Quote:
Originally Posted by toskalawannabe
Any book of history is written on opinion; the bible is no different. To some jesus was a miracle maker, while to others he was just a pretty nice guy. The people who wrote the history decided he was a miracle man.
To some, I'm just a really good goalie. To others, I'm the next lundqvist. I'll let the writers decide
|
Any book of history is based upon first hand accounts of the events. The bible is not a book of history because of the very fact that it was not written by people who were actually alive at the time of the supposed occurrences. It is a second or third hand telling. Of course, in the case of the bible and all religious books, it is stretching it to even say that it is a second or third hand telling because many of the places that events are claimed to have happened at did not even exist at the time the story claims. There are also the little problems like there are no historical records or evidence dating at the time of actual events and no corroborating evidence to back up the story of the bible. Basically, to say that the bible is evidence of itself and therefore history is the same as saying that Lewis Carroll's work is evidence that Wonderland exists. Just because someone sat down and wrote a tale does not make it fact or history without actual evidence to back it up and the bible has absolutely no evidence to back up a single story in its pages.
To put it simply, just because it is a religious book, does not instantly make it true nor does it verify the existence of the mythical figure of Jesus. Religious texts must be able stand up to the same scrutiny as historical documents and if the cannot they must be seen as fiction rather than fact. The bible fails this test miserably and therefore must be seen as nothing more than fiction.