Boro Nut

Give him a break RD. Its not just anyone who can fulfil prophecies you know. Have you any idea how difficult it was to find a donkey in those days, never mind ride it into Jerusalem? And what about the crucifixion? I bet you really had to go out of your way to quallify for that. Do you think the Romans would just crucify anyone who so much as looked at them the wrong way? Do you?

OK. On reflection I'll concede the cruci-fiction bit, but my donkey point still stands.

Jayhawker Soule

What can I say? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

hinduwoman

Well, if anyone can make a donkey walk peacefully for (how many miles) to a city, without once champing at the bit, then that someone has definitely got something unusual.

HRG

Even more than that: he tells of an eyewitness of Romulus' ascension to heaven to become the god Quirinus *) ....

HRG.

*) "Quirites" was a collective name for the Roman population as civilians.

DeadLogic

"Anyone who has studied paleontology, geology, genetics, astronomy (etc etc etc) knows that Genesis is bunk. Therefore the Bible cannot possibly be the Word of God."


The problem here is that you've apparently picked one interpretation of Genesis - an interpretation which is contrary to the findings of science - and come to the conclusion that "Genesis is bunk" because of that contrariness.

I'm curious to know what you're interpretation of Genesis is, and how well you can defend that interpretation of the text. It could be that your interpretation is bunk.

Jack the Bodiless

The Genesis creation sequence is bunk (and no amount of day/age equivocation will get around that). Birds before land animals, grass before that: that's bunk.

And don't get me started on the Flood...

DeadLogic

Please, Jack, I want you to get started on the flood. I'm interested in your interpretation of Genesis 6-9 just as much as Genesis 1-2.

PompousBastard

L.A.F.,

The problem with you atheists is that you hold the Bible "guilty until proven innocent." (I would hate to be judged in your courts!)

Just the opposite, actually. We have before us a number of religious texts, ranging from the JC Bible to the Quran, to the Vedas, all of which have been accused by various parties of being the One Truth. We assume they are all innocent until one of them has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

If you have any substantive evidence then, by all means, please present it.

Pompous Bastard

Jack the Bodiless

My "interpretation" is the standard Biblical one: the incorrect Genesis creation sequence and the nonexistent global Great Flood.

If you're proposing a local Flood as an alternative "interpretation", I have no problem accepting the filling of the Black Sea as the likely source of the Flood myth. But this implies that the Biblical account is wrong in many respects. The waters never covered "all the high mountains", they never receded, there was no need to stuff the Ark with representatives of all species.