Re: Way OT (was: Re: Cyrillic alphabet on RISC OS)

In article <e752fae04d.mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mike Sandells <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 29 Dec, in message <4de0f716b6Ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Ray Dawson <Ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In article <4de0e4ee61spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Grahame Parish
>> <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > The real problem is that whilst the writings themselves may be
>> > authentic, it still doesn't determine the authenticity and truth of
>> > the content.
>>
>> I don't believe it's in my power to prove the validity of the bible.
>> All I can say is that, if you start with a presumption that what is
>> written is true, then the content of it makes sense.
>
> Then it will never be accepted as a source of true information by those
> who use rational thought to determine the validity of a proposition.

Personally I think the only fair place to start, and this is the one
adopted by most students of Biblical Studies is that the Bible is
neither better nor worse than similar historical documents. The truth
of what it contains must be demonstrated by every available
discipline. So history and archeology can be used to check historical
and archaeological material - and usually the Bible is found to be
accurate about such things.

Other things are less easy to prove. One cannot so easily prove the
theological assertion that Jesus is the Son of God - but it is
possible to study what such a claim might have meant in 1st century
Palestine. It is also possible to decide, for example, whether there
are alternative explanations for other Christian claims - such as the
claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Clearly if you find the bones of
Jesus then the resurrection couldn't have been what Christians have
claimed for 200 years.

So really the only presumption one needs to make when coming to the
Bible is that it may contain truth rather than believing it already or
writting it off without being prepared to assess its credibility.

If this is done then I frankly can't see any reasonable basis for
dismissing the Bible as generally unreliable or unhistorical. Some
may want to reserve judgement on its theological claims which can't be
demonstrated in the usual way - but there is no basis for saying that
such claims are irrational other than having decided already that such
things are untrue.

--
andrew.mcmullon@xxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • TIME DEGRADATION
    ... MONKEY TRIALS, KILLING THE TRUTH! ... BED HISTORY REFLECTED IN BIBLE TEXT! ... Now, what does it mean if Jesus is famous for the bed, and everyone ... John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • TIME DEGRADATION
    ... MONKEY TRIALS, KILLING THE TRUTH! ... BED HISTORY REFLECTED IN BIBLE TEXT! ... Now, what does it mean if Jesus is famous for the bed, and everyone ... John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do ...
    (sci.logic)
  • TIME DEGRADATION
    ... MONKEY TRIALS, KILLING THE TRUTH! ... BED HISTORY REFLECTED IN BIBLE TEXT! ... Now, what does it mean if Jesus is famous for the bed, and everyone ... John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • TIME DEGRADATION
    ... MONKEY TRIALS, KILLING THE TRUTH! ... BED HISTORY REFLECTED IN BIBLE TEXT! ... Now, what does it mean if Jesus is famous for the bed, and everyone ... John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • TIME DEGRADATION
    ... MONKEY TRIALS, KILLING THE TRUTH! ... BED HISTORY REFLECTED IN BIBLE TEXT! ... Now, what does it mean if Jesus is famous for the bed, and everyone ... John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do ...
    (soc.veterans)