|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Reliable history in the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Brian,
Can you please provide some resources for your claim.
Brian writes: when the fact of the matter is that almost every archaeological discovery has undermined the 'historical' narratives of the Bible. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
Thank you for you information. However, I am seeking information from the poster. He has made a claim and so I am asking him to show me resources. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
First I never said that Brian was obligated to show that the Bible is not a reliable history in contrast to any degree. However, when I post a topic I provide all evidences to support that claim. Brian on the other hand posted an argument with no resources to support his evidences. Last but not least I don't claim that the Bible is literal or that it contains a factual history in contrast to any degree. So, if it is true that Brian probably will not respond to my reply then that is fine by me. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
I need you to understand that I am aware of Brians direction with his post. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
Just to show that I am aware of the direction of this thread; I will argue that "some of the Bible may have credible histories".
Histroy Chanel Edited by AdminNosy, : shorten link Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
I made my argument. The link was my support. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
Actually I made an argument. However, you seem to agree with me or we would have an argument. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
It is fact that the bible has some historical documents. (I reworded it for you =)) The link to my support is located in my original post subtitled "the bibles historical credibility". Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
AdminPaul,
I know what is expected of me in this EVC forum. Please understand that I agree with Brian's point that the Bible has little reliable historical accounts. My problem is that I don't like the way Brian posted his thread. Brian did'nt have to make any assertions in his original post. Brian could have simply requested that people who believe the Bible has reliable historical accounts to please reply with those accounts. Instead Brian not only requested others to post information about reliable historical Biblical accounts, but he also made an assertion that archaeological discoveries undermine the reliability of the Bibles historical accounts. I just simply think Brian should have posted some resources for others to read about said archaeoligcal discoveries. P.S. Paul I am glad to see that you are an admin now. You always were an annoying person to argue with. What I mean is that you always did provide valuable information in previous arguments. Edited by trossthree, : error Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Brian,
Please read my response to adminpaul. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Brian,
I figured you were just simply trying to nudge people into your thread. I just found your tactics annoying. Anyways, you answered me well enough. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Lysimachus,
Also, in addition to this, I will make clear what I know to be true:
Do you mean "theorize" instead of "know"?
No archaeological discovery has ever proven the bible to be untrue. Facts have not changed, only perceptions and conceptions of those facts. Anything that may appear to "counter" the biblical account is only a "perception" or a "conception", but never a proof.
Drop this hat it will not go anywhere here. Just simply find the error in the idea here and it will suffice. Edited by KISS, : No reason given. Thank you KISS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Brian,
Or maybe you're interpreting the evidence incorrectly? P.S. I am not claiming that you're but I am claiming the possibility. Thank you KISS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Brian,
However, part of the problem with the prehistory books of the Bible is the complete absence of evidence for many events, add to this the mythical tales, aetiological tales, and a host of absurdities, then it is difficult to take these early books seriously. It is silly to take anything in relation to "origin of life" seriously. There are plenty more topics which one can take seriously. In "reality" there is no proof to deny the existence of "paranormal" rather it be by means of the Bible or any other means. However, I do find it interesting why masses of beings since the "foundations of the earth" have believed in the paranormal and have claimed to receive revelation.
No historian should claim absolutes about their theories, personally if I am writing a formal piece I always use words such as 'unlikely' or 'it is difficult to imagine', or it is 'reasonable to assume', and other non absolute claims. We never know what may be found on the future, so we really cannot say this or that definately didn't happen.
Hoorah! However, in relation to "is there reliable history in the Bible?" I would say "who cares". In anycase, having no reliable history in the Bible, does not mean YEHWEH is a false God. Edited by KISS, : No reason given. Edited by KISS, : No reason given. Thank you KISS
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024