quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There was at best 60 years of oral story telling before anything was written.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by queeq
1.We don't know that. Tehre may have been stuiff around earlier.
2. The Book of Mark is dated to around 60 AD, so 30 years of oral history at best on that one
3. The Letters of St. Paul were written BY St. Paul, when he lived. And they make up a large part of the NT.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by queeq
True. But then, there's no reason to believe it's ALL bogus.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Umm...you guys know that he made this thread in response to me right ?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Da Pittman
If the god of the bible is all powerful and all knowing and as you say has the power to make man write down his words as he wanted them then that would mean that the Bible is perfect and would stand the test of time and we all know that is not true. It has many flaws and doesn’t stand the test of time and must be view differently and read differently depending on the time.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.

Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.

In short, The Bible is a collective work of narrative fiction that elaborates upon the lives of a combination of fictional and historical characters to emphasize, explain, and embody the cosmological and moral beliefs of Bronze-Age Mediterranean and Semitic peoples that resulted from thousands of years of cultural syncretism, i.e. historical fiction.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by queeq
Who are your mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars, Poe? Name some. Because what you present is very very general and draw extremely broad conclusion about the fictional nature of the Bible. Plsus the age of the various writing are not ALL the result of THOUSANDS of years.

Sounds like you copy-pasted some info from a website. Wikistudent?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by queeq
Who are your mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars, Poe? Name some. Because what you present is very very general and draw extremely broad conclusion about the fictional nature of the Bible. Plsus the age of the various writing are not ALL the result of THOUSANDS of years.

Sounds like you copy-pasted some info from a website. Wikistudent?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?