anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[SkepticOfBible]

The majority of ancient historical documents don't make the same fantastic claims that the bible does.

 

Have you ever read the Mahabharata or the Ramanya or any of the hindu scriptures. All of them contain fantastic claims and they are older than the bible.

 

Millions of the hindus believe that these events happened, and they the pray to the gods that are described in these texts.

[Guest Guest]

morality proves the existance of a programer

 

 

Your'e argument says that the fact that people have an underlying sense of right and wrong must mean that there is someone who defined this right and wrong. This could be, but not neccesarily the existence of the Judeo-Christian programmer. Different religions have different moral beliefs, and they each believe in a different god(s), or some form of god ie god is in everything or everyone/naturalism. Who is to say which is correct? You might say that because everyone atleast some set of rules that makes a creator, but problem is: Which creator? There are many beliefs in our vast world and they each have different codes they follow. Which shall you choose? Some might say that because Christianity is so different from others, that automatically makes it the 'true' religion. But why? The simple fact that something is different doesn't make it the best, or correct. It is completely possible (and likely, in my own opinion) that Christianity can be different but still incorrect. Just look at your bible, sure it may be different, but it is still coated with error (which you have may not yet noticed). Almost every nation has had some type of Christ-like myth, what makes this one an exception? So, there may be a programmer, but which one? By the way, just because I am an Ex-Christian, it doesn't mean I am atheist. I still believe there is a god, just not the Judeo-Christian god. What this other god is like, whether they be an it/he (maybe even she), or what their rules (if they have any) are, I don't know.

 

Besides, it doesn't neccessarily have to take a "programmer" for people to have ideas of right and wrong. It is not a stretch to say that morality, that is ideas of right and wrong, are conceived by society (people) and by religion, which could easily be a product of man's thinking. And not everyone has the same ideas of what these standards are. Your god may exist. He may not. Allah may exist. He may not. There may be no god. People don't know; they speculate, and this how I personally believe religion often comes about: a shallow explanation to that which no one really understands.

 

You might say that there is still a general consensus on certain rules such as stealing, killing, lying etc. First of all, you may not have noticed that in the OT Rahab [lied] so that she could protect the Isrealite spies. Could God have not done something to save them without Rahab having to lie to do it? As a former Christian, I have heard that "when god closes a door, he opens a window" and when he knows we are too weak to resist a sin, he "builds a bridge". I see no bridge, and feel no draft from an open window. The most pathetic excuse I've ever heard for this was that in this instance, Rahab was not lying, what she was doing was what they called "not telling the truth". Well, (chuckles) last I heard, "not telling the truth" is the definition of lying. Secondly, Jesus himself told others not to be hypocrites. Him himself told them never to call anyone a fool lest be in danger of hellfire. Then he proceeds to call them fools, thus making himself a hypocrite. He gave a command, and then broke his own command, not only making him a hypocrite but guilty of sin. Jesus also commands us to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us", yet he (if you believe he is god) led thousands of Isrealites into war killing countless nations. Would those Isrealites have wanted others to kill them? And, what about "do not repay evil for evil"? Thirdly, it is not even true that every person holds to these three basic rules ie killing, stealing, lying. For example, there are still tribes in existence today that practice canabilism, a form of killing. They have no moral problem with this. Hinduism considers it a sin to kill a cow, other religions consider it a sin to kill any animal, ie snakes which are sacred. Don't even think about giving me that excuse that we are not animals and we have more worth than them, or something. Just because "the bible says so" is not a sufficient argument. I have already pointed out that the bible is flawed, and I have only even done this on a few points. There are others. And these are only on the philosophical, not historical or scientific level. Besides, it is illogical to back up a document with itself. A Muslim can use the same line of reasoning: "I'm right because the Koran says so" -Simple.

