Here's one perspective:
If someone came up to you today and told you that they had some really good gossip for you...
That they knew a guy over in Arkansas who used to turn water into wine and then one day he went to jail on a drug charge or something... Well, In jail he got shanked and died!
But then 12 of the inmates looked in his cell and he had disappeared...
But this guy was no ordinary convict... he somehow appeared over at the women's penitentary in a dream and told some chick to spread the word that he has arizamajizzn...
And this ALL happened just last week...
Would you believe them or just think they were high?
2007-12-03 19:30:30 · 8 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The time period of which an incident occured is not directly related to its credibility. It's more directly related to the available evidence of that particular incident and its authency. As for the BIble, however, the extended time has offered us more time to investigate its authency. Many inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the Bible has been discovered throughout the years. On the other hand, if the time period was more recent, it might've been easier to validate or unvalidate the Bible.
2007-12-03 21:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The more critically you read it, the faster its credibility shrinks.
Last Ent Wife, you'd rather we kill him instead?
How sad.
Biblical Archeology Review is a junk science magazine published by Hershel Shanks. He interviewed the renowned Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, a few years ago and was shredded. B.A.R. was pushing the "James brother of Jesus box" as fact before it was properly examined and shown to be a fraud.
B.A.R. is held in disdain among archaeologists, one of whom locally told me it only belongs in the religious section of the rack. No peer reviewed work has ever appeared there. It is geared toward believers who eagerly accept every lie Hershel Shanks publishes.
Biblical Archeology Review is NOT a science magazine, much less an archeology journal.
2007-12-03 19:36:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
The Bible has attained less credibility because with age weve been able to prove more and more of it as downright wrong (genisis), thus leading christians to deem the stupid parts "metaphorical".
I wouldnt believe them. Why? Because its stupid, it just is. Regardless of if his name is Jesus or Bobbo, if his dad is YAWEH or KRORG THE IMPAILER. Its just ridiculous.
Oh and to whoever above cited the "Biblical Archaeological Review", Id have to say thats probably a tad bit slanted and even more slightly biased. I wouldnt be shoving my afterlife's propositions into it, basically.
2007-12-03 19:43:00 · answer #3 · answered by lionspear777 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Usually, it's around ten to twelve years old that kids understand the difference between reality and fairy tales dear... If they don't then they show symptoms of schizoid delusional mental disorder.
2007-12-03 23:25:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bible can't gain credibility with age since it has an unverifiable and irrational basis to begin with.
2007-12-03 19:35:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If age confers credibility Hammurabi must be right!
2007-12-03 19:36:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
sigh...The answer to your question is yes. Every year archaeological digs uncover more and more evidence for the historical facts of the Bible. May I suggest the world renowned magazine "Biblical Archaeological Review" to you?
I read a blast on an Atheist's 360 page that said "If Jesus were alive today we wouldn't crucify him. We'd invited Him to dinner, listen, and then make fun of Him after He left."
How sad and true that is.
2007-12-03 19:35:30 · answer #7 · answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 · 5⤊ 6⤋
I wanna follow that religion.
2007-12-03 19:35:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