evilbible.com

[chi pan]

oh you have examples rhythm?

[The Grand Nudger]

Care to find more historical facts in the bible than in Bram Stokers Dracula? Honestly, if you'll concede that Dracula is a "historical document" then I will also concede, that the bible is at least as much a "historical document" as Dracula. Then we'll both be happy yes?

[Phil]

i think you missed a detail. have you heard of the telephone effect? the more information is passed the less accurate it is.

Provided the information was only transmitted orally that would be true but do you have evidence that it could only have been transmitted orally? Your illogic is showing Chiapet.

[chi pan]

please contribute by presenting facts not making snide comments that don't even make sense.

---

Provided the information was only transmitted orally that would be true but do you have evidence that it could only have been transmitted orally? Your illogic is showing Chiapet.

agreed. it was written down at the time it happened and copied into what it is today. some of those documents were put into the old testament of the bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imma break it down for you.

Bible mentions a place
(place exists)
Believer harps on about historical accuracy, praise be to god, etc.

Dracula mentions a place (London)
(London Exists)
No one calls Dracula history, no one praises Vlad.

You don't have anything to show for god or miracles (and really that's the meat of the whole thing isn't it, kind of a shame), so instead, you'd like to show us that the tax roll in verse so and so chapter such and such was accurate. No one cares. All fiction leverages elements of non-fiction...that's what makes it compelling, relevant, and workable.

If I were to ask you why Dracula seems to be so accurate (with regards to history, ignoring the vampire entirely) what would you say? Would whatever you say give any weight to the notion of flesh and blood vampires?

People exist, places exist, the middle east has a history. None of this is in doubt, no one questions these three claims. All of the historical facts you can dredge up will only verify one of those three very well substantiated claims. At no point does knowing the garbage pickup day on April 5th 400bc lend the narrator of these stories any credibility whatsoever when they start talking about magic. At no point is a line drawn between a ruin and a god. Unless, of course, you don't mind lending all narrators this level of trust, attaching every god to their ruin. You obviously don't do this except in the case of your own favorite story, but when you can understand why Dracula is not a historical document, you will understand perfectly why the bible is no such thing either.

[Phil]

it was written down at the time it happened and copied into what it is today.

Nobody is doubting it was written down as we have it today. When it was written down is what you are failing to show any evidence for and you have been asked by Min pages ago. Personally, if I was your pastor and I saw your equivocation here I would physically throw you out of my congregation and additionally I would come to your house and destroy your computer since you are making Christians look like a bunch of ignoranuses.

[chi pan]

Imma break it down for you.

Bible mentions a place
(place exists)
Believer harps on about historical accuracy, praise be to god, etc.

Dracula mentions a place (London)
(London Exists)
No one calls Dracula history, no one praises Vlad.

You don't have anything to show for god or miracles (and really that's the meat of the whole thing isn't it, kind of a shame), so instead, you'd like to show us that the tax roll in verse so and so chapter such and such was accurate. No one cares. All fiction leverages elements of non-fiction...that's what makes it compelling, relevant, and workable.

If I were to ask you why Dracula seems to be so accurate (with regards to history, ignoring the vampire entirely) what would you say? Would whatever you say give any weight to the notion of flesh and blood vampires?

talking about events not places. your example is not similar because we are talking about whether documents were written thousands of years after events which are found to be true or written at the time. it seams more likely they were written at the time the events took place don't you think?

[Phil]

no one praises Vlad

Some Romanians certainly do praise Vlad as a hero.

---

Imma break it down for you.

Bible mentions a place
(place exists)
Believer harps on about historical accuracy, praise be to god, etc.

Dracula mentions a place (London)
(London Exists)
No one calls Dracula history, no one praises Vlad.

You don't have anything to show for god or miracles (and really that's the meat of the whole thing isn't it, kind of a shame), so instead, you'd like to show us that the tax roll in verse so and so chapter such and such was accurate. No one cares. All fiction leverages elements of non-fiction...that's what makes it compelling, relevant, and workable.

If I were to ask you why Dracula seems to be so accurate (with regards to history, ignoring the vampire entirely) what would you say? Would whatever you say give any weight to the notion of flesh and blood vampires?

talking about events not places. your example is not similar because we are talking about whether documents were written thousands of years after events which are found to be true or written at the time. it seams more likely they were written at the time the events took place don't you think?

You do know that truth is not dependent on your desire don't you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Dracula mentions quite a few events that line up with actual history (like I said, good fiction leverages non-fiction).

You know you aren't limited to two options Chip. These stories had their genesis both in the time the events took place (in the case of events that took place) and every day from that to this one. Every re-telling is an opportunity, every edit is a new angle. That's how legends are created, passed along, and kept alive.

As far as whats likely, without taking any single passage specifically.

Written before the fact- nope, not a chance (there goes prophecy btw)
Written during the fact- possible, most likely a way to determine this to be the case as well.
Written after the fact-the majority of the bible, and so, very possible. (has a lot to do with all the claims to before-the-fact knowledge in the bible)

[chi pan]

You do know that truth is not dependent on your desire don't you?

which is why the bible in order to be accurate could not have just been written in the first century and made stuff up that took place over 1000 years before. it's too accurate for that

---

Dracula mentions quite a few events that line up with actual history (like I said, good fiction leverages non-fiction).

missed something. i said THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER THE FACT. it's more likely they were written down during the events than THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER.