spin

Why are you talking about history? You have no position from which to do so. You have pretense to objectivity, to understanding what actully happened in the past. You simply believe the bible and assume that what it says is true. You don't need anything else, but then you cannot talk about history in any meaningful way.

I think the notion of "bible history" is a contradiction in terms, as you use it. History is the study of what can be said happened in the past based on evidence. Christians believe that what the bible says is true on no grounds other than faith. And your miserable attempts to fake bible prophecies by denying evidence is only a bad light on your thought. Remember your fabrication, "Old Tyre". You convince yourself because you want to believe.

This argument assumes the uniformity of the bible. You need to demonstrate the uniformity before you can make such an argument.

Why do you strain to make intelligent statements when you clearly don't understand the issues of history?

Twenty years ago you probably would have listened to the lunacies of Garner Ted Armstrong and the World Tomorrow twenty years before that some other false prophet. History works on evidence, not faith, just as science works on evidence, not faith. These studies can get things wrong, but the good news is that they can fix their mistakes. We no longer believe that heavier things fall faster than lighter ones, nor that phlogiston exists, nor that the world is at the centre of the universe. Science and history live and learn. Religion can't.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, please tell us how to properly assess God's failure to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar like he promised to.

May I ask what good inerrant texts are to people who do not have access to them?

False religions by necessity have to start at only one place. A true religion could, and would start in many places at one time because a God would know that simultaneous miracles and Gospel messages happening all over the world would be indisputable evidence of his existence, power, and intentions. There are not any good reasons why a loving God would not do that, but it is understandable that a non-existent God would not be able to do that.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, and why no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another person told them about it. That also explains why geography was a primary factor regarding the spread of the Gospel message, meaning that if the God of the Bible does not exist, the people who would have heard the Gospel message first would have been people who lived closer to Palestine.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. No one would be able to ask God for any tangible benefit and be assured that he would receive it. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for and be assured that he would receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

Yep, if the God of the Bible does not exist, it is expected that things would be exactly the way that they are. If the God of the Bible does exist, it is not be expected that he would choose to mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist.

angelo

Inerrancy and the bible should not even be discussed in the same sentence.
How could a book that took a thousand years to collect and place in one volume by ignorant savages in most cases, be regarded as inerrant?

I would regard something like ''The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich'' as a true work of history by Prof. Trevor Roper. As that volume interviews hundreds of eye witnesses to the events and actions described in it's pages, and took about 4-5 years to compleat.