 

 

Oh, so you say it's no longer "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? Well, doesn't the bible also say that god is steadfast and unchanging? 1Sa 15:29 states: "Israel's majestic God does not lie or change his mind. He is not a human being—he does not change his mind." Then there are instances such as in Ex 32:14, "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened",2Sa 24:16,1Ch 21:15,Jer 26:19,Am 7:3, Am 7:6,Jon 3:10. These a further examples of incongruency in the bible. It is inconcievable to accept that a supposedly just, fair and righteous god would not keep his own precepts. Certainly he does not consider himself above his own law, not if he were just. Even the forefathers who founded this government understood this concept and therefore created the three branches of government which would check and balance each other. So you might say, "there is a time for everything under the sun, therefore there's a time to kill." That doesn't cut it. The commandment says: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Period. Not: "Thou Shalt Not Kill except..., or when...." I'm not even taking into account here that these may not even by the real ten commandments, but that's another post. In fact, Islamic terrorists attacked us because they believed that it was the will of Allah, just as the Isrealites did in the OT. There is no difference;who is to say which was right, if either? I know who: you will say you are right, and the followers of Allah will say they were right, and neither will budge. That's how it generally goes.

 

Christian's can't even decide what they believe within this one religion. There are 40+ denominations [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listalpha.htm#e] in Christianity due to disagreences with what translations of the bible to use (as you know, the bible is either translated literally, or by whatever is the supposed contextual or metaphorical meaning -there is a range of translations in between the two ends) I'm not even taking into account that each individual translation can be interpreted differently ie literally, metaphorically, contextually, etc. People can come up with numerous interpretations and divisions have been caused because of it.

 

I have also heard the argument that people who aren't christian are such because they simply don't want to conform to its rules. While this may be true for some, it is not for all. Simply read the testimonies on this site. Besides, can you assume to know what goes on in the minds of each of the approximately six billion people on our planet? Look at the scientific, philosophical and historical evidence for both sides and decide for yourself, not letting either side persuade you. You think. You decide.

My Webpage

[Mr. Neil]

How does the programmer determine right from wrong? Is morality based on his will or does he base his morality on eliminating harm? If it's the latter, then he's not doing anything that we couldn't do ourselves, and if it's the former, then it doesn't mean anything to call such a being good. Either case is fatal for Christianity.

 

Bible God loses. So sorry.

[white_raven23]

How does the programmer determine right from wrong?

 

 

The concepts we now determine as "right" and "wrong" are the modern intellectualized, rationalized social mores that stem directly from our genetic instincts.

 

For primative man to be successful in a world that gave him a higher capacity for learning in place of claws and speed, he had to make up for what he lacked by using what he had. Because humans lacked so much, the only way they could be successful instead of an evolutionary footnote, they had to band together. Humans are social creatures as a result.

 

Certain behaviors spell doom for animals that live in packs. Such as killing one's packmates. Or not following the heirarchy requiring that alpha members (members with the best food getting strategies) lead the pack.

 

These primative instincts are the fore-runners of what we think of today as "right" and "wrong".

 

This doesn't require programming......just a few thousand years of trial and error hammered into our basic instincts carried over to the rules laid down for civil harmony in the earilest known dwellings. Which is why so many of those "rights" and "wrongs" are damn close to being universal.

[Ssel]

The concepts we now determine as "right" and "wrong" are the modern intellectualized, rationalized social mores that stem directly from our genetic instincts....

These primative instincts are the fore-runners of what we think of today as "right" and "wrong".

 

This doesn't require programming......just a few thousand years of trial and error hammered into our basic instincts carried over to the rules laid down for civil harmony in the earilest known dwellings. Which is why so many of those "rights" and "wrongs" are damn close to being universal.

This is very true, although I would want to change the word "directly" to "indirectly". But in addition if that exact same rationale is used to trace the cause of those instincts, then an even more relevant and deeper significance is revealed which relates back into religion.

 

((and no, Im not talking about "because God did it"))

[white_raven23]

But in addition if that exact same rationale is used to trace the cause of those instincts, then an even more relevant and deeper significance is revealed which relates back into religion.

((and no, Im not talking about "because God did it"))

 

Of course it does. Can you imagine early man, looking into the night sky and seeing those twinkling lights? Early man knew there was much to fear in the darkness around him, so these groups huddled around their greatest protection from the fears in the dark. Fire.

