Hi Darwinian
You mentioned there are no Roman references to Christ here is a list of references from various sources including Roman. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
It is not that I am being advasive, just honestly making my opinion known. I know there are some (a few minor) errors in the bible; but it is not sensible for me to throw it all out. The book is backed by inscriptions that record the same historical accounts especially of Isaiah, and the judges. When doing ancient history at school we reviewed inscriptions which had right down to the amount of tribute paid identical accounts of battles that took place. The bible is a history of encounters with God, and historical records of king and country, backed by secondary sources; it is not fairy tales. When the bible was assembled it was so by humans, so their is the potential for books or stories included to be wrong, but not all the stories or books are wrong the largest majority of the texts are acurate historical accounts. Why I am so careful, or evasive as you put it is to try not to make it look like the whole lot of it is rubish.
You mentioned there are no Roman references to Christ here is a list of references from various sources including Roman. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
Quote:Why are you being so evasive? Why is it that whenever I ask a Christian if they've actually read the Bible, they evade, duck, avoid, and refuse to answer my question? I'm *trying* not to assume that you haven't read the Bible and the many implications that may carry for the validity of any of your arguements, but I'll need a little help here F&H.
It is not that I am being advasive, just honestly making my opinion known. I know there are some (a few minor) errors in the bible; but it is not sensible for me to throw it all out. The book is backed by inscriptions that record the same historical accounts especially of Isaiah, and the judges. When doing ancient history at school we reviewed inscriptions which had right down to the amount of tribute paid identical accounts of battles that took place. The bible is a history of encounters with God, and historical records of king and country, backed by secondary sources; it is not fairy tales. When the bible was assembled it was so by humans, so their is the potential for books or stories included to be wrong, but not all the stories or books are wrong the largest majority of the texts are acurate historical accounts. Why I am so careful, or evasive as you put it is to try not to make it look like the whole lot of it is rubish.
