View Single Post
Old February 20th, 2006, 10:09 AM   #17
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
This is an interesting debate, but I'm not sure where it gets us. For my part, I think the Bible is probably as accurate as a 2000 year old document, written 50-100 years after the events it describes can be.
Would it surprise you to know that is probably some of it's greatest evidence to why it is taken as historical? It falls outside the realm of being corrupted by myth and legend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
It is, obviously, full of inconsistencies and contradictions
I'd challenge you to come up with some. I've done a little bit of research on the contradictions, and most of them are apparent contradictions, not true contradictions. They are often times surprisingly amusing at the level of... intellectual stupidity that they take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
What is not proven, and in my mind unprovable is the whole Virgin Birth, Son of God, Resurrection thing. Without that then christinaity is just another personality cult.
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.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote