Quote:
|
Well, if the record bears out that it is historical, whether you like it or not, you have to take into account what it says. It is "unprovable" in the scientific sense, but then so is proving the Packers won the first Superbowl. You can't scientifically prove that man has been to the moon either. Or that Japan really lost WWII.
|
Luckily, my education has provided me with the flexibility to be able to move from the scientific definition of proof to the concept of historically accepted fact.
By the way, why would you want to try and scientifically prove that man landed on the moon ? What wopuld your hypothesis be?
Anyhow, as I stated I think that there is enough historical evidence that JEsus existed, he is mentioned in some contemporary accounts, I have no problem with that.
However, the existance of the historical figure Jesus Christ does not mean that the Bible (or even the New Testament) is a completely factual account. As far as I know there are no supporting accounts of the resurrection, or any of the other miracles. The virgin birth is not likely open to historical analysis. j/k
AS far as the Biblical contradictions they are many and varied, below is a fairly full list, good luck explaining them all away.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html
But frankly, I would expect the Bible to be full of inconsistencies, any collection of historical accounts will be. The Bible is an excellent historical source, but unless it is backed up or supported by other documents then the events it describes will not be accepted as historical fact, especially the more "unusual" events.
This is the same test that is applied to any other historical document, for example "Inside the Third Reich" was written by Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and later Minister for Armaments. It is an excellent source, probably the best primary source for the study of the inner workings of Hitler's government. However, there are omissions and inconsistencies that cannot be easily explained away (for a full account please see Gita Sereny's excellent biography Albert Speer:His battle with truth). This is because, as a primary source "Inside the Thrid Reich" is coloured by the fact that its author was not an unbiased observer. The only events that should be accepted as "facts" from the book are those that can be verified from other sources.
As a historical document this is how I see the Bible, an excellent primary source. To use an example from the website above, Matthew (27:34) says that Jesus wore a scarlet robe to his trial, Mark (15:23) says it was purple, its a minor inconsistecy that doesn't bother the historian who can reasonably conclude that Jesus wore a robe to his trial. The only problem comes if you are trying to assert that the bible is NOT a historical document but is instead the infallible Word of God.