
Originally Posted by
scorpio link=board=1;threadid=789;start=msg127386#msg12738 6 date=1088090826
this implies that you take the bible as a literal work, which is mistake number one.
Actually, i give it as much credence as I give any other old story. There's a nugget of truth in there like all Myths (I.E. There's no doubt in my mind that there was a real person on whom the legend of King David, for instance, is based on. But something tells me it didn't quite take 3,000 guys to get Sampson off the hill if you know what i mean, and since there isn't a stitch of evidence for a Global flood i sinply don't think it ever happened, but i'll bet something happened to inspire the legend).
In case anyone hasn't guessed, i'm not Christian, Jewish, or [Insert religion here]. Just an Agnostic that likes to read.
bjmcinti~
There are some serious scientific innacuracies in there as well... Bats are not Birds, for instance, Leviticus classifies them with Birds. Rabbits also don't chew cud, the bible says they do.
A couple of mistakes in the bible don't mean there is no God, as the bible simply isn't required to be 100% perfect to get the message across. But some of those tales in the early Old Testament simply don't have any relevance to the modern era (Cool as they are). When talking about the Philosopher we commonly call Jesus, i'd have a harder time arguing with you.

Actually MC, they do if you consider the basic fundamentals of what they are saying. All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.
No need to argue...it is so easy and it costs nothing to believe.

Bookmarks