(November 5, 2013 at 9:23 am)John V Wrote:

(November 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Owlix Wrote: The difference here, John V, is that the evidence in the history book is not the first or only spot these claims exist. That book is where it was all presented in such a manner as to teach people about it without forcing one to carry every book and letter to or from Lincoln. Otherwise students would have to carry libraries around.

The bible is likewise a collection of multiple sources bound together for convenience. As noted above, they weren't putting The Bible at the top of every page as they wrote it.

Hence it contradicts itself like 10 second tom.

(November 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Hence it contradicts itself like 10 second tom.

Like the Gettysburg address...
http://alincolnism.com/2013/10/04/read-s...g-address/

(November 5, 2013 at 2:39 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Hence it contradicts itself like 10 second tom.

Like the Gettysburg address...
http://alincolnism.com/2013/10/04/read-s...g-address/

No like a god created by ignorant savages that wanted to manipulate people.

(November 5, 2013 at 3:43 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm)John V Wrote:

Since when was the [expletive] bible a history book?

Do you really think the bible cannot be read as a history book?

History books are generally easier to read and understand.

(November 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Do you really think the bible cannot be read as a history book?

Well being that you've posted that comment on Atheist Forums rather than Answers in Genesis, I think the likelihood that the bible will be rejected as a history book is quite high.

(November 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Do you really think the bible cannot be read as a history book?

Did... did you... you did. You really just asked that.

Well, history books normally don't give two or three different sets of events for one circumstance. Nor do they command worship or give instruction.

Now, theistic text as a part of history and its effects on human life and society is a different matter entirely.

So no, no the fucking bible cannot be read as a history book.

Yes, the Gettysburg address is another thing created by humanity.

i skipped a lot of the pages in this thread, but i checkd out the FB page....how can they say lincoln doesn't exist?? what does that have to do with god existing??

(November 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Do you really think the bible cannot be read as a history book?

Yes, actually: see, the bible's full of contradictions, demonstrably false recordings of events, and impossible claims. No matter what it claims, it's clearly not a history book.

Hey, if you want to read it as one, then that's fine; just be prepared to hold it up to standards of actual academic rigor first, which will probably balk at the first claim of magic and find your book ridiculous.

I also thought history books were amended to take into account the facts, too, so I guess those creation claims, the exodus claims, all that stuff about Jesus will be getting the axe in the next edition, hmm?

I mean, there's no harm in having incorrect information, so long as you correct it.

Oh hey, and revelations! What other history book do you know of that contains fucking future events?

Goddamn, you done said a stupid thing, Lion...