RobertE

Over on another board I frequent, one of the more vocal fundamentalists is repeatedly making the claim as to the "authenticity" of the Bible using an argument I haven't heard before. It goes something like this:

'Until the bible can be called in error by any historical or archaeological fact, it will stand as a historically accurate document. If we can trust the bible with that which we can check on its accuracy, there is no reason not to trust it on those things which cannot be verified at present.'

:banghead:
It's an obvious non sequiter, but I honestly don't think the poster is bright enough to have come up with it all by himself. Anyone heard this one before or know something about its origin?

Paul2

I've heard it before, to which i replied "oh and the same with the koran?" ... :banghead:

Vinnie

It does not stand as historically valid until it is demonstrated as such. All sober historians critically examine the sources they use. No historian should blindly presume an ancient text is fully accurate until demonstrated otherwise. That is silly.

Vinie

Asha'man

It sounds like the exact opposite of something that I often say: since the bible is clearly wrong about numerous verifiable facts, how can I possibly trust it on anything unverifiable?

Kosh

Even if it were a logical statement, it would already be obsolete, since the Bible has been shown to be wrong on many historical and scientific details.

SLD

I would simply add that the Bible is wrong about the Noachian Flood - it didn't happen and if it didn't happen then the Bible cannot be the word of God (assuming he exists in the first place), and if it is not the word of God why should anyone accept anything it says, particularly with reference to a god who supposedly comes down here, is crucified and then raised from the dead.

SLDER

Vinnie

See this link and numerous ongoing threads right now:

http://www.acfaith.com/qualitative.html

Vinnie