the genesis creation account, noah's flood, jonah's story and many other stories are mythological in nature and cannot literally be true, does this bring other parts of the bible into question?
You're looking at it backwards. The Bible is a book about God, and his relation to man. Because God can do all things, those things that you mentioned are very possible in the literal sense.
Originally Posted by rainycity
there's no explicit statement that the earth is 6 - 10 000 years old but some take the genealogies as literally the accounts of all the generations and calcualte 6,000 - 10, 000 years back to adam and eve. The earth cannot be really this old. Does it matter that the bible appears to imply this?
Well, we don't know everything. It could be this old. It could be that the six days are really six eras. It could be that the genealogies only refer to the history of civilized man.
Originally Posted by rainycity
Also whats the historicity of the new testament, its authorship, composition and origins how it came to be etc? I'm interested to see opinions but want to approach this matter purely on objective basis and on evidence only
"The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel introduces you to some very good arguments for the historical accuracy of the New Testament, as well as how it came about. In short, it was written by early Christians a generation after Christ died. It was written either by apostles or disciples of apostles (Mark and Luke). This is very, very close for an accepted ancient source. There are thousands of copies, old and new, which can be cross-checked and which are very true to each other. And the books themselves were canonized based on authorship and theological fit. There were no controversial votes surrounding the New Testament canon when these books were canonized - the true ones all stuck out.
__________________ Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
- Proverbs 30:5-6
Did I say I believe the earth was formed from the pre-solar nebula less than 6000 years ago? Did I say I believe that the flood of Noah covered the whole earth? And what is up with the last quote of your post #10, you attributed it to me, but I did not write it! See Senix post #4 for the actual author.
In order to come at the Bible objectively, one must be capable of critical thinking. Saying something could not have happened because it is beyond the person's experience demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.
it has nothing to do with my personal experience...the universe and the earth being 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood are scientifically impossible...
Originally Posted by kevlite2020
A resource that could get you started on these things is www.answersingenesis.com You may not agree with the things posted on the site, but realize that their explanations are valid and are just as possible as things like evolution, old age dating, etc.
No, they're not. Where did you get that idea?
Last edited by rainycity; 2nd November 2009 at 10:35 AM.
I got that idea by realizing that science is made up of facts, and in a situation where facts cannot be concluded, the best that can be done is to collect all the factual evidence and data possible and draw conclusions based on them. In a situation, like these topics, where scientists can look at the same evidence and draw two different conclusions reasonably, it's probably fair to call both of them valid.
__________________ Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live.
"This is my prayer in the desert. When all that's within me feels dry. This is my prayer in my hunger and need, my God is the God who provides. This is my prayer in the fire. In weakness or trial or pain. There is a faith proved in more worth then gold, so refine me Lord through the flame!" Hillsong United - Desert song
In a situation, like these topics, where scientists can look at the same evidence and draw two different conclusions reasonably, it's probably fair to call both of them valid.
what are the two different conclusions? there is no debate about evolution within the scientific community.
I'm want to study the origins, historicity and compisition of the bible.
Is the bible a historical document as well as a religious book,
Depends what you mean by "an historical document".
The bible is, of course, not a single document at all, but a collection of very different documents, none of which looks like history as a 21st century historian would write it but all of which have historical value.
there needs to be some historical truth to it to accept the doctrines of christianity. I understand some christians take all of the bible as historical, literal truth and some see parts of it as symbolic or not literally true, whats your opinion on this?
That each part has to be taken on it's own merits. The can be no simplistic way of looking at a set of texts as complex and varied and the bible. Or rather, any simplistic way will be inherently wrong more than half the time.
the genesis creation account, noah's flood, jonah's story and many other stories are mythological in nature and cannot literally be true, does this bring other parts of the bible into question?
Why would it do that? Myth is not a lesser sort of thing than other sorts of literature. My local library has a large fiction section - does that through doubt on the usefulness of the non-fiction section?
there's no explicit statement that the earth is 6 - 10 000 years old but some take the genealogies as literally the accounts of all the generations and calcualte 6,000 - 10, 000 years back to adam and eve. The earth cannot be really this old. Does it matter that the bible appears to imply this?
Does the bible really imply that, or is that the sort of nonsense you get when you try to use a text to answer the sorts of questions it was never intended to answer?
Also whats the historicity of the new testament, its authorship, composition and origins how it came to be etc?
What about it?
The New Testament and Old are quite different in many ways, despite being part of the same meta-narrative, but what sort of comment were you looking for?
__________________ 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)
Depends what you mean by "an historical document".
The bible is, of course, not a single document at all, but a collection of very different documents, none of which looks like history as a 21st century historian would write it but all of which have historical value.
none of ancient history really looks like history as a 21st century historian would write it...some of the bible looks like ancient history, but that doesn't make it history. For example, there's no archealogical or historical evidence for the exodus story, and that also has mythological elements.
none of ancient history really looks like history as a 21st century historian would write it...some of the bible looks like ancient history, but that doesn't make it history.
Precisely the point I was raising is "that depends on what you mean by 'history'". The term is far from univocal - indeed it has several straighforwardly different meanings - so what exactly do you mean when you ask "Is the bible a historical document ..."
At one of the scale of possible meanings clearly the answer is 'yes'. At the other end clearly the answer is 'no'. Where on that scale is your question?
For example, there's no archealogical or historical evidence for the exodus story, and that also has mythological elements.
I presume you mean "... no ... other historical evidence..."
The story itself is historical data, whatever conclusion one eventually comes to about it.
For what it's worth, I do think the Exodus has its roots in a real series of events, but not that it is trying to be a straightforwardly factual account of those events.
__________________ 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)
Last edited by ebia; 3rd November 2009 at 06:26 AM.
Precisely the point I was raising is "that depends on what you mean by 'history'". The term is far from univocal - indeed it has several straighforwardly different meanings - so what exactly do you mean when you ask "Is the bible a historical document ..."
At one of the scale of possible meanings clearly the answer is 'yes'. At the other end clearly the answer is 'no'. Where on that scale is your question?
stop with the nonsense. Is the bible corroborated by external evidence or not?
Originally Posted by ebia
I presume you mean "... no ... other historical evidence..."
The story itself is historical data, whatever conclusion one eventually comes to about it.
its not corroborated by other sources or archaeological evidence.
Linear Mode
