logician
Well-Known Member
Who's we?[/quote]
Those who have been following these posts.
Not likely.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who's we?[/quote]
Those who have been following these posts.
Not likely.
Not likely.
Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."Why must the Bible be factual and infallible in order to be inspired of God? "I have often asked myself this question as of late. I don't think fallibility necessarily takes away from the inspiration and wisdom one may find in the Bible."God is not a man, that he should lie".. Numbers 23:19
" For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. Hebrews 3:4
"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;" Hebrews 6:17,18,19
"Why must the Bible be factual and infallible in order to be inspired of God? "
"God
is not a man, that he should lie".. Numbers 23:19
" For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. Hebrews 3:4
If that is so then the fairy godmothers are real. So are ghouls and goblins.Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[/quote]d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie. The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables.They use examples and analogies in order to teach lessons about morality and life.Fable - A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. 2)A story about legendary persons and exploits. 3)A falsehood; a lie. 4)To recount as if trueDoes the literal existence of a historical ant and grasshopper have any bearing on the real truth of their fable, i.e. that we should plan and prepare for the future?You mean like the Bible does -which is really more "allegory", and the Bible is "Literal," - "fables" by definition are not "true" -and do not teach morals.
None of Aesop's Fables are literally, historically accurate accounts of real events, but nothing in them is a lie. In the same way, it is possible to see the Bible as wholly true, but not a literal telling of events that physically happened. The only story in the Bible I can think of, off the top of my head is -the story of "Balaam." where God used a donkey to "literally" speak to him. When we compare "Aesop's Fables"[which is really hard to do] to the stories the Bible, for instance the story of "David and Goliath" which is real -though it employs "allegory" and "analogy" it most certainly is not a "fable"Unlike scripture, "Aesop's Fables" are not "allegory" -that is, they were never designed to be "literal" -as opposed to Scripture -which was and is designed to be "literal." from which we draw "analogies"
If that is so then the fairy godmothers are real. So are ghouls and goblins.
d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie.
The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables. They use examples and analogies in order to teach lessons about morality and life. Does the literal existence of a historical ant and grasshopper have any bearing on the real truth of their fable, i.e. that we should plan and prepare for the future?
None of Aesop's Fables are literally, historically accurate accounts of real events, but nothing in them is a lie. In the same way, it is possible to see the Bible as wholly true, but not a literal telling of events that physically happened.
9-10ths_Penguin said:d.n.irvin, just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's a lie. The analogy I like to use most is Aesop's Fables.
Fable - A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. 2)A story about legendary persons and exploits. 3)A falsehood; a lie. 4)To recount as if true
1.
a. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
b. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.
2. A symbolic representation
I like your analogy because I think there is assumption that if the Bible is fallible, then God is necessarily a liar when one is not necessarily predicated upon the other. While I do not think that in order to be inspired of God, the Bible must be infallible, I also do not think that infallibility requires that all events/stories within the Bible be actual and literal. I can still subscribe to the infallibility of scripture without believing that every single thing literally happened.
When I speak of infallibility, I mean that something is trustworthy or without error. Conversely, fallible means something is liable to be false and not necessarily that something IS false. But what that "something" is I think is open to some debate and I think that sort of goes to the point 9th Penguin was trying to make.Be more specific when you reference fallible and infallible? what exactly do you mean?
1) There is no archeological evidence showing any kind of military invasion of some culture outside of Canaan during the time the Bible says that the returning Israel took Canaan by force.Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?
2) Even the Bible does not agree as to whether Jerusalem was a)completely annihilated, b) taken and the locals subjugated, c) partially annihilated.
3) Egypt has no record of a large number of foreigners living as slaves during that time.
4) There is no evidence to show that the United Kingdom under David was able to support or fund an army as large or as strong as the Bible says it was.
It contains fiction, but I think that it can be (and is) more than "only fiction.""Why do skeptics " skept" -without any posting anything to the contrary. Please give proof that the Bible is not "Historically Accurate," anyone?"
I didn't post this, it may have been in response to something I posted.
I've given plenty of examples showing the bible is not historically accurate, indeed it can only be a work of fiction.
'Definitive' is in the eye of the beholder. There can be no 'definitive proof' for the willfully ignorant, or the deceitful who simply pervert the language to serve their dogma.Can anyone give definitive proof -that the Bible is not Historically Accurate?
'Definitive' is in the eye of the beholder. There can be no 'definitive proof' for the willfully ignorant, or the deceitful who simply pervert the language to serve their dogma.
So, when was this Exodus of yours?
Please educate him on the historical accuracy of the Exodus account in your Bible....So does that mean you have proof? or not?