Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.

Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.

Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Remember, it has taken man centuries to uncover the Holy Land's biblical places, and the LDS church is really in its prime (restoration wise.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There is precious precious little (some would say none) archaeological evidence of a herd of Israelites leaving Egypt. Egypt being one of the best documenting ancient civilizations around. Does that mean the bible erred on The Exodus?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There is precious precious little (some would say none) archaeological evidence of a herd of Israelites leaving Egypt. Egypt being one of the best documenting ancient civilizations around. Does that mean the bible erred on The Exodus?

---

Not exactly true.David Rohl talks about this in his 'A test of time' where he deals with the Pre-Exodus Egyptian climate and amongst other things, their hatred for the Jews.

On a more whimsical fling, Immanuel Velikovsky claims to have found Egpytian papyrii which deal with the 10 plagues. He is steeped in controversy,(principally because of his conclusions) but he's worth reading if you can get hold of his 'Ages in Chaos'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Reform Mormons are different from LDS Mormons in that they:
• are more liberal, less literal
• view authority as individual and universal, not corporate
• do not view God as someone who requires obedience
• view all scripture and sacred writing as art and therefore do not take it literally
• view women as equals
• view gays as equals
• openly acknowledge the error of, and apologize for, historical racial doctrines and practices
• praise and applaud their scientists, historians, and intellectuals, rather than excommunicate them
• welcome scientific advancement (we fully embrace evolution and other theories which have advanced human understanding of our existence)
• feel that churches should exist to support individuals, not dominate them, and that church involvement in politics is misguided

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Those are all laudible traits that many religious traditions share (including my own)...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A quick bout of Google yielded up Reform Mormonism, which says that

---

[Whine]
But IIIIiii posted about it FIIIRRRRssstt...

[/Whine]

David
has not lost his touch

PS: T-minus twelve hours and three minutes till departure for Mouse-land

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A quick bout of Google yielded up Reform Mormonism, which says that

quote:

---

Reform Mormons are different from LDS Mormons in that they:
• are more liberal, less literal
• view authority as individual and universal, not corporate
• do not view God as someone who requires obedience
• view all scripture and sacred writing as art and therefore do not take it literally
• view women as equals
• view gays as equals
• openly acknowledge the error of, and apologize for, historical racial doctrines and practices
• praise and applaud their scientists, historians, and intellectuals, rather than excommunicate them
• welcome scientific advancement (we fully embrace evolution and other theories which have advanced human understanding of our existence)
• feel that churches should exist to support individuals, not dominate them, and that church involvement in politics is misguided

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...it's basically changing Mormonism to suite themselves, rather than changing them selves to adhere to Mormonism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is Christianity True?

- A "virgin" gave birth to Jesus. Not possible.

---

quote:

---

- Monotheists yet believe in three gods, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since when does 1+1+1 equal 1?

---

quote:

---

- Miracles? When was the last time you saw one that didn't involve you contributing to some Used Car Salesman Look-alike behind a pulpit?

---

quote:

---

- Some guy put all the creatures of the earth into a very tiny boat and then the whole earth was covered with water? The entirity of geologic history says that's quite possibly the biggest whopper ever told. We now are fairly certain it's an account of the The Black Sea Deluge

---

quote:

---

- God is love. Yet he orders his Isreali shock troops to kill every living creature in the cities he doesn't like.

---

quote:

---

- Seven Day Creation, two different versions.

---

quote:

---

- Israelites wander around the wilderness for a hell of a long time. Where's the archaeological evidence?

---

quote:

---

- Jonah stayed in a fish for three days and lived.

---

quote:

---

That's just off the top of my head.

This is faith people, not fact. If you can justify the errata in the bible, then you should let the LDS justify theirs.

Your "truth" also is subject to fiction.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by plaintif cry:
Is Mormonism true? Simple answer is that it is not historically substantiated by archeology nor anthopology unlike the testaments. Also, in Galatians 1:8-9 Paul writes

"But if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to you. let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accept, let him be eternally condemned!"

