H20: Your comment, whether correct or not, does not really address the issue of whether or not it makes sense to dismiss the entire Bible as a "fairy tale'..


"That the bible has historical INaccuracy among other things is not really debatable"

Humor me with some examples...

Phreak, I'm only playing the Devil's advocate here, but simply because some things existed in the time period the Bible was written doesn't make it not a fairy tale. It's your faith that makes it true to you, as is it other's faith that makes it fiction in their eyes.

And actually I think it may be easier for the others to prove much of the Bible is fiction due to the lack of physical evidence that it is not. Ergo, it's all about one's faith, however derived.

" but simply because some things existed in the time period the Bible was written doesn't make it not a fairy tale. "

Again back to my point that it is simply ignorance \ lack of understanding \ lack of research and study - whatever you want to call it if someone thinks the entire Bible is made up. The fact is MOST notible historians would agree that the Bible is a useful historical document(s). That the people, places, and certain events happened or existed as described in the Old and New testements is verifiable fact. That doesn't PROVE anything about the validity of the claims made about God or who Jesus claimed he was, or about any supernatural events - but that was not my point.


"And actually I think it may be easier for the others to prove much of the Bible is fiction due to the lack of physical evidence that it is not. "

You may think so, but it simply wouldn't be true. Simply having a lack of physical evidence is rarely enough to prove an alleged historical account is fiction. Many events in the Bible are beyond our comprehension, hard to beleive, humanly impossible, etc etc - but you can neither prove nor disprove them - hence you either have faith or you don't.

Agreed, however, faith is not intrinsic solely of Christians. Non-Christians also have faith, and it tells them the Bible is fiction.

I also agree that the Bible is an enormously valuable historical reference. And I also believe that novels by authors such as Tom Clancey may be valuable historical references 2000 years from now. Those novels depict world events that are fairly accurate or plausible, are loaded with references of actual people, and places. Yet, it's all complete fiction.

"Simply having a lack of physical evidence is rarely enough to prove an alleged historical account is fiction."

You may think so, but it simply wouldn't be true. In reality the lack is usually enough to prove fiction. It's what our court system is based on; physical evidence or credible eye-witness accounts. Without one of those it's just legend or fiction.

Which brings us right back to each person's faith; faith that it's fact, or faith that it's a work of fiction.

So the theory of evolution is fiction because you cannot prove 99.9% of it in lab tests.

No one has ever seen an atom just mapped signals that lead us to believe they are there so they must not be real either?

Seems like the line between fiction and non fiction and faith depend on your objective.

"Agreed, however, faith is not intrinsic solely of Christians."

Never said it was.... Some have faith in the ability of magnets to relieve pain, or the ability of a $9.99 dollar per minute phone call that a person can tell their future, or that billions of years ago life spontaneously formed, etc etc

" Non-Christians also have faith, and it tells them the Bible is fiction."

That isn't really 'faith' by definition. Just a lack of faith in the Bible.

"I also agree that the Bible is an enormously valuable historical reference."

That's big of you, but not really a question of your opinion - it just IS...

" And I also believe that novels by authors such as Tom Clancey may be valuable historical references 2000 years from now. Those novels depict world events that are fairly accurate or plausible, are loaded with references of actual people, and places. Yet, it's all complete fiction."

"All complete fiction" or just mostly complete fiction? 90%? 50% At what point does fiction become 'fairly tale'?
:rolleyes:
Does Clancy make any claims that it should be viewed as anything less than fiction? Does anyone else?


" In reality "
:rolleyes:

"the lack is usually enough to prove fiction."
Not in this context...

" It's what our court system is based on; physical evidence or credible eye-witness accounts. Without one of those it's just legend or fiction."

So how come Scott Peterson got the death sentence?

The lack of physical evidence simply proves there is a lack of physical evidence. It can neither prove or disprove the allegation.

There is other evidence that supports the Bible - internal evidence, external evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc. But again, by design, we won't get a 'ruling' by the courts as to our personal faith in the Bible...


Which brings us right back to each person's faith; faith that it's fact, or faith that it's a work of fiction.

"That isn't really 'faith' by definition. Just a lack of faith in the Bible."

Better let Webster know he screwed up, then. He seems to think it's "something that is believed especially with strong conviction." So if a non-Christian believes strongly that the Bible is fiction, then .....

"That's big of you..." Why thank you for your unsolicited opinion. I seem to be more welcoming of yours than you are of mine.

"At what point does fiction become 'fairly tale'?"

You know, semantics is a wonderful science. You can learn about all kinds of things, like "synonyms."

"So how come Scott Peterson got the death sentence?"

Well, gee, I dunno, maybe the two corpes that washed ashore where he placed his alibi. Or maybe the hair of his dead wife on a pair of pliers in his boat.

Which brings us right back to each person's faith; faith that it's fact, or faith that it's a work of fiction.

So the bottom line is that there are people out there that believe without doubt that the Bible is a work of fiction, a collection of stories, or parables. I'm not one of those, but I don't have a problem accepting the fact that those people exist. I respect their "faith" in that belief and don't challenge it. Somehow I get the sense that you can't accept that sort of person as anything short of ignorant because you feel they have a lack of understanding or haven't done legitimate research.

But everyone's got an opinion and your mileage may vary.

True. And funny thing TK should bring up evolution...........because the lack of a "missing link" isn't enough to prove it is fiction. However, I'm more of the opinion that 99.9% of the theory of evolution is factual, as opposed to tk's view that 99.9% is fiction.

But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions about it.........and nobody's going to know who's right until they're dead, and then they won't be coming back to tell.

And when the events in question involve supernatural powers and go against laws of physics?

So you're saying I won't be reincarnated as some hot co-ed's bicycle seat?

And the cool thing about the theory of evolution is that a theory is a part of science consisting of explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis. So it can't be fiction by definition, becaue the public school I went to describes fiction as, "a literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact."

DanS,

"because the lack of a "missing link" isn't enough to prove it is fiction. However, I'm more of the opinion that 99.9% of the theory of evolution is factual, as opposed to tk's view that 99.9% is fiction. "

Never said that. I asked the question in the statement "So the theory of evolution is fiction because you cannot prove 99.9% of it in lab tests" Since you cannot recreate most of it has to be an act of fatih that the science is correct. so the missing link and Jesus seem to be in the same boat but Christians are the crazy one's.

I never said anyone was crazy. As long as we're human, we'll have questions that can't be answered.

People have been called crazy for many things.........thinking the world was/is round, thinking the Earth isn't the center of the universe, thinking the Red Sox could win a Series...............yet these things turned out to be true.

I hesitate to call anyone crazy regarding their opinions on the origins of Man. The belief we came from goo, or apes, or a Creator all take a fair amount of faith to believe.

GH: "Somehow I get the sense that you can't accept that sort of person as anything short of ignorant because you feel they have a lack of understanding or haven't done legitimate research."


All of this dancing around with semantics just for this?

First - I completely respect others who have differing opinions than mine. That respect goes up if they actually have good reasons and can offer support for those opinions and back them up when challenged.

I challenged a post that called out all Christians as 'ignorant' for their faith in God\Jesus and the Bible - and i challenged that with facts, logic, and my own strong thoughts\opinions.

I wasn't suggesting that it was ignorant to not be Christian or not believe in God. That would be a silly stand to make as there are very intelligent people on both sides of that discussion.