BIBLE
Out of context: Reply #283
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
Onto the next one. “A series of stunning archaeological discoveries that directly corroborated places, personalities, and events in the Old and New Testaments only confirmed the general impression that biblical records were historically reliable.” In response to this statement, refer to my John Grisham analogy – just because a city mentioned in the bible was mentioned, and a certain king was found to have existed, does not mean that The Client was a true story. It does not mean that it was a false story either. But nor does it mean it was true. Words such as “stunning discoveries” is just you adding gloss. As I said, since the Bible is a series of tales passed down in that region over time, it would come as no surprise that it contained actual cities and kings. Just like the tale of Robin Hood was set in the real Sherwood Forest and there actually was a King John. Such as thing is not THAT stunning, or THAT amazing.