---

quote:

---

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

---

quote:

---

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

---

quote:

---

It is hard talking stuff but the fact is that Moroni was an angel who is supposed to have given Joseph Smith the direction to the gold plates on which the book of Mormon is said to be transcribed in an ancient unknown language. Joseph Smith was the only one to see these plates. Even though there are testimonies from people who say they did see the plates, in the front of the book of Mormon, what they do not say is that after falling out with Smith these were retracted.

---

quote:

---

Smith used a couple of stones that are called Urim and Thurim that he had previously used for occult divining to "translate" the book of Mormon. This book tells the story of a people of Semitic origin living in the U.S.A and engaged in tribal wars. Of a visit from Christ and purports to give the place of Jesus second coming as Jonesville in the U.S. The story is thought to have been writen by a congregational minister as a fictional work during the mid eighteenth century and found by Smith in a Pawn Shop.

---

quote:

---

My question, respectfully, to any one who is a part and promoter of the LDS is How can a religion founded on such an obvious deception be true? How can a different gospel from a supernatural being and given by such an unreliable source with no other substantiation be a God given revelation for our salvation?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Faith is not faith until it has been tried. We have received a witness - and as I mentioned, I have no need for physical evidence - that clearly demonstrates weakness on your behalf. Would you still have faith in the bible if there were no scriptural evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:


Did you know that this same thing happened to the early Christians? A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Faith is not faith until it has been tried. We have received a witness - and as I mentioned, I have no need for physical evidence - that clearly demonstrates weakness on your behalf. Would you still have faith in the bible if there were no scriptural evidence?

---

Your last sentence - on the face of it - makes little sense. The Bible is scriptural evidence. Do you mean "would you still believe the Bible if there was no other evidence?" Because, if so, the answer to that is "it depends".

Jesus' presence on Earth is grounded in a real time, in a real place. That's the scandal of particularity, of course. If archeology were to show conclusively that there were no such place as Jerusalem, and no such people as the jews then, yes, I think that would be a very severe challenge to anyone's faith.

Yet, as I said above, and as you have yet to answer, the important places in the Gospel narratives are undoubtedly real. We know where Jerusalem is and was; mormonism, as I understand it, cannot identify the sites in its scriptures. That, it seems to me, is a major problem.

I do not think expecting the physical evidence to back up the scriptural shows a weakness of faith. Rather, to look at the scriptures in their historical context is to approach them with the same God-given intelligence and discernment as I use on other text. To do otherwise would be to become, to paraphrase Dave Tomlinson, a cabbage for Jesus.

Much of the Biblical narratives, of course, are not subject to archeological investigation. It's unlikely we'll ever dig up a 2000 year old manger, complete with bloodstains from the new born babe and, even if we did, how could we conclusively link them to Luke 2? That's where faith comes in. It's also where it is important to look at the Bible not just in terms of external evidence, but also as a created text, with the same flaws and layers of meaning as any other. That means that it doesn't matter over much to my faith (others will disagree) whether the details of the birth narratives, for example, are historically accurate. The manger is a potent type of the tomb and, for me, that is its point.

This means that whether scholarly research proves or disproves the Garden of Eden doesn't really matter. I never approached that story as being true in that way.

Yet, as I understand it, Mormons do not have the flexibility to understand the historical elements of their scriptures as anything other than an accurate account of what happened. Others have asked you if this understanding is true and I've yet to spot you answer. That does mean that, if all the evidence is that the history is nonsensical, it does throw doubt on the authenticity of that revelation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:


Did you know that this same thing happened to the early Christians? A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

The goddess Mithra is a new one on me. The god Mithra, however, is not, although my knowledge is scanty at best. (Where is Wood when you need him?) I know just enough to know that, whilst there are superficial similarities between the Mithra figure and the Christ figure, "almost identical" is a substantial overexaggeration. There is a brief account
here , an article on wikipedia , and a comprehensive article which covers the similarities between Mithra and Christ on the Catholic Encyclopedia. The latter is, of course, rather dated, but is the most comprehensive I have been able to find online from a scholarly source. Thus I'm not quite sure why disagreeing with you that "the goddess Mithra" and Christ are "almost identical" is an issue of "blind faith".

