Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
By the same token, Heirophant, most non-believers dismiss the Bible as "nothing more than a book of fables" and claim they only believe in those things that can be scientifically proven. Then science comes along and verifies that a specific portion of the Bible is true and non-believers dismiss this as being meaningless also.
|
I couldn't care less about Bible issues, though I think your argumentation is a bit unfair now... What exactly does this prove, then?
I'm with Luvian on this; pointing out that the setting is genuine doesn't automatically make the Bible's actual messages and miracles any more believable. I mean, the country of Egypt exists as well, but that doesn't mean anything along the lines of proof for or against the Bible. The Roman Emperors referred to in the Bible have existed as well, but yet again that information was added to place the events in a realistic and historical setting - and even when it could be proven that for example Jesus has actually lived, in what way does that prove all the miracles ascribed to him? To provide you with an extreme illustration, have you ever seen the movie
Life of Brian?
And more down to Earth, most modern day fictional novels are set in realistic, genuine settings just the same - but that doesn't make the novels themselves any less fictional (and I'm only adding this remark to point out that the genuineness of the setting doesn't necessarily have to say anything about the genuineness of the actual story - I'm not trying to imply that the Bible is automatically fictional itself).
This scientifical discovery helps to put the period in which the Bible-events have supposedly taken place in a historical context, but it doesn't say a single thing about what most skepticists regard as the events that are hard to believe due to a lack of proof.
[ 09-22-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]