 

Is it really so much a stretch for early man to imagine those twinkling lights in the sky as hearths as well? Man's greatest fear is not the night, or the predators in the dark. This is a social creature. More frightening would be to imagine himself alone. Alone in a world he has some understanding of would be a life threatening fear. To imagine himself alone and staring up into the starry night an NOT believing something comforting: someone (or someones) are up there watching over things down here, to look up there and see void would be too terrifying for contemplation for a social creature.

 

Those early beliefs and subsequent rituals are the fore-runners of religion.

[LloydDobler]

If God exists miracles are possible. Resurrection from biological death naturally is extremely improbable or impossible. But that is not the Christian hypothesis. The Christian hypothesis is "God raised Jesus from the dead".

 

BTW, note we are distinguishing biological death from clinical death.

You're basicaly making my point for me here. If resurrection doesn't happen, why would any sane person read the bible as true? That's what I meant when I said:

In fact, until you raise someone from the dead I think you ought to refrain from purporting to know what the truth is.

Really? That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you should refrain making any truth claims until you raise someone from the dead. Am I reading you right here? Are you saying I need to perform a resurrection in order to make a truth claim?

 

No, I'm saying resurrection from the dead isn't possible, miracles don't happen and your bible is fiction. You use christ's resurrection as a statement of god's authority, then turn around and say resurrection happens IF god exists.

 

What your argument for god at this point has come down to, is, "God exists if he exists." Circular once again. You talk repeatedly about how reliably copied the bible is, but cannot make one statement of fact that differentiates it from fiction.

 

I'll break it down for you to make it easier: Prove the bible is factual.

[Ssel]

Of course it does. Can you imagine early man, looking into the night sky and seeing those twinkling lights? Early man knew there was much to fear in the darkness around him, so these groups huddled around their greatest protection from the fears in the dark. Fire.

No, no, no that's going in the other direction and is actually a little too much presumption (some is okay). I meant if you logically step back from the point where instincts exist to what caused them to be there and survive the evolutionary process. From that, you can discover the basis for the religious notions of "good and evil".

 

I'm not saying that the religious originators knew anything about evolutionary processes. But the rationale for the concepts of good and evil follow the same rationale that evolution would command if evolution were a god.

 

abstract evolution reveals what "God wants", although I consider it one of the more serious mistakes to presume that God wants anything from Man. The point to the OT was that Man either play along or wish he had. The Jews made a covenant to "play along" so they would be the only ones who were still standing in the long run. Their covenant was based simply on "what works". Or what works by all they could surmise at the time.

 

Evolution proposes this same incentive. Do what causes your family to survive, and you will. Those who do not, won't. Unfortunately the game isn't anywhere near that innocent, but that's the foundation.

[crazy-tiger]

Of course it does. Can you imagine early man, looking into the night sky and seeing those twinkling lights? Early man knew there was much to fear in the darkness around him, so these groups huddled around their greatest protection from the fears in the dark. Fire.

No, no, no that's going in the other direction and is actually a little too much presumption (some is okay). I meant if you logically step back from the point where instincts exist to what caused them to be there and survive the evolutionary process. From that, you can discover the basis for the religious notions of "good and evil".

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the evolutionary process that caused the instincts to be there in the first place?

 

Oh, and correct me on this as well, but isn't the basis for the religious notions of good and evil nothing more than what felt "right" or "not right" to each "group".

[Ssel]

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the evolutionary process that caused the instincts to be there in the first place?

I was referring to the details within the process. Within the general process of evolution, specific principles bring about a variety of progressive and progressing over all results which in combination constitute evolution.

 

Oh, and correct me on this as well, but isn't the basis for the religious notions of good and evil nothing more than what felt "right" or "not right" to each "group".

Well, this is exactly what the argument has really been about. When the originators of a religion are not around to question as to WHY they believe what they teach, things get left up to speculation and suspicion. Whether people favor something or disfavor it, they very often suspect the wrong reasoning of the originator. It becomes a game of trying to guess by possibility and probability. The lazy guesses are always "because they wanted power and fame" or "because they were all stupid and didn't understand simple science".

 

But by very, VERY seriously examining exactly what was really being taught and comparing it to what science and logic would dictate as "what would work", then a whole new picture arises from what seemed like a non-sense superstition.

