Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Also, I'm of the opinion that anyone who uses a book that gives instructions on how to sell your own daughter into sexual slavery (exodus 21:7-11) as a moral compass is a dumdum.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, it is inaccurate. It does not correspond to reality.Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
I don't think that's true in all instances, especially in the case of the Psalms and Proverbs. I think that the structure of the Psalms as songs was intended to be a mnemonic aid so that the exact wording could be remembered easily, even in an oral society. Same with the structure of the Proverbs as snappy little one- and two-line idioms. These sorts of things say to me that parts of the Bible were definitely intended to be preserved without change.I have always figured that in a Oral Society it was accepted that a story should be changed whereas in a Written Society it is not acceptable that a story be changed. The Bible came about in an Oral Society. Therefore the stories changed during the re-telling.
Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
How do you know?Because it teaches us the truth.
Because it teaches us the truth.
Primarily, because the Koran gives a different account of the biblical/historical Jesus.
I did answer your question.
I assume these "fallacies" are cherry picked by atheists/agnostics/and skeptics? . .
Sounds like the wisdom of this world.
Someone who is a believer relies on what is called faith.
I don't think that's true in all instances, especially in the case of the Psalms and Proverbs. I think that the structure of the Psalms as songs was intended to be a mnemonic aid so that the exact wording could be remembered easily, even in an oral society. Same with the structure of the Proverbs as snappy little one- and two-line idioms. These sorts of things say to me that parts of the Bible were definitely intended to be preserved without change.
The main difference when comparing the Koran to the Bible is that somewhere in the Epistles of Peter it says 'We were eyewitnesses to His majesty' . .
I'm pretty sure you already learned here once that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses. Did you forget?
Do I accept the Bible as what?
Simply, as the inspired word of God. (yes, God does exist) FYI
Is this about your past reference to the scholar Bart Erhman? . .
Simply, as the inspired word of God.
Do you accept the Bible?
This guy;If not, explain why.
Maybe it's a reference to the beginning of the Gospel of Luke where the anonymous author explains how he based his gospel on the accounts of eyewitnesses he spoke to, implying that the author himself was not an eyewitness.Is this about your past reference to the scholar Bart Erhman? . .
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collectors booth. Follow me, he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
Biblestudent...
Do you view the Bible as an inerrant and absolutely literal book?
I accept the Bible as an interesting window into the lives of ancient religious men from that corner of Earth.Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.