(August 14, 2016 at 8:30 pm)abaris Wrote:(August 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Well, feel free to disagree. With individuals, such as Pope Francis' reading of the historical documents, it is easy to understand why people, such as William Craig, can label the Gospels are being "ancient biographies".
No, we don't disagree. Unless you think that claiming the sky to be green or blue being a disagreement. You're talking out of your ass without knowing the first thing of the science involved. That's our disagreement. William Craig is talking out of his ass too, since he obviously doesn't know the first thing about ancient scripture and it reliability.
Well, as always, history is a science, same as medicine. You wouldn't do open heart surgery using wikipedia, would you? So kindly inform yourself just a little bit on the methodology involved before claiming to be right. Especially if you proclaim yourself to be a sucker for science.
I don't see any alternative to science, which comes from the Latin word scientia, which means "knowledge".
I would agree that the study of history is scientific, and that scientific methodology may certainly be employed in the study of history. Did George Washington exist, as an historical person? Yes, absolutely.
Why was there a 20,000 to 60,000 Muslim army in the fields of Poitiers, France in early October in the year 732 led by Abd er Rahman? Answer: Rahman wanted to setup a Muslim caliphate, just as he had done in his previous military victories and just as Muhammad had done during his day. Rahman was not there in northern France to plunder gold and silver (although, that was one of his many secondary objectives); rather, he was there to setup a political state founded upon the Islamic religion.
