Great Thinkers

» PhiloProf - Also....

Mr. Tubbs,

I do not dismiss anyone as a non-thinker but challenge people to look beyond their own ethnocentric viewpoint.

But If the Bible is, as you say, a historical document it is a poor one. Let me go on record that I do think that the Bible has something to teach us, as do all the major religions.
Do you consider what Lot's daughters did to their father after the destruction of Sodom a historical account? How about that the discrepancies contained within the Bible? For example:
Matthew 10:29-31 and Luke 12:6-7
Gen. 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3
Gen. 8:3 and Gen 8:6
John 13:38, 18:26-27 and Matt. 26:34, 73-75
or the number of times the 'Cock Crowed' Luke 22:34, 59-62 and Mark 14:30, 66-68, 70-72
If I apply a fair and reliable analysis, as you ask, then I can deduce that if one account from a 'historical' document is not confirmed by another chapter from the same document then I need to look at the document with some wariness. Also if the accounts of the slaying of the first born really occurred do you not think that more than one book in the New Testament would mention it? As it stands only Matthew mentions it. Furthermore if such a horrendous atrocity actually occurred, as the scripture claims, EVERYONE in the vicinity at the time would have been affected by it or aware of it, but history records no such crime against humanity.
The records King Herod kept were accurate and yes I can agree that it is possible that it was stricken from the record. But I ask you if no other historical document mentions it then is it not possible that, maybe, just maybe it did not actually occur but is a legend, just as other religions have had similar 'first born killed' stories?
It is just something to think about.

Cheers,
PhiloProf

-- posted by PhiloProf