Changing our Schools
Rookie
- Oct 13, 2014
- 13
- 1
- 1
The question I have is how much of the Bible actually happened and if some of it did happen, who's to say that everything else in there isn't also based off of something that happened.
This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.
For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.
An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.
So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?
This is primarily directed at those who don't believe the Bible literally. Maybe you interpret the Bible in your own ways, but not literally, or maybe you just think the Bible is total bullshit, but if you do take the Bible completely literally then there is nothing for you here because you are already convinced of my point.
For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the Bible wasn't thought of in the context of a religious text, but as a historical reference.
An example of things in the Bible that most likely happened is the Great Flood. The Bible speaks of the flood and many other religions and ancient writings have referred to a flood of some kind. This could very well be a coincidence or maybe just people writing about a common interest at the time. That is a very arguable point, but according to some new evidence found in Greenland, there was major melting at around the time period that that part of the Bible containing this story was written. With that information, it can be concluded that there was in fact a historical "Great Flood," which is most likely the one that the Bible has references. Was there an Ark that contained all the animals in the world? That is ultimately up to your religious beliefs, but, whether you are Christian or not, there is evidence of a flood.
So assuming you believe me when I tell you that there was a big flood and that the Bible is referencing that, what else might there be that could have historically accurate pieces? And if the flood turned out to be real, then could other things also be real, even the ones that we have no evidence to back up?