oh,
I was leaving the discussion because i saw it going [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] and back to the "contradictions in the bible" discussion but
sultan has made some points that really pepped it up again. So:
1.)
Yorick, double post (probably an unnecessary hint, when I'm finished writing you'll most likely have deleted it
2.)
Yorick, thanks for making the offtopic-topic, I will join there soon and I guess it will take sibjectivity off of this thread
3.)
sultan, the historical value of biblical scripture derives from
- comparing the scriptures with each other: If an older manuscript is almost exactly like a newer one this means that either the text was highly valued OR that there has to be some truth in it. Myths tend to change heavily with time (rumors do even faster).
- comparing it with other ancient works: the flood mentioned by Cerek is element of Roman, Greek, Germanic and many other mythological texts. This implies that there actually has been a Great flood. Personally I doubt that it literally covered the world but rather think that there was a world-wide set of floods due to a climate change.
- comparing it with other historical works: which is or example what made it possible to date Jesus' birth and found our time-system. There's an incredible book (only know the German title) "Ein Mensch namens Jesus" (A human named Jesus) by Gerald Messadie which does exactly that and tries to explain the whole new testament scientifically (i.e. offers scientific explanation for the virgin birth, the wonders,...). I really recommend it
Yet the bible is not a source of history only, but contrary to other history books has an intended lesson to learn from and can be viewed as much more for people who want to.
4.)
Yorick, while I understand that you got a bit defensive
sultan is right in that he didn't contest the point but simply asked for more thourough information so he can contest the whole issue (not only based on the one point he had no possibility of certain knowing if true or false and therefore couldn't contest)
5.)
Chewbacca and
Yorick: I have learned much from you in discussions in the past and you both got a lot of smart things to say. But - no offense intended - after a while you get into bickering. Come on guys, this is beyond you (and hopegully the off-topic topic will pick that up and take it out of this thread)
6.)
Chewbacca, I guess I'm stnading at the same point of view as you with the "scientific explanation of faith healing" (if not correct me) and would like to elaborate: I think that because a lot of illnesses are at least partly psychosomatic a change of faith (not used as a religious term solely here) can have a very positive effect on your recovery. Surviving of cancer for example is more common with people who believe in their survival than with people who basicaly give up. I myself believe in the strenghth of my immune system and tend to recover quickly from (fortunately rather small) illnesses, never sunk into it and (thank god) have never been comitted to a hospital. This may be a conicidence (because I can still rely on the strenghth of my youth) but I do not view it as such and thus get along a cough without getting bronchitis or asthma (at least I think so).
-------
I probably haven't addressed everything I wanted to and everything I have addressed I probably didn't as thoroughly as I wanted to, but I'm just getting beck into the discussion and will elaborate later on.