Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter  PsiCop (?) wrote:
Actually, the Scriptures have no "AUTHORITY" as history. They are examplars of ancient belief, nothing more. They were certainly NOT written by credentialed historians and therefore CANNOT rationally be taken as "history" as we know it.
_____
Noetic Response:
You either did not care to read my post or misread it. |
Not at all. I did, in fact, read it. That you do not like my response does NOT demonstrate that I did not read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter You are only repeating what I wrote:" The Bible is not a History book", but whenever it refers to historic events they have been found accurate and reliable. Most of modern archeology have been benefited by Biblical references. |
This claim is often made by believers, but is not true at all. Archaeology is finding almost
nothing that backs up the Bible as history. There are many works on this subject, one of the more significant being
The Bible Unearthed by two Israeli archaeologists.
One of the most obvious examples of how the Bible is NOT "history" is in the Exodus account. Egypt is perhaps the "birthplace" of archaeology as it's now practiced, having been plumbed since the late 18th century. Its language was deciphered in the early 19th century, moreover. In over two centuries of intense study, NOT ONE SPECK of evidence has EVER been produced that even ONE thing in the Exodus ever actually happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter Have you ever, even once, read the Bible as you read any other IMPORTANT book from page to page, cover to page? |
Actually, yes I have. I've read it in several languages, including the original Greek of the New Testament and the Old Testament in the Septuagint. You have
no rational basis for accusing me of NOT having done so. It is absolutely juvenile for you to level this accusation at me. Having said that, it's a very common one for believers to throw around. That so many believers do it, does not, however, make it a valid objection. You might want
to read about this and several other common believers' objections before you throw any more at me and risk looking even more foolish and irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter If not, you either put up with its claims or shut up. It looks like you have not read much of any history either. |
Your demand that I "shut up" is noted, but dismissed as childish (as if you have any power to "shut me up" in any event). As for my not having studied history, I do have a degree in the subject (University of Connecticut, class of 1986). Please identify the origin of your sheepskin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter The claims of the Book are completely different from any notion you can ever have or construct in your mind!! |
First, the Bible is not "one" book, it is many (27 in the occidental New Testament, and a varying number in the Old Testament depending on one's church affiliation). I'm not sure why you would speak of it as one book when it is obviously not, but there you go.
Second, every book ever written is "different" from all others. Only Xeroxed books are identical to each other. This claim, therefore, is nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeticcenter Read my previous post for what its central theme is. It is a PERSON not a PRINCIPLE or PHILOSOPHY or SCIENCE. Judge the BOOK by that PERSON and His unique 'out-of-the-world' Mission. |
I have no idea what this means. If you wish me to decipher it, you'll first have to begin making sense.