/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19622642]

I studied the Bible for 28 years and it's fun

[Anonymous No.19622656]

>>19622642
It contains everything. I was once a child who began with Homer's Illiad, I pushed through that literature (finding the occasional gem such as Sophocles), yet I found wisdom when I encountered the Bible. Wisdom in a simultaneously succoring ans shattering sense. Washed clean of everything, it set me on the path.

[Anonymous No.19622666]

>>19622656
Amen brother

[Anonymous No.19623804]

>>19622642
>shroud of turin in tier 3
>ipuwer papyrus in tier 4
>akkad never found in tier 4
>666 Babylon the Great in tier 5
what overexcited newbie made this? these aren't obscure at all

[Anonymous No.19623847]

>>19622642
>studied

[Anonymous No.19623852]

>>19622666
hehe JW anon's the devil.

[Anonymous No.19623855]

>>19622642
Big bag of hot shit, kys

[Anonymous No.19624041]

>>19622642
The jewish texts are the most irreligious of all religious works I have ever read, and I have pretty much read them all at this point. Really baffels me how people continue to fall for this ancient meme, especially us Europeans.

inb4
>We wuz the real israelites, look at this numbers bro. it's flat. Revelation is happening right now my dude the messiah is coming back. Nooo, its biblical prophecy dude, totally not a psyop by the elites.

[Saul Steinberg No.19624081]

>>19622642
Hole to crawl out of...
>Inb4einstien

[Anonymous No.19624089]

>>19622642
You didn't study the Bible for 28 years. You're 28 years old and went to Church and read the Bible during that time.

[Anonymous No.19624364]

>>19622642
>it's fun
heckin yes my fellow mouth breeder

[Anonymous No.19624386]

>>19622666
smiling cartoons threatening me with eternal damnation for using my best judgement just about sums up my experience growing up Catholic

[Anonymous No.19624615]

>>19622666
666
The tree of knowledge of good and bad doesn't mean deciding good and bad. It means losing innocence.

Adam and Eve had free will, but were innocent, so in the perfect habitat they lived in, they couldn't be tempted by the devil. But when they seized knowledge of what is good and what is bad they lose their innocence and become capable of exploiting the free will God has given them.

That's how I understand it.

[Anonymous No.19624620]

>>19624386
Catholicism is a Satanic cult, don't throw the baby with the bathwater. I am a muslim convert to Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.19624702]

>>19624620
Are you ok with fucking children and killing people from other religions?

[Anonymous No.19624704]

Aside from some of Paul's letters, little to nothing in that book is historical. Actually the consider that plausibility of what you're reading, consider why historians have so little regard for the Bible, and then kill yourself because a retard like you even considered religious worldview as potentially viable.

Or don't and keep living in delusion.

[Anonymous No.19624849]

>>19624704
OP didn't even say he's religious. Rent free

[Anonymous No.19624905]

I've been studying the Bible for four years and the more I read, the more I believe it's just a collection of old stories by sand people.

It doesn't inspire anything divine in me, there's nothing in the Bible that you can't find in other religious literature, and the OT is particularly satanic

[Anonymous No.19625001]

>>19624849
True. However, I think excessive attention is given to the book because of the position it's occupied in Western thought until only the century or so, namely, containing the ultimate destiny and moral ideal of man. If it's regarded as the product of a barbarous people, it's clearly inferior as a focus of attention. Life is too short, even regarding literature to consume, to spend time on it.

[Anonymous No.19625206]

>>19625001
Only a century? Still worth it in my book.

[Anonymous No.19625228]

>>19625206
I just don't see it as worth it. Unless you've read every other worthwhile piece of literature, including the works that reference the Bible, you're wasting time on a book that's not worth it.

[Anonymous No.19625232]

>>19625001
Please shut the fuck up, every book is wiser than you.

[Anonymous No.19625260]

>>19625228
You don't understand much in the way of worthwhile literature if you haven't read the Bible

[Anonymous No.19625273]

>>19625232
Probably, but there are too many books wiser than the Bible to waste time on it. That is my point.
>>19625260
I think the Ancient Greeks and Romance understood very much of literature despite their ignorance of barbarous Semitic texts. Now, there's much to learn beyond them, however, there's too much literature more valuable than the Bible to waste time on it.

[Anonymous No.19625293]

>>19625260
Lmao such a dumb purist point of view

The Bible has been analyzed to exhaustion, the original material is a garbled mess of oral traditions, ridden with contradictions and missing pages. Entire books are dedicated to keeping genealogies of Jewish families which have been irrelevant for thousands of years.

