Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Check these: http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwc22/Rome/Archaeology_vs._the_Bible.html http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history There are plenty of sites out there saying the Bible is 100% fact, but I didn't find any that offered actual evidence. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Yea thats what I was finding too(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:43 (Agree/Disagree?) There are two different questions, really: one, is the Bible the literal word of God, and two, is the Bible a reliable history book? I think the answer is no to both of those questions, but I do agree with Oddman that there is a certain amount of historical fact contained within it. Especially things about chariots, buildings, vessels, etc...you can learn a lot about the way people lived and thought for thousands of years. To me the most precious parts of The Bible are people's heartcries, the Psalms, prayers, and eternal truths such as the beautitudes, or 1st Corinthians 13. That stuff you KNOW is true, when it's about love, hope, desperation, etc...those are the real bits. The Hindus have historical books dating back before the Egyptian Empire - 20,000 years back. The Western World has been basing our idea of ancient history on The Bible for the past 1,000 years at least...but if you ask the Chinese, they've got their own records. Just because archeologists base their work on The Bible doesn't prove it to me...I think some of the history is correct, but I think it's been nicely packagaged to suit Judeo-Christianity. For example, the first five books of the Bible are supposed to have been written by Moses...He wasn't even born when any of that stuff was meant to have happened, so how reliable could it possibly be?(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 02:15 (Agree/Disagree?) There are numerous examples of the Bible's historical accuracy and when I get a chance I'll try to find some for you! But just thinking about it logically there's no reason why people living in those times were too dumb or stupid to accurately record what was going on around them and pass it on, when they were so advanced in so many other ways, some of which we don't even have knowledge of today! If there's anything the Jews can be given credit for it's their legalisticness when it came to preserving the accuracy of their Holy Writings. In fact the they had a whole tribe, the Levites, whose main job was pretty much just to accurately preserve the Bible...the OT a least! So confident was Jesus himself of its accuracy that He said that not one jot or title of the law would pass till all was fulfilled! Moses, the author of the first five books, was like you pointed out, not there at the time of the creation or any of the events preceeding his life, but I have no reason to believe that there weren't writings and records that He used to compile His writings from, and since He was one of the few prophets in the Bible who personally communed with God face to face, I'm sure he'd have a pretty good idea of what was or wasn't true and accurate...he could just ask God himself!(reply to this comment)

From kats Monday, October 23, 2006, 17:40 (Agree/Disagree?) yes and Achilles was a real person couse Oidipuss says so in the Iliad and they where in troy and it´s been proven that Troy was a real city! (sorry I'v just been reading greek literature)(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, October 16, 2006, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) The bible proves the bible proves the bible is true? A1 must be right, because cross reference A2 and A3 from the same book confirm it? The favorite The fundamental problem with this argument is that A1, A2, and A3 can all support each other, and yet all be wrong in themselves. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, October 16, 2006, 16:35 (Agree/Disagree?) God I really don't know what is wrong with the comment form. It keeps deleting a few lines, and posting multiple times. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, October 16, 2006, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) The bible proves the bible proves the bible is true? A1 must be right, because cross reference A2 and A3 from the same book confirm it? The The fundamental problem with this argument is that A1, A2, and A3 can all support each other, and yet all be wrong in themselves. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, October 16, 2006, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) The bible proves the bible proves the bible is true? A1 must be right, because cross reference A2 and A3 from the same book confirm it? The fundamental problem with this argument is that A1, A2, and A3 can all support each other, and yet all be wrong in themselves. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:07 (Agree/Disagree?) One your argument would hold more weight, if you actually came up with at least one of your 'numerous examples of the bible's accuracy' rather then simply refering to them. Secondly using the fact that the bibles says its true and correct ,as an argument that it is therefore correct, is at best simplistac and at worst laughable. Thirdly saying 'I have no reason to beleave there weren't' is not an argument for anything. Oh my god I just read the last line of that comment and ya know what just forget it. God thats entertaining.(reply to this comment)

from Oddman Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 23:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe the bible like any book on history, is loosely based on both myth and fact, and written and compiled by authors with an agenda. Books on subjects as new as 9/11 vary from one author to the other, and not one of them are 100% accurate. Discussing the historic accuracy of the bible would be like discussing if one can get pregnant by kissing. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Obviously, but I have heard that scientists and archaeologists use it as a timeline guide in the same way they use many other mythical writings. As someone mentioned there was a strong tradition of oral history, of course its heavily tainted as all story telling is but I believe that many of the cities, kings, events mentioned did in fact happen. That’s what I had always thought, but it occurred to me that I could be completely wrong so I was just wondering if anyone knew? Or if they knew if where to go to find out? (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:27 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Just then while I was doing a little search for you, Lis, I read that scientists basing their timelines on the Bible has led to some mistakes.(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Saturday, October 14, 2006, 23:58 (Agree/Disagree?) On the contrary, the historical accuracy of the Bible is probably the part that is the easiest to verify...at least to carnal minded doubters! In fact in every instance of the Bible's historical assertions, where archeological finds have been located, they have concured with the Biblical account in every detail published!(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you got some sources please?(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:14 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry, but I really didn't find that helpful.(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:19 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, sorry, I would, but I just said goodbye to Lisa because i have to cook dinner...but maybe I'll catch you tonight. :) (reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:23 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

from Removed Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 23:25 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

from SeanSwede Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 22:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ive learned now never to trust the bible anymore. It been translated over and over again. You can never really trust the translators either from those times. I burned my bible years ago and never ever picked one up again. Its one of the most evil books in the world ever produced next to the Koran. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, October 14, 2006, 23:55 (Agree/Disagree?) And Mein Kampf? How is the Quran worse than the Bible? Do you think the unadulterated Bible was good and true? Ideologies in books are brought to life not by the author, but by the reader. It is more a question of how it is read, interpreted, and applied. This can be seen in the fact that there are so many sects and strains of christianity, all based on the same book. You go to Genesis, and the Muslims and Jews believe it too. I don't read my bible, but I haven't thrown it away. In fact I keep it with my copy of Origin of Species, with Bushido and Sun Zi's Art of War (translation including original chinese text) on the other side. As long as that bible is there, it reminds me to always question. Always interpret and analyze. Always read from both opposing angles. Don't let the obviously right parts of a book justify the subtle wrongs. Don't judge a book based on what you've read before. And never make up your mind so firmly that it cannot be changed again.(reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 01:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Sun Zi Bing Fa is a great book Which translation version do you read?(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:08 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)