Reply
Thu 28 Jun, 2007 02:55 pm
As an historical text, is the bible accurate with regard to what actually occured?
opinions please........
I have already stated my opinion in the "book of enoch" thread, and I will re-post it if necessary, but I would like to start a new discussion on this particular point.
Thanks, and please keep it civil, if you cannot discuss with a measure of civility then it is due to a lack of intelligence and ability to adequately express yourself.
@Dmizer,
So we do not offend the great and mighty you (LOL) give us your definition of civility.
My deffiniton is "If you have a booger hanging out of your nose, it is ONLY civil to point it out to that person. If they choose to ignore it, then it is open for public mockery" It is uncivl to go straight to Public Mockery.
@Dmizer,
Dmizer;24147 wrote:As an historical text, is the bible accurate with regard to what actually occured?
opinions please........
I have already stated my opinion in the "book of enoch" thread, and I will re-post it if necessary, but I would like to start a new discussion on this particular point.
Thanks, and please keep it civil, if you cannot discuss with a measure of civility then it is due to a lack of intelligence and ability to adequately express yourself.
I think time frames are accurate, and the people mentioned are accurate, i disagree with everything that happened (or anything that happened) being divine acts.
@Dmizer,
The Bible is an anthology of particular historic events from the recollections of many diverse people over a long period of time, much of it taken from traditional oral recitations passed down in families and sects. These events are often glossed over to make them more in line with Christian thought, therefore not necessarily perfect history as we know it, but important to faith and belief of Christians.
@Dmizer,
Both history and the bible are can be oral recitations and passed by hearsay. The difference is the essence of the two books.