A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

[Adinnieken]

happydolphin said:

Adinnieken said:

This.

People read the bible believing it is a factual account.  It isn't.  The Great Flood, for example, didn't happen.  It's a story that is common in the middle-eastern region and has its origins in Mesopotamia long before even biblical scholars can attribute it to happening in the biblical time-line.

There are historical facts in the bible, but the bible isn't a true historical document.

The fact that you are lumping the bible in one big catch-phrase goes to show how much you know about it.

The book is written by various authors, in many different languages under various litterary types. The gospel accounts themselves are of varying degrees of historical method.

It just goes to show that, no matter what information you present, the bible will always be seen as material that must prove itself, when it really proves itself. I mean, even if the flood were untrue (which I seriously doubt), the gospels hold each other up together very well even historically speaking.

If you doubt the fallacy of the Great Flood then you've already lost.  The geological and historical evidence soundly disputes the existence of the Great Flood as written in the Bible.  In fact, several aspects of Noah and his Ark are lifted directly from earlier accounts from Babylon., suggesting that Noah and his Ark is an adaptation of earlier Great Flood stories.

As as much as you may feel the gospels hold up, they also fall flat in others or worse contradict each other.

In terms of some philisophical teachings in the bible, I think there is great value.  But the bible as an accurate, unimbellished account of a factual, historical period in history?  No.