Lysimachus writes:
If the Bible was solely written by men, without any divine inspiration, I guess all the atheists can now rely on the Bible as a reliable historical account!
Rely is a bit of strong word. There are historical events recorded in the bible. On occasions some of these events are also recorded by other sources. This is a fact.... so.
lysimachus writes:
After all, atheists do rely on Arrian's account of Alexander's campaigns, do they not?
I would imagine non-atheists do also since Arrian's account is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander. This is true by historians of all strips. Again so.
lysimachus writes:
Yet the burial grounds of Alexander cannnot be found, and even when such a historian lived approximately 3 centuries after the events happened, never has such faith been exercised by atheists regarding these accounts.
You will need to make your point more explicit. I am having trouble understanding what you are getting at.
If you point is that "atheist" reliance on the existence of Alexander based on some written works is an inordinate exercise of faith and such a faith is commensurate to the faith others have in the reality of bible describing miracles, legends and mythical stories, then that is quite a failure of logic and reasoning.
Lysimachus writes:
Interestingly, however, all the authors of the Biblical compilation seem to harmonize with one another incredibly well compared to the surmounting disharmony that existed with many historical accounts of the Greek and Persian wars.
First and foremost in the case of the Gospels there are clues that they shared a common lost source. In addition, the Gospels were not all written independently and at the same time. Having decades to synchronize ideas is the obvious answer to this issue. Why do police separate possible perpetrators early an investigation - so that they don't have time to generate a common story.
Further if we were to selectively choose various works from any religion we could generate a document with remarkable agreement.
And where are the independent disinterested corroboration. The son of God comes to earth and all we have are some biased testimonies! Think about it. A controversial political/religious person is miraculously resurrected after a public execution and no one else notices! No reports or investigations by the Roman or Jewish authorities? And then the Son of God ascends to Heaven and apparently it was a local event. One would think that The Son of God ascending to heaven would at least be on par with a say a shuttle launch.
In more a general sense there are plenty of ideas in the bible that are disharmonious and incongruent. God is merciful/Vengence is mine sayest the lord, Love your neighbor/Kill your neighbor, Love your enemy/Kill your enemy and take his virgin daughters, The dead sleep until resurrection/Immediate blissful state, Shoel/Heaven and hell, All can be saved/God creates vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, faith/works, etc
If you are not confused you are not paying attention
™ Version 4.2
