antitheist wrote:
theJeff wrote:
The Bible contains law, prophecy, songs, rituals, and yes, history. Different parts serve different purposes and should be read accordingly.
There are absolutely corroborating non-Biblical accounts of Jesus. Tacitus, Josephus, Mara-bar-something...
Anything literal about creation and salvation? I cannot say. I mean, "let there be light" sounds a lot like the Big Bang, and I doubt the writer of Genesis, probably Moses, knew much about the Big Bang. But I am not sure how much that matters. Some folks get really into which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are figurative; I don't think it affects the core message of the Bible, which I will post a somewhat cheesy link to here:
https://crustore.org/downloads/4laws.pdfThere is also a lot of interesting material out there about the compatibility of science and the Bible. Some of it seems like a stretch, but I don't think there is any reason to think the two are mutually exclusive...
Yes, it does contain all of that.
Yes, but those aren't contemporary accounts, which I mentioned. No one during Jesus's actual time on Earth was writing about Jesus. Not even the gospel writers.
Tacitus was born around 56 CE and Josephus around 37 CE. They're writing about Christians and their activities. They're not writing about Jesus. How exactly are they corroborating non-biblical accounts of Jesus when they're simply talking about the activities of Christians and what those Christians believe?
Going off of your link, if Jesus is law 3 and 4, that goes back to his comment about believing his words and believing Moses's words.
If history says the plagues of Egypt, wandering in the wilderness, burning bush/ten commandments, etc. didn't occur, but Moses said they did, and Jesus says they did and that we should believe both he and Moses, how can that be reconciled?
First, I challenge you to find me an ancient historical account that is corroborated better than the biography of Jesus.
Second, the gospels are, by definition, biographies. The fact that they are in the Bible tells you that they are biased; it tells me that they are authentic enough to be included in something as important as the Bible.
Third, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Plenty of biblical stories have historical/scientific evidence (sea fossils in the mountains, or Moses prescribing quarantine millennia before the invention of the microscope and any concept of communicable disease , for example); others don't... yet.