padib said:
I know sapphi, but I'm using the word proven as Runa is using it. In other words, the events and locations of the bible have archaeological and historical evidence to back them up such that to deny them would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an issue with semantics, that's why this thread fails but I tried to circumvent that to at least make it constructive to a certain degree. |
No dude, very few of them have. And just because some of them may have some historical basis, doesn't mean that they're entirely true (mainly, the mythological aspects are false). For example, just because Jesus actually existed, doesn't mean he was the messiah. Just because a part of a story is true doesn't mean that the whole story is.
Actually, this is how you build the most efficient lies. When you like, you musn't fabricate an entire fiction, but rather put a grain of truth in it. Then if people ask for proof, just present to them the little bit of truth of the story. People often make the mistake of thinking that jsut because a part of a story is true, then it all must be true.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)







