No, really, why do you think that?
You acknowledge how it is written by humans, who undoubtedly had their agenda’s in writing what exactly they wrote using what words.
Agenda’s pertaining to their early-Ironage locale.
Human writing and editing for some 600 years, often about events that are supposed to have taken place loooong before their lifetimes.
And you just assume it is correct?
acording to earlier posts by him - its ‘self evident’ that its ‘correct’ - except the parts he disagrees with.
Why not this woman instead of that woman? I have had some women in my life, why did I feel this way about one woman and not that way about another? Because one touched my heart like the other one did not. Why the bible and not Wodan, because one touched my heart and the other did not.
How do I know God exist, because I am conscious of him. Because I can reason him out in my mind, its reasonable to know he exist, as opposed to the evidence that he does not exist, which I have never seen any evidence that proves he does not exist. And this thread is slap full of the evidence that God exist, and I have listed that evidence countless times, but I will construct another list , just for you. I know God exist, because of:
Love. Where did love come from? Did it just pop into existence like everythingelse the wrong theory of evolution tries to explain? Who gave us Love? Why and how do we attain such concepts? From nebulous nothings? From miracle self creating matter? Oh so now a rock taught us how to Love?
Conception. The ability AND concept of reproduction, having birth , which continues a species. Where did that come from? Who put that information in cells? How did cells learn to fold perfectly and how did they learn to reproduce? Are you then suggesting that natural selection gave itself the awesome power to create itself? That cells programed themselves? Are you suggesting that Life created itself and planned on staying around, so it programmed itself to survive by perfectly manipulating and programming its own essence?
There must be a God!
Females. If Females are not proof of a God, I don’t know what is. They are OBVIOUS proof of design! Why are they so different than males? Why did they turn out like they did, in any species? Oh goodness, that has God wrote all on it.
There is no assumption in study, in all my 50 year study of the bible, I know most of it is correct; not all of it. Its morals are sound, its reasoning uncanny sound; its archaeology right on target historically; its principles have stood the test of time. Many of its prophecys fulfilled; and it has influenced humanity since its conception, like NOTHINGELSE!
Not at all. It certainly isn’t an accurate historical account of what happened to the Hebrews, for example.
Really? I haven’t read the thing front to back, but a lot of them strike me as barbaric. We’ve done better since then.
That’s the kind way of saying some of them haven’t come true…
Are there any other holy books whose teachings you support?
Secondly - how many other holy books have you studied, and to what degree?
<bolding mine>
There is nothing ‘reasonable’ about any of this - as in its not logical - you’ve started with the assumption that there ‘must’ be a creator or a ‘grand design’.
Secondly - the bolded section above - shows you do not understand how evidence works.
Bible-god is not too keen on females, as far as I can tell, and we’re not allowed to have much fun with them.
There are many other gods that seem to be more suited to having designed them.
Their brains are full of bible-like complexities and discrepancies though
It correctly accounted for these events in history;
The campaign of Israel by Pharaoh Shishak, recorded in 1 Kings 14:25-26, discovered recorded perfectly as the bible described on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt. Accurate.
The revolt of Moab against Israel , recorded in 2 Kings 1:1, 3:4-27, discovered by archaeologist perfectly recorded the same in the " Mesha Inscription." Accurate!
The fall of Samaria , recorded in 2 Kings 17:3-6, 24, 18:9-11, to Sargon II, King of Assyria, found perfectly recorded on his palace walls. Stunningly accurate!
The campaign of the Assyrian King Sennacherib against Judah, recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, archaeologist discovered that recorded as it was in the bible on the " Taylor Prism." Accurate!
The siege of Lachish by Sennacherib, recorded in 2 Kings 18:14,17, the bible got that one right on target, as found by archaeologist recorded on " The Lachish Reliefs." Accurate!
The fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah, 2:13, as found recorded on the " Tablet of Nabopolasar", stunningly accurate prophecy.
The fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar , King of Babylon; the bible records that in 2 Kings 24:10-14, we found it exactly recorded accurately in the unearthed Babylonian Chronicles!
I have had fun with mine. And I see absolutely nothing in scripture that prohibits it.
I disagree with this, the bible is more than keen on females and it started with Eve, who had more influence than Adam.
Jesus closes friends were women.
They contributed to his ministry.
They reveal a part of God himself.
I think females are God’s finest creation; that I have personally ever seen! Nothing on this earth is more beautiful in my view.
It is ‘historically’ correct for a number of events that were written during the times these events took place, yes.
In so far as they are names of existing places and people.
Does anyone claim otherwise?
Prophecy of the fall of Nineveh. Nah. Written after the fact, man.
Anyway, this fallacy has long been dealt with up-thread.
Not to mention that “x city will fall” is not exactly a hard ‘guess’ to make -especially in that time frame - its up there with “you will meet someone new soon” - but not one of those ‘prophecies’ was written ahead of time or with any kind of precision.
Like I said up thread before; some ask for evidence, cry for proof, claim there is none, when its provided, they spit on it and claim its not proof.
Go figure.
I have a feeling that if I went and read some more I’d find it’s less “stunningly accurate” than you say, but that’s not the point: I think most people agree the Bible contains some actual references to history. It’s not all historically accurate. Take the Exodus, for example: it didn’t happen. The Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt and there’s no evidence of a very large group of people crossing the Sinai, as the Bible says they did.
Do you understand that discussing evidence is part of an argument? It sounds like you think that the discussion it supposed to be over when you post even the blandest and least-useful cites.
I don’t consider any book as " Holy."
Sigh.
Are there any other books that other religions consider “holy” that you have studied?
Indeed go figure. When did Nineveh fall to the Babylonians and Medes?
When did they start to write down the bible.
Compare dates, draw conclusion.