As I've said before, I'm deeply suspicious of blind or unquestioning faith. I've seen "you must have faith" used to often by (usually male) priests to control those who disagree. This happens where any questioning is seen as a threat to the authority of that priest, and too often their response boils down to "trust me, I'm right, God has told me". I don't think faith is about believing 100 impossible things before breakfast, and I definately don't think it's about seperating the faith bit of your intellect from the rest. Which is why, for me, argueing that anyone should ignore other evidence and just have faith simply doesn't buy it.

This, I guess, is why I'm Anglican and not Mormon.

Peronel.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

quote:

---

In each mithraic temple there was a central scene showing Mithras sacrificing a bull (often called a tauroctony)... Various figures surround this dramatic event. Under the bull a dog laps at the blood dripping from the wound and a scorpion attacks the bull's testicles... On the viewer's left stands a diminutive male figure named Cautes, wearing the same garb as Mithras and holding an upraised and burning torch. Above him, in the upper left corner, is the sun god, Sol, in his chariot. On the viewer's left there is another diminutive male figure, Cautopates, who is also clad as Mithras is and holds a torch that points downards and is sometimes, but not always, burning. Above Cautopates in the upper right corner is the moon, Luna. This group of figures is almost always present, but there are variations, of which the most common is an added line of the signs of the zodiac over the top of the bull-sacrificing scene.

---

quote:

---

The structure of the cult was hierarchical. Members went through a series of seven grades, each of which had a special symbol and a tutelary planet. From lowest to highest these grades were Corax (raven, under Mercury), Nymphus (a made-up word meaning male bride, under Venus), Miles (the soldier, under Mars), Leo (the lion, under Jupiter), Perses (the Persian, under Luna, the moon), Heliodromus (the Sun's courier, under Sol, the sun), and finally Pater (father, under Saturn). Those who reached the highest grade, Pater, could become the head of a congregation. Because mithraea were so small, new congregations were probably founded on a regular basis when one or more members reached the highest grade.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
I thought the RLDS began well after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the result of the unhappiness many people felt with the leadership of his successor Brigham Young. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Bonaventura,
Thanks for that. I don't want to start a big tangent but you might also want to add Manfred Clauss's book to your list. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries. (Translated by Richard Gordon. Edinburgh University Press, 2000). His view seems to be that there's not much influence going either way at all - and that what similarities there are, seem to be explained by the common roots of oriental religions in antiquity.

cheers,
Louise

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
There is a huge difference, it seems to me, between "similar to other stories" and "radically at odds with the evidence". The Book of Mormon, it appears, falls into the latter category. And you still haven't answered the question: are you allowed to treat the history in the Book of Mormon as myth, or is it considered to be as much revelation as the doctrinal stuff? If the latter, then that the history is, as others have said with more knowledge than I can, "demonstrably untrue", then you have a very significant problem.

Peronel.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

Now this is a total non-sequitur. If the story of Jesus turned out to be plagiarised wholesale from an ancient fantasy novel, it would tell us nothing about whether Joseph Smith had copied or got ideas from other books, anymore than it would tell us which 21st century university students have plagiarised their essays from the internet. They are two completely separate cases.


Texts can share elements, and that doesn't make them true or false. If I decide to plagiarise Antonia Fraser's book on Mary Queen of Scots, then that doesn't mean Mary didn't get her chopped off - the historical facts remain true whether I plagiarised them or not. It just makes me a plagiarist. On the other hand if I plagiarise JRR Tolkien and claim I've found an ancient Scottish manuscript and that Edinburgh was really Minas Tirith, and Lord of the Rings was all true ( Mount Doom being situated somewhere around Glasgow) the book might still be a good book and a good read, but that doesn't make it factual.

