I disagree. the bible is not just a book. it's a history book. not fiction. it's a biography of a man that lived 200 years ago and it's very historical and accurate. so if you like history you should read the bible. because that's what it is, historical..don't look at it as a religious book, because it was never intended to be religious..they were only describing events and places that took place back there. so the bible is like a newspaper. it was gathered and put together. there is no way the bible is made up. people didn't make stuff up like that..everything in the bible can be traced to a real event, a place a time and a location.
on topic. I believe in the creation from the bible. I took numerous archeology and anthropology courses and it's all rubbish.
51 comments
Except that most of the events in the don't reconcile with what we actually know from archeology and anthropology, there is little or no evidence that any of the characters in the Bible actually ever existed, and some locations in the Bible have been called into question as well. Besides, fictitious events can be placed in real places. Ever read a book or watched a movie set in New York City, London, Rome, Hong Kong, Tokyo, or any other real place in the world? The place is real, but the events are not.
If you ever took courses in archeology and anthropology, it would appear you slept through most of the classes because the only thing that is rubbish is the Bible.
'the bible is like a newspaper'.
If you imagine several hundred editions of the National Enquirer being bound together, then constantly re-edited and translated into different languages by hundreds of people from widely varying cultures (each editor with their own agenda) for over two thousand years I guess the result would be about as historically accurate as the Bible, yes.
"I disagree. the bible is not just a book. it's a history book. not fiction. it's a biography of a man that lived 200 years ago and it's very historical and accurate."
200 hundred years ago, hmm? You must be talking about Napoleon then, 'cuz he was one busy little bee in 1807, 200 bloody years ago. Now, HE was real.
Dumb ass.
Historical?
Historians say you fail.
I've always wondered why the Illiad - which contains about as much historically-accurate material as the Bible, was written around the same time, and was about as popular - is generally considered to be fiction.
"People don't make stuff up like that. Unless it was from some other culture. Then they just embellished their history to make themselves look good."
Archaeology and anthropology, eh? Ever take an etymology course?
Of course, you don't have to have taken such a course to know that in Biblical times the words 'history' and 'story' were one word in Latin: historia , which could equally mean 'account' and 'tale'.
In other words, calling it history does not make it so.
If the Bible is a history book and not fiction, why has so much of it been proven incorrect?
I don't deny that there are passages in the Bible that are good and true, but there are good and true passages in Mein Kampf, too.
But....and....that's....
Holy shit.
I am speechless.
You obviously didn't, you know, listen to your teachers, or the classes were rubbish, because it was a Christian only archeology course...
jedimiller is desperately trying to convince himself on something or other.
I don't really grok what he's driving at, though.
200 years ago?, are you talking about Napoleon or what?, in that case, instead of the Bible, better read any of Dumas's novels. And by the way, who was accounted for describing the lives of Adam and Eve, if they were the only inhabitants on Earth?, or was there, by then, an "Eden Herald"?
Yeah it's impossible for people to make up six day creations, talking snakes, parting the seas, walking on water, and all the insane shit in Revelations.
History?, how funny. Never talks about the cavemen, the Sumerians or the Egyptian pharaos before Ramesus the Second. Moreover, if it's not religious, why do they bother so much in giving doctrinal content and instructions for the rituals?
Why were people able to do magic back then? Why can't we do magic now? *Huff* I wanna do magic!
People don't make up stuff like that? Have you ever visited the fiction section of a bookstore? People have incredible imaginations.
...And so sayeth the LORD, there shall be a half-bat, half-boy. He shall be called Batboy, and this book shall tell an account of his exploits...
It's history in the same sense as Mel Brooks' movie, "History of the World, Part 1." Incidentally, next time you watch it pay attention to the Roman street scenes. In one there is a poster on a nearby wall saying something to the effect of, "Community Orgy Tonight, First Served, First Come."
I took numerous archeology and anthropology courses and it's all rubbish.
Did you fail those courses, Jedimiller?
Why, I think you did.
on topic. I believe in the creation from the bible. I took numerous archeology and anthropology courses and it's all rubbish.
What a waste of a seat that could have been used by someone who actually wanted to learn something...
it's a biography of a man that lived 200 years ago
Marilyn Monroe?
You, Jedi-Miller (such a tacky name, why would a jedi spend their life milling?), are obviously not familiar with ALLEGORY. The thing with allegory is that it is not to be taken literally, it is a story to lead you to the ideal notion. The New Testament is written in mostly allegory while the Old Testament is a lot like my game save of Black and White(lots of killing in the name of me)
This guy Jedimiller is an idoit!!!
A true ignorant fool, who hates his mommy..
What a fucking none sense jerk off..
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.