The only historical event which I feel I absolutely need to know is Jesus died on the cross for us. Without that peice of history, all other history wouldn't matter.
Resurrection is kind of important too.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
They may deem them only legends and think that those accounts are not worth taking seriously.
"legends" isn't the correct word, but leaving that aside the real problem in that sentence is the word only.
The idea that factual texts are somehow 'true' while symbols, myths and metaphors are only figurative and aren't to be taken seriously is a modernist lie that Christians must not buy into.
Myth, symbol and metaphor is the appropriate medium for talking about supreme truth - the phrase "... is just a metaphor" or "... is just a myth" cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.
The way to address a modernist world that says "Genesis [1-11] is just myth" is not to buy into the enlightenment lie and try to prove it is factual history, but to show that myth is actually proper form for talking about the subject matter in question, and that Genesis 1-11 is true version of that myth.
__________________ Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us.
(++Desmond Tutu)
I read the book 'The Bible as History'. I guy who wrote it looked at all the postives and negatives (historically speaking) of the Bible stories. At the end, it seemed like there was far more evidence for than against. I also understand that the Bible became 'politcally incorrect' for arch/historians, therefore, many have shunned away, even if the evidence is staring them in the face.
I read the book 'The Bible as History'. I guy who wrote it looked at all the postives and negatives (historically speaking) of the Bible stories. At the end, it seemed like there was far more evidence for than against. I also understand that the Bible became 'politcally incorrect' for arch/historians, therefore, many have shunned away, even if the evidence is staring them in the face.
Its not difficult to see how many of the events in it stem from the traditions of other people in the region, or are religious explanations for mundane, yet at the time, unexplainable events.
it is also not difficult to see that the traditions of other people in the region have their roots in a common history.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
But surely it could also be looked at as the descendants of Noah took their history of the flood and carried it with them as they spread out across the world, the story becoming more distorted as the further away it spread, with the more similar stories congregating near the place where it originated: the middle east.
But surely it could also be looked at as the descendants of Noah took their history of the flood and carried it with them as they spread out across the world, the story becoming more distorted as the further away it spread, with the more similar stories congregating near the place where it originated: the middle east.
Indeed, it looks very much as though that is exactly what happened. The original event which all the "Great Flood" stories appear to stem from is the Black Sea inundation event. Over time, in subsequent retellings, what was a truly traumatic, world changing event for those effected, grew and grew until it became the "Global" flood we know from Genesis, Gilgamesh and Graeco-Roman mythology.
Linear Mode