I have no doubt the gospels are influenced by other texts and the cultures around them. Neither do I doubt that you get some common elements between early Christianity and other religions of that time or place - sacrificial imagery, shared meals, military imagery, these are parts of a shared contemporary culture, so no big suprise. There are things in the New Testament I think did happen, and things I think didn't happen, but one thing I don't doubt is the antiquity of the texts in it- that they were actually written in the ancient Roman empire by people who actually lived there. The historical evidence for that is fine, and so looking for valid historical content in them is not a fools errand. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon, which does not exist prior to the early 19th century and for which there is no archaeological or historcal data to show that it has anything valid to say about the ancient world.

Whether it's plagiarised or not, I leave to people like Rosswesse who have studied the subject.

L.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Hi Louise,

You are completely missing my point here altogether. What I mean is - in the same way YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus. I didn't state that they were related - or that if the story of Jesus was plagarized it would say anything about the book of Mormon.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I wasn't arguing against the archaeology or geography of the bible.

---

quote:

---

Remember, it has taken man centuries to uncover the Holy Land's biblical places, and the LDS church is really in its prime (restoration wise.)

---

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...You are completely missing my point here altogether. What I mean is - in the same way YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus. I didn't state that they were related - or that if the story of Jesus was plagarized it would say anything about the book of Mormon.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is Christianity True?

- A "virgin" gave birth to Jesus. Not possible.

---

Of course, it was "not possible" - it would hardly be a miracle if it were "possible" in the ordinary course of events. But the whole point of the virgin birth is that what is impossible under natural circumstances (unaided by God's special purpose) _is_ possible when God so wills it.

Also, our notion of what is possible is generally based on experience - and so it is open to being overturned by contrary experience. Are black swans possible? Until naturalists explored Australia they thought the answer was "No".

Or are you claiming that virgin birth is somehow impossible by definition, rather than by experience? If so, the onus is on you to show it, because I know nobody who would argue that virgin birth is by definition impossible.

In fact, using artifical insemination these days, it would be quite possible for a female to become pregnant without ever having been in the same room as a male (assuming the AI doctor is female), i.e. it is possible to become pregnant without losing virginity. _Virgin birth_ is quite possible - the miracle was divine conception - no doctor except God. But then, a God who created the universe, who keeps it in existence moment by moment, could manage that, I think. IF He wills it. WHEN He wills it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Monotheists yet believe in three gods, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since when does 1+1+1 equal 1?

---

What Christians believe in three Gods? I don't, and I don't know any Christians who do. Nor any church which teaches three Gods. Might be the odd one - but even if there are, it is a long way from mainstream Christianity.

And three Gods would be by definition impossible, unlike the virgin birth: if there are three almighties, which one wins a fight? By definition one or more must fail to achieve their will - which disproves their almightiness.

Unless they are so completely and tightly bound together that they actually have one will, one power, one mind ... _exactly_ like one God. A unity of three persons far closer than any union we human persons ever experience. A union in which they are eternally and utterly of one mind and purpose and knowledge (omniscient), eternally in exactly the same place (omnipresent), with no _possible_ difference in will.

And your arithmetic is wrong. Take the set of all integers (1,2,3 ... infinity); throw away all the even-numbered ones (2,4,6...); do you now have fewer integers than before? No, because infinities follow different rules to finite quantities. Infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Miracles? When was the last time you saw one that didn't involve you contributing to some Used Car Salesman Look-alike behind a pulpit?

---

I don't know. Modern day miracles aren't a huge topic of interest for me. I do agree that there are many counterfeit miracles, and many bogus "miracle-workers". I also believe that there are many fake gold watches for sale - but that doesn't stop me from believing that real gold watches also exist.

If something is valuable, someone will try to counterfeit it for their own use. That doesn't tell us a thing about whether the valuable thing also exists. Counterfeits just prove that the thing they copy is valuable.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Some guy put all the creatures of the earth into a very tiny boat and then the whole earth was covered with water? The entirity of geologic history says that's quite possibly the biggest whopper ever told. We now are fairly certain it's an account of the The Black Sea Deluge

---

Some guy took a ring and carried it over mountains to a great volcano and threw it in and brought down the great evil wizard of the age... And they're publicising this all over the world. Oops that's "Lord of the Rings". Why do these mad earthlings show such falsehoods in their cinemas?

