They're are plenty of historical manuscripts found around the world such as the dead sea scrolls. So why do people believe that Coloumbus discovered America in 1492, when none of us were here to witness it.
2006-11-26 09:45:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, and why put soooo much credence in evolution theories that have only been around for SUCH a short time, and not believe the Bible that history and science agree with.....it's quite baffling.
2006-11-26 09:49:36 · answer #1 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
History books generally site sources. Sometimes, there is other proof of events such as photographical proof, people still living that recall the events and so forth
The Bible really doesn't site sources, and there are no eyewitnesses left.
Some people may require more proof that events happened other than the Bible....however,
Sometimes history books get rewritten. Many people doubt history books as well, for instance, Columbus did not discover America. There were people already living there.
2006-11-26 17:55:00 · answer #2 · answered by saopaco 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
By your system, a cyclone picked up a little girl and deposited her into the land of Oz, too. Just because a book exists, does not make it so. History books are based on documents, relics, etc. None of these exist for the Bible, as they don't for most other religions.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not support the Bible, many are sections of Biblical books themselves, or scrolls written by the Essene community. I have a copy of them in my library upstairs.
2006-11-26 17:51:28 · answer #3 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Some books are factual documents, and others are works of fiction. Historical documents will often be exaggerrated, so you have to look at them skeptically. But when you see stories about demons and miracles and people rising from the dead, you can be pretty sure you're reading fiction. Because we know it is physically possible for someone to sail a ship to another island.
2006-11-26 17:56:05 · answer #4 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do you believe the Earth is round instead of flat? Or the Earth revolves around the sun. You have not left this planet to see for yourself. I have yet to find a history book that claims that bats are birds and insects only have four legs. History books do not defy rational thought, and much of the things in history book has some sort of physical evidence.
2006-11-26 17:52:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
LOL. Nice try. However, a great deal of what's in the history books is also incorrect. For instance, the Wright bros. were not the first to fly - they were the first to be photographed flying. Some time before, a man named Gustaf Whitehead had the first sustained flight, and of a longer distance. He just wasn't savvy enough to be photographed. Columbus had an entire crew of men to back up his story. Futher, I don't understand why we celebrate the fact that Columbus got totally lost. Why don't we have Ameriggo Vespucci day instead? He's the one we're named for...
2006-11-26 17:52:54 · answer #6 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because the Bible was never meant to be an unbiased historical account. In fact, if you look at it, it's consistently pretty biased in favor of the Hebrews. So while it might give us a general account of certain historical events, the exact details ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
2006-11-26 17:48:40 · answer #7 · answered by Caritas 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
That's stupid.
The diferent Bible translations have been politically manipulated through the last 1000 years, adding some books, changing others... That's no serious historical document.
Besides, history books talk about the discovery of America, and the bible about some giant Ghost called God...
I see America every day.
Can't say the same about God.
.
2006-11-26 17:50:00 · answer #8 · answered by Dranath 999 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Interesting question my young lad. Because these histories have multiple and varied sources. (For instance, in Spain, they have many papers from the Court of Isobel and Ferdinand, in addition to private papers of Columbus, in addition to personal correspondence of the sailors involved, in addition to many accounts of people who were in the courts when Columbus returned that commented in personal letters and published accounts the details of what he brought back from his voyage.)
We also have the the diseases that the Europeans brought with them, that spread out through the Americas. We have, on the European side, a *rush* to then discover more of the world and a flurry of similar voyages of discovery.
The bible, on the other hand, has flimsy, at best, corroborating "evidence." No record at all of a "slaughter of the infants" when Christ was born (and the Romans kept meticulous records). Historians of the day were mysteriously silent about people "rising from the graves" when Christ died.
The curious "lack of public record" about many similar instances are vast. For your own edification, I would humbly suggest www.infidels.org
2006-11-26 17:51:57 · answer #9 · answered by Laptop Jesus V. 2.0 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
This question is a bit absurd. Would you believe everything about how cigarettes are not bad for you if it was indeed written by the tobacco companies? The Bible is biased, written by men of faith for people of faith, with no corroborating evidence.
2006-11-26 17:57:50 · answer #10 · answered by RoboTron5.0 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