Mar 7, 2012 -- 7:25PM, Rgurley4 wrote:

Namchuck: no " supportive evidence "

I have posted here and elsewhere that the existing ancient documents that comprise the Bible are copious and miraculous.

What scholarship has more than adequately identified is that the books of the Bible consist of copies of copies of translations of copies and, consequently, do not come anywhere near meeting historical standards. The Bible is permeated by inconsistency and contradiction, not to mention inanities by the score. There is certainly nothing "miraculous" about it whatsoever.

Anything good to be found in the Bible (and any of that 'good' is by far out-weighed by its monstrous content) can be had elsewhere, and without the need to embrace elaborate and unjustified assumptions and primitive superstitions.

As I've said elsewhere, one can make an utterly compelling case from the Bible alone that it is anything but what biblical literalists and fundamentalists claim it is. In fact, their claims almost bring the Bible into more disrepute than it brings down upon itself with an honest reading.

Recent off topic posts have been removed from this thread.

World Citizen, moderator
Sacred Texts/Bible