical Jesus. It does seem to strain credulity that Jesus is an entirely fabricated character. I admit, I once leaned toward the hypothesis that Jesus was a myth, because the Christ cult is certainly part of the mystery cult tradition that includes Isis, Eleusis and Mithras. But the most likely explanation is that Jesus was a real Jewish hero-teacher much like the character found in the New Testament who fused Jewish teaching with Greek philosophy to create the Abrahamic-Hellenic hybrid espoused in the Bible. There probably wasn't a census around the time of His birth, and a number of other facts were probably fudged to align with certain old testament prophecies. But the broad strokes are likely true, and that is a lot to expect from ancient texts.
So, is the Bible "historically accurate?" If one is inclined to give short answers to these type of complex questions, then the short answer is "Yes."
See, I do understand it from their perspective. They saw things they didn't understand and they attributed them to gods. Today, we know better. We realize that the things they claimed were the work of gods were really the work of nature.
There is no reason to think gods exist.
Shows how much you know, lol. He is absolutely correct. Old Earth Christians like myself do not believe in the young earth crap.