You haven't broken any rule... I think.
It is a known fact that men rape and murder women. Therefore, all men rape and murder women. We only have to see the police records to confirm that fact.
Sounds reasonable?
Are these people biased? I'll leave you to your opinion on that.
I'm not sure how this relates to my comment. I'm ignorant to the facts of the bible that doesn't mean that because of time intervals that the bible is all accurate. If you mean god, I wouldn't say ignorance since god has no play in how I think, why, and when. A lot of history does in one way or another via our culture. So, I develop more bias (because I'm not an expert) around history. I can only give my opinion about the concept of god but not what religious call god himself.
How does this relate to rape?
If correct, we are looking at over 3000 years of accurate preservation.
It is neither impossible, nor improbable. However, it is possible we can use arguments against it as an excuse.
You are not doing that, are you?
Preservation doesn't mean it's all accurate, though. That's just the nature of preservation especially with religious things. Declaration of Independence most likely is more accurate than scripture (and The Buddha's sutras, and so forth). You actually believe preservation means what's written is accurate?
"If" correct. Then you understand there are probabilities in accuracy, true?
I'm confused. Can you rephrase this "It is neither impossible, nor improbable. However, it is possible we can use arguments against it as an excuse. You are not doing that, are you?"
Even if I were (if I understood it), that wouldn't invalidate my point.
Huh?
A miracle is a miracle Artist?
What are you trying to say. I'm lost. Sorry.
Christians have confirmation bias. If they see a miracle (for example, a personalized synchronicity), they will confirm the accuracy with scripture. The same person who is not christian who has the same miracle would not verify it's authenticity by scripture. Yet, they both experience the same miracle.
This means the christian is biased. What he already experiences he believes is from god and when confirmed by scripture, he feels that it is true. However, if it were true, the non-christian would draw the same conclusion as the christian. The interpretation of the experience is different by person but the experience themselves (the miracle itself) should not be.
So you are biased. Okay.
I guess we all have a bias, from what you are saying here.
I'm biased against homosexuality. adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. etc.
I never read in that comment that I was. I said historians and archeologists from different disciplines collaborate authenticity of a given document (it's existence and information on it as written). They don't confirm whether what's written actually took place (walk on water, etc) I also said the only way I can think of that historians are bias is if they were in christian studies and studying it through a christian lens (religious bias).
It's human nature to have our biases. My bias is against christianity insofar their theology redefines homosexuality and homosexuals. I'm also bias in how you lump all those together-it's a huge insult to many homosexual people-but then I also have biases that are indifferent. So we all have biases. Just in this case ideally historians, archeologists, scientists, etc put aside their religious beliefs (all of them) for the sake of the study and science they are observing and concluding.
I think the preservation would be added evidence supporting God's "hand" in it, and authorship.
What do you think it would show?
How is that the case?
Evidence of something existing doesn't signify a supernatural hand was involved. I can write I flew in the stars and thousands and hundreds of people saw me and a thousand years later, the founders would agree "it is written, I flew in the starts. A hundred people saw me." But to validate whether what is written actually took place is impossible. They would have to be there to take what is written that seriously.
I actually don't know how you draw conclusions between the two-historical preservation accuracy (what's preserved exist and what's written fits align with historical events, let's say) and the supernatural being an author of that accuracy. There are many religious documents (suttas for example) just as accurate but that doesn't mean a supernatural hand took place in them.
Historical accuracy=supernatural hand involved?
I certainly try to understand person's point of view.
Not a lot of christians do, unfortunately. A good brief example is homosexuality. If I said same-sex relationships in a given marriage between two men were a blessing, would you be able to see their point of view (from a marriage/spiritual perspective)?
Sometimes our religious biases withhold deeper understanding.
We all make the choice based on our reason, what is, and what isn't.
You make your choice about what you believe and accept. I do the same.
I really don't see that as a problem at all. Do you see it as a problem?
Only when it causes people to be harmed verbally and sometimes physically. On a religious forum is fine, but in person. It is a problem. I usually can't be around christianity if I think about it too much. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" -love the christian and hate his actions. I wish the theology was a bit different so people's behaviors would be more loving, but at least more christians are becoming more tolerant than abusive.