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

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: slowhandluke

But then why accept any other contemporary evidence? Just because a stone has a name carved on it from that time is no better evidence.

My point is there doesn’t seem to be the same overt cynicism about, say Hammurapi’s code or Socrates. They always seem to put a qualifier in when talking about the Bible, though.

It’s a bias that seems mostly directed one way.


33 posted on 03/30/2013 8:18:12 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | 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