Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: knarf

I have to laugh every time I read many “scientific” tracts on Biblical events. They cite everything else as evidence, but never the actual Bible.

It’s as if they automatically assume the Bible is false or distorted history, until something else comes along to verify it.

Objectivity, inquiry, etc. are one thing, but they won’t admit any active negative bias.


24 posted on 03/30/2013 6:16:27 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: P.O.E.
If the point of the exercise is to either prove or disprove the Bible, you cannot use the Bible itself as part of the proof. When you do that, it's called a tautology: a self reinforcing statement that cannot be disproved.

If you are going to prove that the Bible story about Christ being crucified at a certain place and on a certain time is true, you can't just say its true because the Bible says so and still claim it's a scientific argument, or a logical argument. It's not an argument at all when posed that way, it's a statement of faith.

32 posted on 03/30/2013 8:08:33 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: P.O.E.
EVERYBODY OUTSIDE ... IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY ... WE'LL CONTINUE THIS ANOTHER TIME ... GET THE GARDEN IN
34 posted on 03/30/2013 8:19:09 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson