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.
posted on 03/30/2013 6:16:27 AM PDT
(Pray for America)
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.
posted on 03/30/2013 8:08:33 AM PDT
(It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
EVERYBODY OUTSIDE ... IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY ... WE'LL CONTINUE THIS ANOTHER TIME ... GET THE GARDEN IN
posted on 03/30/2013 8:19:09 AM PDT
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson