(September 25, 2012 at 9:17 pm)System of Solace Wrote:(September 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm)treshbond Wrote: 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.
I think the Aeneid might have been more well preserved. It's been edited less throughout history. What does this mean? It means everything that happened in the Aeneid (being warned and guided by the gods, visited by gods, descending to the underworld to see the future) must have happened.
You may think it a bad idea to use a work of fiction such as the Aeneid in this situation, but that is what I consider the Bible to be.
Yes but as far as I understand, neither the Aeneid or Iliad explicitly claim to be historical fact. Where as books like the gospel of Luke does.
Also again, I am not aware of a great deal of editing having been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible, but changes made to translations. But even with translations can't they be examined in light of the probable agenda behind the alterations to determine what can be trusted and what can't?
