(May 12, 2016 at 9:42 am)Chad32 Wrote:(May 12, 2016 at 9:29 am)Drich Wrote: people say this alot. it is the new default since that "Zoro" youtube video, but if you were to honest look up the stories, and trace them back to their oldest manuscripts the ones that are proven to be older than the bible don't really coincide with the bible like people pretend they do, and the ones that mirror the bible are often times traceable back to after the bible had been compiled (even if the religion was much much older.)
This is just a lazy excuse not to believe.
They existed as oral traditions before the bible was made, and many things in the bible are inspired or based off of events older than it is. There are a lot of problems with the bible, factually and morally speaking. This was just the final nail in the coffin for me. Whoever heard of a personal relationship where you have to read a book to understand the person you're supposedly able to speak to yourself?
I completely understand the argument. However there is a problem with it. The "text" that have been proven older than the bible do not lend themselves to the bible stories as promised. The texts that do, have no surviving manuscripts older than the bible. Meaning even IF that particular religion is older the writings of it could have been taken from the bible, not the other way around.
