17 Jul 06
Originally posted by Mixoif the tales are recorded in more than one source, then maybe those tales are true?
Agreed. Many of the ideas in the bible can be found in earlier tales from other religions. Let's recycle!
Besides - if Judaism sets the age of the world at just a few thousand years then that is admitting it is a "new" religion. Other civilisations are far older than the hypothetical genesis.
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by geniusMiddle Earth exists in several books - Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarilion, etc. The Diskworld is recorded in many more, Men at Arms, Equal Rites, Witches Abroad, Going Postal, but it doesn't mean that they are true. LIkewise, read "Fatherland" by Robert Harris. Set in Germany post WW2. Only difference is Germany won. It is biographically true up until 1944, when the author used artistic licence to spin his story. Same is true of the "Da Vinci Code" by Brown. Many of the things within the story can be verified, but that doesn't mean it is true.
if the tales are recorded in more than one source, then maybe those tales are true?
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzthey are not passed as fact. you are meerly reciting books that are ficticious and always have never claimed to be fact. when numerous sources claim to be fact reciting the same basic story then you have to begin to look at them seriously.
Middle Earth exists in several books - Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarilion, etc. The Diskworld is recorded in many more, Men at Arms, Equal Rites, Witches Abroad, Going Postal, but it doesn't mean that they are true. LIkewise, read "Fatherland" by Robert Harris. Set in Germany post WW2. Only difference is Germany won. It is biographical ...[text shortened]... n. Many of the things within the story can be verified, but that doesn't mean it is true.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by geniusDoes the Bible ever actually claim to be fact?
they are not passed as fact. you are meerly reciting books that are ficticious and always have never claimed to be fact. when numerous sources claim to be fact reciting the same basic story then you have to begin to look at them seriously.
TheSkipper
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by geniusyou forgot that you need the word "independant" between "numerous" and "sources" for anyone to take it seriously, excepting idiots, of course.
they are not passed as fact. you are meerly reciting books that are ficticious and always have never claimed to be fact. when numerous sources claim to be fact reciting the same basic story then you have to begin to look at them seriously.
19 Jul 06
Originally posted by geniusSo in summary then, your argument runs as follows:
they are not passed as fact. you are meerly reciting books that are ficticious and always have never claimed to be fact. when numerous sources claim to be fact reciting the same basic story then you have to begin to look at them seriously.
If a book is factual, then it is true.
My word, you really do deserve your genius moniker.
19 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzthat is obvious and i was taking it as read. do you know that these sources in question are not independent? noone has actually named any other than the bible...
you forgot that you need the word "independant" between "numerous" and "sources" for anyone to take it seriously, excepting idiots, of course.
Originally posted by howardgee
so in summary then, your argument runs as follows:
If a book is factual, then it is true.
no, i am saying that if you have numerous sources that relate to the same events then you have to look into these sources further. it's the way we learn about history. we look at sources, such as the writings of Timaeus. then we analyse them.
(there is also artifacts etc, but we're talking about sorces here so they're not really that relevant 😛)