Free Will
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2010, 05:58 AM
RE: Free Will
I suppose this is the quote you are discussing here:

(25-02-2010 08:03 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology says this about the Bible "Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed." They are not exactly a Christian organization.

At the risk of straying off the topic of this thread, there are some things I would like to say on this particular matter. From my knowledge of the Bible, it does seem to be pretty exact insofar as regards places and people, and the strictly historical (i.e. without considering the supernatural parts of it) information provided might as well be real. But then if you come to think about it and make an analogy to a well-known ancient Greek epic, Homer's Iliad, it was proven with archaeological evidence that city of Troy really did exist and that it is very likely that there was indeed a war between the Trojans and the Greeks which eventually led to its destruction (although it might have been due to an earthquake). Archaeologists even used Homer to determine the exact location of the city. See here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/..._troy.html

I haven't studied the world's religious writings in a serious or thorough way, but I am pretty sure, from my scanty knowledge, that if you take the time, you'll find that history and mythology are sometimes very closely connected: a religious book such as the Bible may contain certain references to the history of the people who wrote it, but does that mean we have to believe every word it says? I shouldn't think so.

I don't find it at all bizarre or extraordinary that the Bible mentions places the Jews of old were familiar with and peoples they had come into contact with; in fact, it comes out pretty natually and logically they did. But if it is true that the god of the Bible created this world - and let us confine ourselves to our planet only for the moment - then it must be true that he knew the exact structure of the world's population, and that he was familiar with every ethnic group that ever lived on this earth. How come, then, that the Bible never speaks of any other peoples than the ones known by the Jews? Why doesn't it say anything of the Chinese, for example? Why doesn't it mention the Americas and the peoples living there? Why doesn't is say anything about central and south Africa? Or Australia? We know that many of these populations were contemporary to most biblical events; we know the Chinese are among the oldest civilizations on earth yet does the Bible even once mention them? I don't think so. We also know that the Americas have been inhabited since about 10,000 years ago, yet there is not a single mention of any such thing as a continent beyond the ocean. Why? Because the Jews had no contact with them and did not know what was beyond the lands they had traveled to. Which leads us to the conclusion that the god of the Bible was simply a local one just like the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek ones and that the Bible, far from having been written or even inspired by 'god', it was a simple collection of myths and tales compiled by the Jews, composing one of the many of the world's mythologies.

So, Mr. martinb59, what sort of arguments can you bring to this?

All learning is quite useless if you haven't learned to question what you learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: