Is the Bible just great fiction...?

[_Quasimodo]

I'm not sure I would place myth, tribal stories, poems and sacred text in the same genre as fiction. Seems like they are kind of a seperate genre, in my opinion.

Yep. There needs to be some consideration given to the aims of the authors. Were they writing stories to be viewed as fiction or trying to tell truths to the best of their knowledge?

[_just me]

I'm not sure I would place myth, tribal stories, poems and sacred text in the same genre as fiction. Seems like they are kind of a seperate genre, in my opinion.

Yep. There needs to be some consideration given to the aims of the authors. Were they writing stories to be viewed as fiction or trying to tell truths to the best of their knowledge?

That. I forgot to include tribal law. There are a LOT of passages that are just rules and regulations for the tribe to follow.

[_Quasimodo]

That. I forgot to include tribal law. There are a LOT of passages that are just rules and regulations for the tribe to follow.

Some of those were pretty good. I read somewhere that in Sioux society men were not allowed to speak directly to their mothers-in-law (only through a third person). Think of the trouble that avoided.

[_just me]

That. I forgot to include tribal law. There are a LOT of passages that are just rules and regulations for the tribe to follow.

Some of those were pretty good. I read somewhere that in Sioux society men were not allowed to speak directly to their mothers-in-law (only through a third person). Think of the trouble that avoided.

LMAO! I wonder if that's true!

[_Quasimodo]

Some of those were pretty good. I read somewhere that in Sioux society men were not allowed to speak directly to their mothers-in-law (only through a third person). Think of the trouble that avoided.

LMAO! I wonder if that's true!

I can't vouch for it. Just something I remember reading, but I don't recall the source.

It might be a good thing to adopt into our national law, though. It makes so much sense.

[_bcspace]

There is no Tower of Babel story if it's not the origin of the diversity of languages on earth.

Or the origin of some of the languages.

Actually, it IS evidence against. Just like Obama's human anatomy is evidence against his being an extraterrestrial lizard man.

Error in correlation. The evidence has not ruled out the Exodus or the Tower of Babel, or the Book of Mormon, etc. Evidence HAS ruled out a global Flood as per your logic.

I felt in my pocket for my car keys. I found my pocket to be empty.

In short, I found no evidence for my car keys being there. That is evidence against my car keys having been there.

No evidence for is evidence against.

Error in correlation. The correct correlating example is:

I felt in my pocket for my car keys. I found my pocket to be empty. But I knew that was not evidence that my keys do not exist or have never been in my pocket.

I applaud your tenacious defense of your religion, bc, but you really have to give that one up.

Given the number of examples given against it that don't apply, and a general ignorance in others as to what science it, I find it's use to be quite appropriate.

There has to be some evidence for any postulation for it to be considered possible. Otherwise it's just gibberish.

For centuries, the only evidence for the city of Troy used to be some ancient Greek texts which, by the way, include the doings of (supposedly) mythological gods; until it was found.

[_Quasimodo]

For centuries, the only evidence for the city of Troy used to be some ancient Greek texts which, by the way, include the doings of (supposedly) mythological gods; until it was found.

You picked an interesting analogy. Heinrich Schliemann did the original excavations of Hisarlik in his attempt to prove the story of Troy. He did find a city with multiple layers of occupation.

The layer he claimed to be Troy turns out to be much older than the one he was looking for. A layer several hundred years later might be the Troy of the Illiad. No one is quite sure yet if it is.

The point is that people were quite right to doubt the existence of Troy until some evidence of it's existence emerged. There is now "some" evidence, but not enough to claim it for sure.

Plato told a great story of an advanced city called Atlantis. There is some conjecture as to where that was. The island of Santorini might be the best guess right now, but it's still just a guess. It may have been just a story. That's how we should perceive it until some good evidence is presented.

Nothing is true until it is proven. "No evidence for is not evidence against" is just whistling in the dark.

[_Buffalo]

There is no Tower of Babel story if it's not the origin of the diversity of languages on earth.

Or the origin of some of the languages.

Actually, it IS evidence against. Just like Obama's human anatomy is evidence against his being an extraterrestrial lizard man.

Error in correlation. The evidence has not ruled out the Exodus or the Tower of Babel, or the Book of Mormon, etc. Evidence HAS ruled out a global Flood as per your logic.

I felt in my pocket for my car keys. I found my pocket to be empty.

In short, I found no evidence for my car keys being there. That is evidence against my car keys having been there.

No evidence for is evidence against.

Error in correlation. The correct correlating example is:

I felt in my pocket for my car keys. I found my pocket to be empty. But I knew that was not evidence that my keys do not exist or have never been in my pocket.

I applaud your tenacious defense of your religion, bc, but you really have to give that one up.

Given the number of examples given against it that don't apply, and a general ignorance in others as to what science it, I find it's use to be quite appropriate.

There has to be some evidence for any postulation for it to be considered possible. Otherwise it's just gibberish.

For centuries, the only evidence for the city of Troy used to be some ancient Greek texts which, by the way, include the doings of (supposedly) mythological gods; until it was found.

Without apostate misrepresentations of doctrine and arguments from ignorance, you'd have no arguments at all.

[_Aristotle Smith]

You might want to have a look at archaeological evidence bearing on the Bible itself. Unlike the Book of Mormon, this isn't an all or nothing proposition.

[_bcspace]

Nothing is true until it is proven. "No evidence for is not evidence against" merely illustrates the fact that the possibility is not precluded.

FIFY

You might want to have a look at archaeological evidence bearing on the Bible itself. Unlike the Book of Mormon, this isn't an all or nothing proposition.

What evidence would there be or will there be that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that he rose again on the third day? None. Because of that, the Bible always requires the same amount of faith to believe as say, the Book of Mormon. But also because there is only lack of evidence and not any evidence that precludes such things, the possibility always remains.

The point is that people were quite right to doubt the existence of Troy until some evidence of it's existence emerged. There is now "some" evidence, but not enough to claim it for sure.

Doubt is not the same as evidence that precludes.