By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ListerOfSmeg said:
Adinnieken said:
Mr Khan said:
happydolphin said:
I know this thread is about bad journalism, but after having watched the daily show interview posted by seth, it goes to show how off you can be when you reject the bible's account...

Jesus didn't defy the roman empire, he defied the Jewish stranglehold on the Judaic tradition. He was crucified as an outlaw though he never defied the state, that's because he was crucified for reason of Jewish persecution, not roman hostility...

When a scholar of two decades can't appreciate that subtle difference, you know the world is going to shit.

Having not read Dr. Aslan's account, I would suggest that it is in the interests of the Bible Writers to present an account that painted the Jewish establishment in something of a bad light as Christianity was the new claimant to the Abrahamic tradition, and at the same time to at least paint a neutral picture of the Romans (lest the Empire drop the hammer on the religion in its infancy, and so that Roman citizens would be less inclined to reject the Christian message for patriotic reasons).

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There are historical facts in the bible, but the bible isn't a true historical document.


Actually scientific data does point to a world wide flood as it has been documented that so far under the soil on any given part of the planet checked so far that there are signs of water and lifeforms only present in water.

While I wont disgree everything in the bible is not fact, you dont really know enough to make those claims as your one and only example is completely wrong.

Most of the stories in the Bible predate the Bible by a good bit. It was not a book written at one time but over hundreds, thousands of years.

Considering the Bible acurately dipics how the world and universe begain. i think its a bit silly to dismiss it as complete fiction or that the people in it are real and a part of history but the events must be fake

God said let their be light and bam.. We now call that the big bang.

The Earth was void and without form.. We know the Earth formed over billions of years as dust particles combined together to make a spot that once looked void and formed a planet.

We know there was a world flood but that story actually predates Christianity and many other religions by a few thousand years.

A man having heard that there was once a man that God made live forever went in search of the man to see if it was true. After a long travel he finally met the man that was immortal and he asked him what he did to become immortal.He explained that the creator came to him and tasked him with creating a vessel to help arry his creatures in as a great flood was coming. However this man would not be able to buid it within his lifetime so the creatortold him that to ensure it was built the man would no longer die.

Honestly, you could use allegories and metaphors to back up any kind of story, ever. So what is the use of the bible, when you have to constantly change the forms of its stories to make it consistent with reality and science? Besides, 7 days after the big bang, there weren't even any stars present, let alone the earth; hence, there weren't even the most primitive lifeforms present, let alone humans. Or does day in that context stand for something?

Please provide me with scientific evidence (by this I mean a credible source) that the great flood did occur.

At bolded: what the hell is this? Is this supposed to be a true story? If yes, then I'd like to know where you found this out. Also, the bible clearly states that early humans lived for 100's of years. Also, the bible clearly states that Noah died at the tender age of 950 years old.