(September 25, 2012 at 11:40 am)Whatkins Wrote:(September 18, 2012 at 9:52 am)treshbond Wrote: Ok, I am curious. I am not sure if this is the best spot for this.
If Jesus has been established by the majority of scholars as a true character of history and that history also records that he was crucified for claiming to be the son of God.
Also as I understand it, as unreliable as any ancient text is, the Bible has been better preserved than all others.
Wouldn't that provide at least a starting point to examine further as 'a scrap of evidence' ?
The Bible is certainly subject to examination when it comes to evidence. Many Christians cite it as divinely inspired. Problem is, no one can demonstrate that the Bible is evidence of any god or miracle (unless their definition of "evidence" and "miracle" have been distorted).
And the historicity of the Bible is much more dubious than you seem to think. It has been translated and reset so many times through the ages that the residual loss or alteration of names and facts were inevitable.
I am not disagreeing with you so much as trying to think this through. Isn't there a big difference between translations and copies.
Yes I think it is plain that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, however is this not the same for all ancient texts? I am merely making a comparison. It is generally not considered irrational to consider other ancient texts as containing accurate and factual records of history and yet in comparison (at least as far as I know) they have not been preserved as well as the Bible.
On the basis of what I know it seems that the Bible is more credible than many give it credit for (except for fundamentalist christians)
If I am in error there I am more than willing to be shown, I am simply trying to be fair and objective.
