(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: I don't appreciate you claiming that I'm "sneaking in" invalid evidence, that's nonsense.
"Trying to" - didn't say you actually succeeded.
(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not my position and I'd kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my position. The Bible is largely unreliable for history, but it is made up of 49 separate texts that need to be individually analysed. The 22 of the OT, and the 27 of the NT. Furthermore the OT needs to be further subdivided - for instance the Pentateuch into its 5 components. The events in Genesis at the time they are written down are all thousands of years old. The Exodus is written down around 1200-1000 BC and is a mythical history for a few hundred years beforehand. The Israelites never visited the actual Mt. Sinai, thus scholars refer to the place that they spent 40 years and where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments "Biblical Mt. Sinai".
Other events that are more contemporary are more reliable. And that's just the O.T. So you have a range from completely unreliable to at least based upon a historical narrative.
In the NT you have much better quality texts overall. You have contemporary writings - in fact all the books of the NT except perhaps 1 and 2 Peter would be considered contemporary by anyone's definition. They were written within living memory of the events, and the epistles of Paul, James, John and Jude are all present-day contemporary.
As there are 49 different texts (or 66 books as counted in the Bible) you cannot apply the rule you've discovered from one to apply to all the others.
And this is how you are trying to sneak in the invalid evidence.
Step 1: Admit that bible as a whole is largely historically inaccurate.
Step 2: Argue that individual parts of the bible are to be evaluated individually.
Step 3: Argue that since some of those parts match actual historical events, they could be reliable.
Step 4: Claim that there is no evidence against their reliability.
Step 5: Therefore, those parts are reliable.
Your mistakes would be:
1. I've no problem analyzing those parts individually.
2. Correlation to historical events is not indicative of historical accuracy and therefore reliability - a lot of fiction correlates to historical events. Therefore, your step 3 argument is incorrect.
3. You are the one who provided evidence against its reliability.
4. Being contemporary does not make it reliable.
Therefore, your conclusion of their reliability is invalid.
(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Because as I've already explained some of the events are factual or based on a real historical narrative.
The 9/11 conspiracy theory has some events that are factual or based on a real historical narrative - doesn't make it reliable.
(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Rubbish. They're not even written by the same authors.
And why would that be relevant?
(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: You're extremely narrow-minded. All historians make mistakes - Josephus is known to make mistakes, but he's also respected as a serious Jewish historian. Modern historians can scarcely agree upon the simplest of things - thus you'll find no two with exact beliefs about any historical subject matter.
Narrow-minded would be to not listen to any of your arguments - but I'm listening and accepting most of your arguments. I accept your argument that most of the bible is incorrect. I accept your arguments as to why the narrators of NT are unreliable. So, I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.