 

The Biblical writings are about very elite survival strategies, not silly superstitions. But I agree that they are written in a mystical manner leaving the casual reader very little choice but to assume they are mere fairy tales. This manner of writing had a serious reasoning in its own right.

 

This issue can't be resolved as anything but possible speculation until those "strategies" are actually finally deduced from the translation from the ancient mystical wording. Once it is seen as to what these characters were really talking about, then it becomes very clear they were no superstitious fools, not by a LONG shot. But millions of their followers have been.

[crazy-tiger]

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the evolutionary process that caused the instincts to be there in the first place?

I was referring to the details within the process. Within the general process of evolution, specific principles bring about a variety of progressive and progressing over all results which in combination constitute evolution.

Gotcha now... thanks for the clarification.

Oh, and correct me on this as well, but isn't the basis for the religious notions of good and evil nothing more than what felt "right" or "not right" to each "group".

Well, this is exactly what the argument has really been about. When the originators of a religion are not around to question as to WHY they believe what they teach, things get left up to speculation and suspicion. Whether people favor something or disfavor it, they very often suspect the wrong reasoning of the originator. It becomes a game of trying to guess by possibility and probability. The lazy guesses are always "because they wanted power and fame" or "because they were all stupid and didn't understand simple science".

 

But by very, VERY seriously examining exactly what was really being taught and comparing it to what science and logic would dictate as "what would work", then a whole new picture arises from what seemed like a non-sense superstition.

 

The Biblical writings are about very elite survival strategies, not silly superstitions. But I agree that they are written in a mystical manner leaving the casual reader very little choice but to assume they are mere fairy tales. This manner of writing had a serious reasoning in its own right.

 

This issue can't be resolved as anything but possible speculation until those "strategies" are actually finally deduced from the translation from the ancient mystical wording. Once it is seen as to what these characters were really talking about, then it becomes very clear they were no superstitious fools, not by a LONG shot. But millions of their followers have been.

Hmm... taking into account that what feels "right/not right" at this time in the Western World (I can't really speak for any other parts) is not the same as what felt "right/not right" back then in the "Known World", (in general, we're now more "empathic" towards others) then you have a point. But... that leaves the Biblical writings with the problem that they are no longer truely relevent.

 

That goes for all religious writings/teachings... depending on how "specific" they are. The more general the "strategies" are, the less they get "left behind" by the changing face of human civilization. This might very well explain why some teachings are accepted while others are debated non-stop.

 

 

 

Appologies for any lack of clarity... it's way after midnight here and I'm getting mentally sluggish.

[Kevin H]

If God exists miracles are possible. Resurrection from biological death naturally is extremely improbable or impossible. But that is not the Christian hypothesis. The Christian hypothesis is "God raised Jesus from the dead".

 

BTW' date=' note we are distinguishing biological death from clinical death.[/quote']

 

You're basicaly making my point for me here. If resurrection doesn't happen, why would any sane person read the bible as true?

 

 

KH> Lloyd, you have misunderstood. Your statement unpacks to: "according to my naturalistic worldview, miracles are impossible".

 

I say, If God exists miracles are possible. So, it is Naturalism vs. Theism. On Naturalism, the resurrection cannot happen.

 

 

 

 

In fact' date=' until you raise someone from the dead I think you ought to refrain from purporting to know what the truth is.

[/quote']

Really? That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you should refrain making any truth claims until you raise someone from the dead. Am I reading you right here? Are you saying I need to perform a resurrection in order to make a truth claim?

 

No' date=' I'm saying resurrection from the dead isn't possible, miracles don't happen and your bible is fiction. [/i']

 

 

KH> That is consistent with Naturalism.

 

You use christ's resurrection as a statement of god's authority, then turn around and say resurrection happens IF god exists.

 

KH> I say the evidence is very good for the resurrection. Therefore, it seems we have a divine miracle on our hands.

 

 

What your argument for god at this point has come down to, is, "God exists if he exists." Circular once again.

 

 

KH> I never said it.

 

 

You talk repeatedly about how reliably copied the bible is, but cannot make one statement of fact that differentiates it from fiction.

