(September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am)Aractus Wrote: There are plenty of facts in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT. The OT has a lot more mythology which pre-dates it.
And a lot more lies in both.
(September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am)Aractus Wrote: The NT on the other hand does not. It concerns itself with contemporary and recent events only. So the facts could be wrong if the authors got their facts wrong,
Or simply pulled those out of their asses.
(September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am)Aractus Wrote: but there's not much benefit in it for them to lie or to make stuff up themselves.
Ha, are you for real? Mundane events of Jesus walking around and giving lectures won't draw in much of a following. But make up a miracle or two and suddenly you have a crowd. THAT would be the benefit.
(September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am)Aractus Wrote: If they had then the four gospels would have to agree on hardly anything, whereas they almost never contain any actual contradictions. One of the only contradictions they do contain is over who bough the "field of blood", yet it's still linked to the same event - it's hard to argue that one of the writers made it up.
Here's a list of 194 contradictions:
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
I wouldn't call it "almost never".
And liars getting their stories straight is not evidence of its truth. Other possibilities would be that only one person made up those facts and the others copied them. Or there was retroactive corrections.
(September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am)Aractus Wrote: Because if they're recognised then they can achieve things, whereas if they are oppressed and not recognised it makes it more difficult.
So, its about recognition and achieving things - still has nothing to do with rights.