Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Tancred:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaskez:
If one part of it's true, surely there is that little bit less doubt about some other parts of it and so on. What I'm trying to say is analagous to when a person tells the truth one time then you are more likely to believe them next time. The people writing the Bible had no reason to write things they believed were false so they were either deluded, misguided or right.
|
Using this line of reasoning, you could affirm the truth in all manner of things; Greek mythologies, the Arthurian legends, even other contemporary religions. That's insane! [/QUOTE]It's not insane. It's a perfectly solid line of reasoning. The Greek and Arthurian mythologies present facts which are clearly incorrect when compared against other historical works covering the same period. Therefore one can make reasonable assumptions about the correctness (or not) of those things which require a stretch of belief.
The Bible on the other hand, posseses an extraordinary dedication to accuracy. It'll bore you to tears if you read it cover to cover precisely because of many books long genealogical lists, measurements or other such detail.
Jesus/Y'shua's family line is recorded all the way back to David and then back to Adam.
See, though the creation may be difficult to swallow, each subsequent direct descendant of Adam is accounted for and listed in the Bible. It lists their ages relative time (to the fathers age) of birth so a date for creation can be set to circa 4001 B.C.
Another thing about the bible is that it crossreferences itself. Another is that 25,000 archaelogical sites have been found that are mentioned in the bible.
Another point is that there are vastly more copies of early manuscripts found within a shorter time frame from time of writing. We have manuscriptes of the New Testament dated to being copied 50 years after Y'shua's death.
The number is something like 44,000 copies or some other ridiculously high figure.
Other historical works like Tacitus and Herodotus have only a handful of manuscripts found, with copies dating in some cases, hundreds of years after it was written.
This site has interesting points:
http://lifeandtruth.com/thebible.htm
In any case, back to the "insane" argument, it is an argument used in courts of law today. Much hinges on a witnesses trustworthiness. If they are found to have been dishonest or lied in the past, their word is not upheld.
So, it is quite clearly a solid line of reasoning. Far from "insanity". [/QUOTE]Well...yes, it's a bad line of reasoning. I've never lied to you, so if I was to tell you I'm actually Elvis, would you believe me?
Of course the historical setting is accurate. They could not have written a book at that time, with it happening in fake places, and then claim it's true. This book was written back then, not today. The people knew and even lived in all those places. I bet the Raelians would have a lot less followers if they tried to tell us New York doesn't exist, and that there is a continent called Atlantis in the middle of the pacific ocean.... If you want people to believe you, no mather if you are really saying the thruth or lying, you have to base your story on reality.
As for the Jesus's familly line, if it was true, it would mean human were created by god, and there was no evolution. I find this very hard to believe... If we go by your reasoning of "If someone keep saying truth, then what he say has to always be the truth". Then most people will have to consider the bible as false, as most people accept the theory of evolution as the thruth...
After hearing that, I have a lot less respect for the bible. How did they verify his family line? Did they dig up in the ruin of the Great flood? Actually, it's pretty irrelevent, as we are all encestors to Noa, right? He most have been a busy man... [img]graemlins/showoff.gif[/img]