Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
This should be good.So it claims. And it is rather dodgy argument the whole "wouldn't the Bible paint its figures better? The fact they are warts and all makes the Bible honest."
I remember, when we did our mock trials in my High School Legal studies class. One of the occasions when I was prosecutor and a classmate was a defence figure he used a similar argument - something about how the defendant was so honest about his fallibility's it made it hard to believe he could be lying about yadda yadda yadda. Suffice to say I enjoyed dealing with that part of it, because that isn't actually proof of anything.
Historical records of full of "honest" portrayals delivered without "bias" - and it is a joke. Likewise the whole "the Bible is exceptional as it doesn't give easy answers and is so strict" - whoever writes that clearly knows little about ancient religion, because they weren't all sunshine and lollipops.
The Bible doesn't give easy answers? Funny, I know little easier then "It doesn't matter how bad you have been simply believe in Jesus and everything will be fine" - yes, that is terribly stringent.
Silly rabbit, when will you ever learn? A claim can't validate itself by claiming it is true. It requires proof to do that. The fact the Bible claims it is true and the word of God is irrelevant, unless equal weight be given to the Koran. And the texts of Gurus. Hell, Ganesh wrote some epic poetry with his broken tusk.
But none of them get kudos for claiming they are true.
[B]4) Its Miracles:
So it claims. Of course this brushes over the facts that aren't supported historically or scientifically (creation, flood, exodus and so on.)
And witnesses. It is once again easy to come up with witnesses for acts when the account is written many years after the so called event. I can sit here know and claim all sorts of things about my family, chuck in some common Irish/English and Scandinavian names... and who can argue?
Of course this has nothing to do with some Roman's cherry picking religious texts to get something cohesive... does it? Everyone always forgets all the Books that were considered and didn't make it in.
As well as the variations and contradictions between OT and NT. But we have another failsafe clause here don't we - Jesus updated the OT rules, so it isn't contradiction.
Historical fiction does the same. As does the Iliad. And numerous other Greek mythological stories. And the Koran, and Hindu texts. And Egyptian myths.
That is like saying a Tom Clancy novel is exceptional because he mentions Paris and the Farm.
Oops - doubling up there. Claims verify claims because they claim they are true.
Easy to make prophesies when we are relying on texts written after Moses.
Funny, because historical consensus is that the Hindu faith predated Mosaic religion as the first organised religion by at least a couple of hundred years.
The rest of this point - conjecture and personal aggrandisement - The Bible has been the most loved or hated book! Oooooo, special. Not really.
I love the way you make out it was the power of the Bible, not the acts of fantastical Europeans, that can be accounted for the conversion of people like the Celts.
I guess they take after the romantic view of history, not the "Christians killing and spreading disease and obliterating culture after culture" kind of history.
Biased and inaccurate reports, JIA, don't help your claims. [/B]
As I so eloquently stated before (relative to another scholar) I reiterate for this opportune occasion.