Oh, it's called literature? It has a significance other than its literal truth? But these earthlings spend a large part of their time watching things that are just made up... You mean it may have some value - even when it is made up?

Personally, I don't take anything before Genesis 12 as historical narrative - although some of it may preserve historical memories. But then, I have never felt that historical narrative (or non-fiction in general) is the only kind of writing worth reading. I have never seen any reason to think that "inspired by God" means "non-fiction". And taking one part of the Bible figuratively does not, in any way, commit me to taking other parts figuratively. You have to take each passage on its literary merits.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- God is love. Yet he orders his Isreali shock troops to kill every living creature in the cities he doesn't like.

---

I know people who cut up living bodies with knives, which sounds rather scary and gruesome ... but they're called doctors. An awful lot depends on how you look at these things. After all, I find childbirth pretty shocking (I've only ever been a spectator, mind you), but it also has its compensations. It all depends on what you know and how you view the circumstances. They can look and sound pretty awful - and yet there is a reason that justifies them. It is just not obvious to the uninformed spectator (imagine a girl with no knowledge of human reproduction, who finds her stomach swelling up, and then starts getting labour pains ... it would be terrifying).

I start with the fact that Christ - when being arrested, healed one of the men that were arresting him - and I don't ever read of Christ killing anyone. This is where I start with my image of God as love, because geo-politics (and theo-geo-politics) can be a bit too big to take in all the reasons and wherefores.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Seven Day Creation, two different versions.

---

One seven day creation story (Genesis 1); one single day creation story (Genesis 2). Again, I see these as true as literature, not true as science journal article nor true as 6pm TV news report.

Others might indeed take them literally. However, even long ago great Christian leaders took them in a literary sense. St Jerome, the fourth century Christian who translated the Bible into Latin, said that Moses described the creation after the fashion of a poet. Being a traditional Christian, that sounds good to me.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Israelites wander around the wilderness for a hell of a long time. Where's the archaeological evidence?

---

No idea. What are you looking for? McDonald's packaging may last forever, but I'm not sure about the remains of the Israelites in the desert. They didn't stop to build monuments, did they?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Jonah stayed in a fish for three days and lived.

---

And according to modern writings, Rip van Winkle stayed asleep for twenty years, which only goes to prove that modern writings are a fraud. Oops, that was literature, wasn't it? It is important to identify the type of writing before criticising it - otherwise you can get it very wrong.

St John the apostle said: "That which we have heard ... seen ...touched ... that is what we proclaim". He wasn't proclaiming Jonah, he was proclaiming the risen Christ. That is what the church is asking you to believe: Christ is risen.

People were there, they saw him, they touched him, they ate with him. They subsequently died for him. And they acknowledged that they were utter fools if what they believed was false. They knew what they were doing when they proclaimed: He is risen!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's just off the top of my head.

This is faith people, not fact. If you can justify the errata in the bible, then you should let the LDS justify theirs.

Your "truth" also is subject to fiction.

---

Fiction, mind you, is not the same things as falsehood. In fact, _good_ fiction is another way of telling truths - like Jesus telling a fictitious story about some foreign guy who stopped to pick up a robbery victim.

But the Bible is a big book, written by lots of people over lots of time. Sounds like a library, in fact. I have no problem with the idea that a library contains some books of fiction, and some of non-fiction. And that both are worthwhile reading. Sounds like every library I ever went into.

But the issue always comes back to Christ. How do you really _feel_ about the idea that the Son of God has come into the world? Are you repelled, attracted, indifferent? Do you wish it were true? Do you wish it were false? Do you think it wouldn't matter, even if the Son of God were to come?

Where are you?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
...Does that make any sense?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:


To me this is not really about the accuracy of the bible. I learned a long time ago that arguing the accuracy of the bible was a lot like pissing into a hurricane. The bible is not a historical document, it is a faith document.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is a document who's authors used "creative fiction" and who's subsequent interpreters and scribes modified to fit the party line count as historical?

---