 

KH> The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual. Why should I deny it? Why should I compare it to fictional literature when the writers did not intend it to be fictional? Rule of thumb: give the ancient document the benefit of the doubt unless the writer disqualifies himself.

 

l break it down for you to make it easier: Prove the bible is factual.

 

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

 

Kevin H

Gone with the Wind describes real places, real people, real times and real events... there is overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration.

Are you going to claim that Gone with the Wind is ALSO factual?

 

 

Oh, and maybe you'd like to detail this corroboration for us... and don't try anything by Ron Wyatt, he's a known con-job.

[Ssel]

Kevin H,

From what I have seen in this thread, you have accepted a set of axioms which, in combination with your patience, will allow you to argue and defend forever without the slightest alteration of your faith.

 

On the other hand, the people at this site have accepted a set of axioms, contrary to yours, which also allows them to argue forever without the slightest alteration of their disbelief.

 

I’m certain that if I were to truly prove to you that some of your axioms were indeed false, your faith would suffer a severe jolt. Realize that when I say “prove” that I mean “prove to you”, not necessarily anyone else. I have no particular interest in jolting your faith, but I’m curious what you believe would happen if I did.

 

And I would also like to ask your opinion of the following excerpt from a prior thread;

 

Christmas

1) Child – Christmas is about Santa Claus bringing toys to “good” children.

2) Disheartened – discovering that Santa is no more than parents, relatives, or neighbors who are trying to con children into being good while selling toys for their own greed for money

3) Maturity – realizing that Christmas was really about Jesus’ message.

 

Christianity

1) Child – God and Jesus are ghostly, supernatural watchers and all powerful spirits which will intervene for sake of the “good” people

2) Disheartened – discovering that their image of God can’t be real and is only there so as to con people into behaving and yielding power to selfish churches.

3) Maturity – realizing the higher understanding of scriptures and how such understanding causes Man to progress to a higher level of health, less conflict, and joy for all.

 

Which level are YOU at currently?

[willybilly30]

Kevin you mind telling me why your ignoring my posts?

[Cerise]

Kevin, for the love of crackers learn how to use the quote box correctly! Your posts give me headaches and I refuse to read them unless you clean them up some.

[willybilly30]

He needs to answer everyone not play pick n choose

I guess im too tough for him

[SkepticOfBible]

KH> I say the evidence is very good for the resurrection. Therefore, it seems we have a divine miracle on our hands.

Where is that evidence, have you examined it first hand or are you reling on second hand eyewitness report which were written like 2000 years.

 

KH> The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual. Why should I deny it? Why should I compare it to fictional literature when the writers did not intend it to be fictional? Rule of thumb: give the ancient document the benefit of the doubt unless the writer disqualifies himself.

 

Then I guess you have also given the Quran and Bhagwad gita a the benefit of doubt, or are you applying double standard.

 

Millions of Mormons also accept the extra ordinary revelation of Joseph Smith, which was very similar to St Paul, yet you don't accept the book of Mormon as inspired text.

 

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

Nobody in this forum is denying that the bible doesn't contain historical facts, but how much is actually fact and mythology is yet to be proven. I mean do u believe eveything that was written in ancient text.

 

And what if we show that there is archeological and textual contradiction. What does that prove?

[MQTA]

 

 

And I would also like to ask your opinion of the following excerpt from a prior thread;

 

Christmas

1) Child – Christmas is about Santa Claus bringing toys to “good” children.

2) Disheartened – discovering that Santa is no more than parents, relatives, or neighbors who are trying to con children into being good while selling toys for their own greed for money

3) Maturity – realizing that Christmas was really about Jesus’ message.

 

Christianity

1) Child – God and Jesus are ghostly, supernatural watchers and all powerful spirits which will intervene for sake of the “good” people

2) Disheartened – discovering that their image of God can’t be real and is only there so as to con people into behaving and yielding power to selfish churches.

3) Maturity – realizing the higher understanding of scriptures and how such understanding causes Man to progress to a higher level of health, less conflict, and joy for all.

 

Which level are YOU at currently?

 

Except the 3's are more like realizing it's not what they lead you to believe. Or is that the level of Mature Christian, rather than Mature ADULT?

