1 2
#440981
cool cats
Maybe because a lot of the bible is unsubstantiated nonsense, while there is actual evidence supporting all these other things.
3/22/2008 4:35:57 PM
#440984
Cabraxas
But nobody keeps telling me I'll burn in hell if I don't believe the writings of Alexander, et al. They don't tell me to live my life in fear of Alexander, et.al. and finally, nobody is waiting for Alexander to return and take them away!
3/22/2008 4:39:37 PM
#440986
tmr
There are factual, verifiable records and evidence of all things you mention, except the bible. The only thing the bible has to back itself up is itself. That simple fact gives it no credibility whatsoever.
3/22/2008 4:41:09 PM
#441005
anatiedaephobic
People question all those things just mentioned. What did you think historians went around doing all day?
3/22/2008 5:17:35 PM
#441010
Because there's evidence. You can find sites where those ancient peoples once lived (there are thousands of buildings and ruins documenting so) there are many languages today based off Greek and Latin, and the written record of the above is prolific.
3/22/2008 5:35:07 PM
#441012
Safaraz
We've got the archaeology, we win (to adapt a common phrase)
3/22/2008 5:36:56 PM
#441013
KillWhitey
Because all of those other things were written about in more than one book unlike teh bibble.
3/22/2008 5:37:44 PM
#441015
Quinone
Exhibit A: Verifiable, historically accepted events based upon real evidence.
Exhibit B(ible): Unfounded, historically questionable events based upon the rantings of an unknown number of writers over an unknown number of years.
Is it really so amazing that when looking for accurate accounts of history, the Bible isn't always regarded as an acceptable source?
3/22/2008 5:39:09 PM
#441018
Did anybody explain to you the difference between EVIDENCE and MYTH?. Do you think that there was really a guy who went by the name of "clay man"?
3/22/2008 5:43:18 PM
#441032
Horsefeathers
"It always amazes me how people will go back to ancient accounts of any number of things, Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it."
At least not the parts that have evidence to support it. You'll note that historians tend to dismiss the demi-god qualities that are often attributed to Alexander and Caesar much like they dismiss the supernatural aspects of your Bible. Unfortunately, once you get rid of such things in the Bible there's not much left.
3/22/2008 6:03:37 PM
#441041
szena
No one takes those other things absolutely literally as guides for life, either.
3/22/2008 6:23:43 PM
#441062
approximate
We have more than one account of Alexander The Great. We have the ruins of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.
There's only one account of Adam & Eve (yer babble) and no physical evidence.
You lose.
3/22/2008 6:49:29 PM
#441073
Old Viking
One hundred sixty years of literary, linguistic, historical and archaeological analysis has left the Bible's authenticity as history in shreds. There is more evidence to substantiate the Iliad than there is for your holy book.
3/22/2008 7:03:33 PM
#441108
Grand Archblasphemer of York
It's because the Bible isn't a historical account of anything! Historical accounts do NOT spend the majority of their text talking about invisible entities and physically impossible events. We can fully accept the validiy of Greek manuscripts that are historical accounts, but we do not take information contained within their mythological tales as factual accounts. That is the key difference!
Uber-fail.
3/22/2008 7:29:08 PM
#441109
johnyanony
Perhaps the spiritual mirror would not be so blinding if you did not spiritually masturbate so much.
That is what causes blindness, right?
3/22/2008 7:29:32 PM
#441114
Doctor Whom
If someone gave me four supposedly inerrant accounts of Alexander the Great's miracles, and those accounts contradicted both one another and the historical record, then yes, I would question them.
3/22/2008 7:33:28 PM
#441127
Caustic Gnostic
My feeling is that the Greeks and the others had more realistic and comprehensive world views than those belligerent goatfucking hill tribes of the Levant.
3/22/2008 7:40:29 PM
#441134
NekoFever
I read Greek literature as literature. You read Christian literature as fact. Big difference.
3/22/2008 7:42:57 PM
#441143
Papabear
"It always amazes me how people will go back to ancient accounts of any number of things, Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it. The Bible? NO, people made that up for little morality guides!"
We question ALL of it, and accept only that with supporting evidence.
"The spiritual mirror is blinding."
No truer words have e'er been spoken.
3/22/2008 7:48:15 PM
#441166
Xotan
There's a difference between history and myth...
Please someone bash logosone over the head with a Bible and at the same time shout "MYTH" in his/her ear.
3/22/2008 8:28:00 PM
#441206
John
There are many historical things in the Bible that are accepted. No one, for example, doubts the existence of King Ahab or Sargon II or some of the towns mentioned. Where the Bible loses credibility is when it starts claiming it speaks for God. The problem there is that charlatans have a lot of incentive for claiming they speak for God, and history is loaded with examples of charlatans who have done that.
If the historian, William Stearns Davis, says "Alexander the Great conquered Persia", most people wouldn't doubt that, because why lie? If Joseph Smith says "God told me you have to let me "marry" your daughters and sleep with them", that's a little harder for anyone but a fool to accept.
3/22/2008 9:13:42 PM
#441207
Well actually there are multiple historical sources for the existence and accomplishments of Alexander, the Romans, and the Greeks. Cavemen's existence is proven, however their behavior and lifestyles are speculative. The Bible is no more or less historical than the Quran, the Bahavad-Gita, the Talmud, or any other religious book meant to explain a religion's beliefs and myths. Simply put, it doesn't meet the standard of proof for historical accuracy and have other independent sources verifying its stories.PS Why do you care, your little cult is based on a 19th century idea that isn't in the Bible anyway?
3/22/2008 9:14:50 PM
#441225
Antichrist
Because there's evidence for those other things.
Even your bible proves the bible wrong.
3/22/2008 9:37:50 PM
#441261
Lithp
Oh no!
He stole our mirror comment!
We're all gonna DIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE! (and burn in hell)
3/22/2008 10:29:51 PM
#441345
cui bono
Perhaps you should read some of the great classical Greek and Roman literature, you might learn something.
delenda est fundementalisus
3/23/2008 12:57:45 AM
1 2