Evad

Part of it, yes, though it isn't at all necessary. People tend not only to write the history they prefer but seek it out as well.

The Bible proves to be far more accurate than most secular histories in this regard. It's writers detail the weaknesses and failings of its subjects.

It is often assumed that that is the case with the Bible, but it isn't.

Joshua might have had something to do with that, don't you think?

Genesis was written by Moses in the Wilderness: completed in 1513 and covered the time of the beginning until 1657 B.C.E.

Exodus was written by Moses in the Wilderness: completed in 1512 and covered 1657 - 1512 B.C.E.

Leviticus was written by Moses in the Wilderness: completed in 1512 and covered a period of 1 month.

Numbers was written by Moses in the Wilderness and the Plains of Moab: completed in 1473 and covered 1512 - 1473 B.C.E.

Deuteronomy was written by Moses in the Plains of Moab: completed in 1473 and covered a period of 2 months of that year.

Joshua was written by Joshua in Canaan: completed c. 1450 and covered 1473 - c. 1450 B.C.E.

Judges was written by Samuel in Israel: completed c. 1100 and covered c. 1450 - 1120 B.C.E.

Ruth was written by Samuel in Israel: completed c. 1090 and covered 11 years.

1 Samuel was written by Samuel, Gad and Nathan in Israel: completed c. 1078 and covered c. 1180 - 1078.

2 Samuel was written by Gad and Nathan in Israel: completed c. 1040 and covered 1077 - c. 1040.

I can do this to all of the Books, so I don't agree with you on that point.

So is the nature of history.

Again, I disagree with you there. Anyone interested in ancient history would, I would think. All secular histories have myth, legend, tradition, interpolations and are subject to interpretation, falsification etc. None, as Isaac Newton said, compare to the Bible.

Evad

I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If you want to know what the Quran said you have to consult and research the Quran. That isn't circular reasoning that is just logical.

Archaeological evidence is as subject to various interpretations as the Bible, in fact more so.

If the OP was that there is no evidence of a Nomadic tribe moving through the "desert" (Hebrew yeshimohn) or "wilderness" (Hebrew midhbar, which could be any sparsely settled and uncultivated land, including pasture, cisterns, houses and even some cities - or deserts) some clarification wouldn't hurt.

The specific claim of 10 days is most likely insubstantial and uninformed.

Steven Carr

Paul claims to have visited the third heaven.

The testimony of a lunatic is not accepted by courts.

Also 'eyewitnesses' reported Jesus flying into the sky on his way to Heaven.

Only very superstitous people,liars, or Biblical authors believe there is a Heaven above the sky.

Those 3 categories may or may not overlap.

Steven Carr

And why should we not rely on the witness of our own eyes when we can see the lying forgeries that pass for miracle stories in the New Testament http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

Why are my eyes not to be believed when I can see photographic documented evidence of plagiarism?

Kapyong

Gday,

There's the problem - you can't tell the difference between
"what actually happened"
and
"what the bible says happened"

And when posters here point out that archeology and history and reality DIFFERS from what the bible says, all we get from you is more bible quotes.

It appears that you assume whatever the bible says is 100% true, (without even realising you are doing so.) But that's the very point we are NOT agreeing with.

In short :
You - "Here is what the bible says"
Us - "But the bible doesn't match history or reality in THIS way, and THAT way"
You - "Well, the bible clearly says XXX which means YYY"
Us - "OK, but why doesn't that match history?"
You - "Well, the bible explains it clearly"
Us - "But you can't use to bible to support the bible"
You - "Why on earth not? we are talking about the bible after all !"

We'd like to talk about the bible AND reality/history - and how they do or don't match.

Not just your version of the bible as if it automagically IS true history.


K.

Horatio Parker

Because in our life experience, and the experience of others, people don't come back to life after being dead three days.

Miraculous events were commonly attributed to famous people in the ancient world. Pythagoras(one of whose miracles ended up in the NT), Alexander, Julius Caesar etc.

Since in modern times no one has any credible knowledge of resurrected corpses, and we know these things were believed to be fairly common events long ago, either:

1) miracles occurred more frequently then than now

or

2) the miracles were fabrications or exaggerations intended to illustrate a hero's superior capabilities.

2) seems much more likely.

Evad

Gday,
I disagree somewhat with your assessment. The problem, as I see it, is that I can tell the difference between what the Bible says actually happened and what religious people say the Bible says actually happened, the latter rather than the former of which is the atheists primary source of Biblical criticism. That and higher criticism, which is even worse than Christendom.

What actually happened none of us can say for certain.

I will let that slide because you are obviously making a reference to the typical Christian in a general application to me without actually seeing any evidence to that effect.

When posters here or anywhere present me with archeology, chronology, secular history or astronomical data I'm overjoyed at the prospect of a meaningful and intelligent discourse, like this one I had as Daystar with a fellow called Rambo at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible forum.

In debates like that I always take the side of the Bible because I like to win.

Well, again, you are wrong. The Bible isn't 100% true. I can show you examples of spurious scriptures, bias in translation, etc. The problem again as I see it is that the typical atheist isn't informed so as to agree or not.

Think of it like a believer who doesn't believe, otherwise I don't see a difference between you and who you think I am, the average Christian.

I'm not.

No, its more like this:

You: "You believe the Bible and that makes you stupid."
Them: "So, you don't believe in the Bible and that makes you stupid."
Me: "I think you both could use some improvement, and if you should ever realize your emotional positions are equally flawed due to your differing world views and nothing more you might make a great deal more sense."

aa5874

In other words, others are stupid but you are not.

Well, If people who believe and don't believe the Bible are stupid then please tell us what you believe and don't believe about the Bible.

Evad

Oh, no. Not at all. People are stupid in general but put that way I don't have a point. I have no illusions as to where I fall in the stupid people category. If I were any dumber I would be Gomer Pyle. Sometimes I feel like an island of sanity in an ocean of stupidity but that usually subsides like waves of the tide - in and out . . .

Nice assumption, though.

I believe the Bible is fallible. Though I believe the Bible writing itself was inspired, it's translation wasn't.

aa5874

But, HJers are claiming HJ was an OBSCURE preacher.

It was the Child of the Holy Ghost that was FAMOUS in the NT.

Why is it forgotten that HJers are claiming that HJ was NOT Christ?

Pyhthagoras, Alexander and Julius Caesar could NOT forgive the Sins of Mankind.