[Mythra]

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?Kevin H

 

Congratulations. According to the standard you've set here, you have just proven that Hercules was a historical person in ancient Greece.

 

Oh, and about the "overwhelming archaeological" evidence. You are either dishonest or ignorant.

 

 

And, Kevin H, don't think that it has escaped our notice, the fact that you continue on with silly christian "true-isms" - blanket general statements that stem from gullible faith - instead of addressing any of the specific points which have been raised over the past eight pages of this thread.

 

It's much easier to fearlessly march on than to stop and actually think about something, isn't it?

[Kevin H]

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?Kevin H

 

Congratulations. According to the standard you've set here, you have just proven that Hercules was a historical person in ancient Greece.

 

Oh, and about the "overwhelming archaeological" evidence. You are either dishonest or ignorant.

 

 

And, Kevin H, don't think that it has escaped our notice, the fact that you continue on with silly christian "true-isms" - blanket general statements that stem from gullible faith - instead of addressing any of the specific points which have been raised over the past eight pages of this thread.

 

It's much easier to fearlessly march on than to stop and actually think about something, isn't it?

 

 

 

KH> Look carefully. Historians have tests for distinguishing literature, history, and a combination. I also said in the top of my post the NT purports to be historical.

 

Hercules is easily traceable to mythological literature, but again, what are your tests for determining that? Anyone?

 

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

Kevin... detail this archeological and textual corroboration for us.

 

 

 

By the way... The Iliad also purports to be historical and details "real places, real people, real times and real events" to the same degree as the Bible.

 

Background details (like being set in a real place, or a specific time, or a certain civilization) being true and proven does not mean that the important stuff (the hero, villan, what happens to them) is also proven...

If, as you are argueing, it does, then Gone with the Wind, the Quran, the Iliad, all James Bond novels, Saving Private Ryan, the Titanic movie, and every single work of fiction that is set in the past or present are also true.

 

 

Yes, historians have tests to distinguish fact from fiction... and one part of that test is not to assume that foreground details are proven by background details.

 

Hence the reason that even the Catholic church (yes, the guys who put together the Bible) are now admitting that parts are fictional.

[Mythra]

At one time, the Greeks believed Hercules to be historical. You don't just think that someone would make a story like that up, do you? The story of a son of Zeus, born of a virgin mother (Alcmene), whom Hera tried to have killed in his youth? The Hercules who died and ascended to heaven (Mount Olympus)?

 

Surely Hercules was real. After all, he is mentioned by Josephus three times in his Antiquities. Tacitus also references Hercules several times in his Annals.

 

Why would someone just make up a story such as this? People worshipped Hercules. The story must have been grounded in fact.

 

Or, like the story of Christ, Hercules is just another story.

[willybilly30]

fine dont answer me kevin

GO FUCK YOURSELF

you are ignorant that is why you cant answer my questions

your ignorance proves the bible is bullshit and you are full of shit its oozing out your fucking ears

[Kevin H]

KH> The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual. Why should I deny it? Why should I compare it to fictional literature when the writers did not intend it to be fictional? Rule of thumb: give the ancient document the benefit of the doubt unless the writer disqualifies himself.

 

Then I guess you have also given the Quran and Bhagwad gita a the benefit of doubt, or are you applying double standard.

 

Millions of Mormons also accept the extra ordinary revelation of Joseph Smith, which was very similar to St Paul, yet you don't accept the book of Mormon as inspired text.

 

 

KH> ...unless the writer disqualifies himself. First, I said ancient document. The Book of Mormon does not apply and it would take me hours to even scratch the surface of errors in the Book of Mormon and how badly Smith disqualifies himself.

 

 

The Quran is older yet suffers from many errors including the contention that sperm comes from a man's chest, Jesus was not crucified, the sun set in a puddle of mud, etc.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, unless a worldview, religion, or belief system can adequately defeat my worldview, objectively and subjectively, why should I discard it?

 

 

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody in this forum is denying that the bible doesn't contain historical facts, but how much is actually fact and mythology is yet to be proven. I mean do u believe eveything that was written in ancient text.

 

And what if we show that there is archeological and textual contradiction. What does that prove?

 

 

KH> You didn't answer my question.