History (and science) section
I seem to recall some speculation that the Bible was wrong when it mentioned the "Hittites" as a nation/state since secular history and science were mute on there being such a people...for a long time. But evidence for there being a "Hittite" people emerged from secular history and archeology. Alas I do not recall where or when such evidence came to light. CЯacke®
My two cents
One of the reasons why I became skeptic is the Bible (and something similar could be said of the Qur'an). Is very shallow to be "a history of the world":
1) Genesis. The Heavens and Earth simply pop in. No mentions at all of all those things that science has revealed us (the Big Bang and everything that followed up to formation and evolution of the Solar System, the cosmic web of galaxies, subatomic particles, bacteria and virus...). Everything is just what people of millennia ago knew and for the case the ending would have incorporated some of those ideas we know about the future of the Universe, not looking like... well.
2) An alternative name could be "Adventures of the Jews". No mentions of people outside Israel and surrounding territories (no Chinese, Native Americans, etc. that if it was gonna be a book for all the mankind should have been mentioned at least.)
3) Inconsistencies and big gaps in the life of Jesus. Someone so important should have been far more fleshed out.
I could go on (mistakes on translation, edits on the original texts, etc) but it's hard to take seriously that book. It could be forgiveable if so many people had not died because it and Fundies wanted it passed down the throats of everyone. --Panzerfaust (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find the Qur'an is different though. There's a cryptic reference that possibly says water is necessary for life. <sarcasm>I wonder how Mohamed knew that living in what was practically a desert?</sarcasm> Christopher (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- As an aside, I can recognize the artistic value of the Bible plus all the art that has come from the scenes depicted there. But it's too little to redeem it compared to what has been caused not by the Bible itself -it's just a book after all- but by the men who forced and force everyone to accept what's written on it without questions. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Another point to be considered by the fundies
Who kept the records?
Adam and Eve #may# have used Enochian, but what records are there of 'them and their descendants' knowing how to write and that what was written was what actually happened.
Ditto Noah - as well as taking on 'large numbers of animals and plants' he also had the foresight to take the existing histories of his people with him and keep them updated (while not mentioning the support teams that helped him on his epic journey).
- Everything can be explained away by God ex machina. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or one assumes that the Bible is a composite construct from various sources, including folk tales, and the Flood was 'widespread and relatively local' with a wandering bard or two (who belonged to tribes in the dry areas beyond) being hired to write the story (and making use of existing narratives based on other floods 'as the locals don't know any better'). Anna Livia (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts of a BoN
- Cruelly rejected. — Dysk (contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
… God was sometimes acting after a visit from the in-laws (who normally made it quite clear they did not think him good enough for their darling offspring... and he only had one offspring with a human and did not actually bother to sleep with her). Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)