I have noticed on several occasions people refering to the Bible as being "fairytaales" and "make believe".
By this same way of thinking do they also think that George Washington was the first President, or the Civil War accually accured? Or is this just fairytales as well? After all, no one around today was there to see these things so how can we be sure they happened? Food for thought.
2006-11-28 07:02:27 · 18 answers · asked by stpolycarp77 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wisdom is for those who seek. Not for those who are indulging in the worldly things.
2006-11-28 07:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There's a big problem here.
See, with the recent events, both the winners and losers wrote books. Yes, that's right, if you go to Great Britain, you can find documents and proceedings which discuss the military action being taken against the rebellious colonies during the reign of King George.
But with the Biblical action, e.g. the Israelites leaving Egypt and arriving in the Promised Land, the documentation is all one-sided. The losers didn't write books about it that have lasted to the present day. The surrounding people didn't. You have to take Moses's word for it, and we know he exaggerates (see the story of Noah, for example).
2006-11-28 07:15:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
btw, "Jerse" is inaccurate - here's what Wikipedia said about ole George -
George Washington (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799)[1] led America's Continental Army to victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), and was later elected the first President of the United States.
2006-11-28 07:09:51 · answer #3 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have this line we can draw between FACT and FICTION in historical documents. FACTUAL ones are supported by other documents at the time and are verifiable in the same way - and they contain descriptions of events that we know can happen. Wars, for instance, or presidents, kings, cities, etc. FICTION is not backed up by other historical evidence - for instance, no geological evidence for a world-wide flood, no evidence of the jews being slaves in Egypt, etc. Plus FICTION contains things we know didn't happen - miracles, rising from the dead, talking animals. That's how you find the difference. I'm sorry you didn't learn this in 3rd grade with everyone else.
2006-11-28 07:15:14 · answer #4 · answered by eri 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
hmmm however that was actually documented at the time of occurence.
did adam and eve document being created?
did noah document the flood?
did moses document the red sea?
did moses document the burning bush or the commandments?
did samson document his battle with the philistines?
the story of christ was written no sooner then 60 yrs after his death.
*shrug* not much to think about. believe things recorded as they happened verses believing in stories passed down by word of mouth for many generations before even thought of documenting.
btw many things are kept hidden anyway, im sure there is much about george washington we dont know, or the other founding fathers, for example many dont know george washington was a freemasonist, most think he was christian.
2006-11-28 07:07:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Funny how you try and equate actual events with fake ones.
Tell me how you can compare Moses splitting the Red Sea, or Jesus floating up to heaven, or a snake convincing a woman to eat an apple with documented events in history and I'll give you a pat on the back.
Face the facts, there is no possible way ANYONE knows ANYTHING about what happens after you die.
Plus, there are many, many things missing from history. No one knows the entire truth.
George Washington wasn't the first president, pal. Look it up. Ever hear of a guy named John Hanson?
2006-11-28 07:04:48 · answer #6 · answered by Jerse 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree. No one alive today knew Abraham Lincoln, or saw him inaugurated as president. But they believe it based on printed material.
If these people who just blow off at the Bible would just look at the supporting documentation, they would never question it again. They may not believe it, but they would believe that the people of the past did.
2006-11-28 07:11:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No it's not food for thought in any way whatsoever. Nobody is claiming that Washington walked on water or raised the dead.
2006-11-28 07:11:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That Jersey guy did exactly what you were talking about.Your question,and added information did level the playing field.
That was an awesome way to put things into perspective.
2006-11-28 07:17:36 · answer #9 · answered by Derek B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible cannot be authenticated in any way. Even most Christians will tell you that the Old Testiment cannot be taken as literal history, and nothing in the New Testiment can be verified.
2006-11-28 07:07:20 · answer #10 · answered by Homer Habilius III 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ok you don't like the bible being a fairy tale or make believe? How about mythology?
After all you can not seriously believe that the bible is any type of accurate history or reality?
Only a man made God could be as stupid as the bible God!
2006-11-28 07:06:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