The Bible is a human phenomenon. That's all. Everything around it, was built by humans

[Anonymous No.19625295]

>>19625273
Apart from the obvious Greeks and Romans. Next you'll probably say the Pajeets, but their literature is just as much seen as a curiosity as the Bible

[Anonymous No.19625296]

>>19625293
Entire chapters* I meant

[Anonymous No.19625300]

>>19625260
>hebrew history book + letters of a hebrew
>foundation for worthwhile literature
We only read Greek classics, and Latin statesmen in school before moving on to Germanic literature. In hindsight a much better foundation than chaotic hebrew ramblings.

[Anonymous No.19625338]

>>19622666
Why did god drop his chosen people and their covenant to switch over dionysaical hellenism? What's his problem?

[Anonymous No.19625375]

>>19625338

[Anonymous No.19625379]

>>19625295
I don't understand your point. Can you rephrase?

My point was that the Ancient Greeks and Romans prove biblical ignorance is not inconsistent with learning. There is much to learn beyond them, however, I don't think anyone, especially if they aren't a NEET, has enough time to read all the literature more worthy of their time than the Bible. Even just including works worthy of reading in translation, this would include Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Homer, Cicero, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Shakespeare, Don Quixote, Bacon's essays, Montaigne, Descartes, Spinozza, Milton, Pascal, Locke, Hume, Swift, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Kant, Schopenhauer, Mill, Samuel Johnson, Goethe, Melville, Marx, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Freud, Erasmus, Voltaire, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kafka, Orwell, in addition to various contemporary authors, in addition to having sex, and enjoying life. Just about nobody has enough time to do all these things, even if they were a NEET. These, and authors I didn't mention, I sincerely think are more worthy of one's attention than the Bible, unless it's to satisfy one's personal curiosity for what has influenced so many authors or Western thought or what, by an accident of history, was made so significant. There is wisdom in it, and maybe it would be worth reading in a more compact fashion, like quotes, but there isn't enough wisdom in it to make the time spent reading the whole thing worth it.

[Anonymous No.19625399]

>>19624615
When God created humans, he gave them authority over the animal kingdom. (Genesis 1:26)

But humankind was under God’s sovereignty. The first man and woman were to confirm their submission to God by obediently abstaining from the fruit of one particular tree, “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:17)

Sadly, Adam and Eve abused their free moral agency and disobeyed God. Taking the forbidden fruit was not simply an act of theft. It constituted rebellion against God’s sovereignty. A footnote to Genesis 2:17 in The New Jerusalem Bible states that Adam and Eve laid claim “to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being . . . The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”

[Anonymous No.19625431]

>>19625399
>>19625375
Even if one allowed that a coherent theology could be derived from the Bible, what is the value if one doesn't think it's historically reliable?

[Anonymous No.19625449]

>>19625431
Why wouldn't it be historically reliable ?

[Anonymous No.19625452]

>>19625449
Lack of corroboration, lack of reliable attributions, and generally inconsistent with we observe in the world, especially regarding the so-called "miracles."
There's just no reason to think any of those things happened, save maybe handful of things on the OT, and a few things described in Paul's letters.

[Anonymous No.19625458]

>>19625452
This has been debunked

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g200711/trust-the-bible/

[Anonymous No.19625469]

>>19625375
Yeah he sounds like a jerk. Keeps changing the rules, setting up lab rat style experimental trials with 'his people' to see what they do. I'm with Spinoza on this, no god would make a virtue of our suffering

[Anonymous No.19625486]

>>19625458
Little here is actually making an argument from authenticity, i.e., why some letters of Paul are considered authentic and some are not. This just makes empty assertions based on tradition without backing them up with evidence.
It really doesn't matter. Anyone can go online and find out why the Bible isn't reliable, for instance, that Gospels were written anonymously, in contradiction with each other, and decades after the events that they purport, or that that archeology doesn't support the historical claims of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, or why historians don't think Moses or Abraham were historical figures. This is for people that actually care about believing things on evidence. Most people will just stop believing because society becomes more pluralistic, less concerned with religion, and since most people are motivated by herd mentalities, more people will move away from the faith, not raise their children in the faith, or will never have been exposed to it, meaning Chritistianity will inevitably become more and more irrelevant.
It would be one thing if Christianity would be supported by evidence, but it's not. People seek meaning in their life, and they find it in Christianity, regardless that their beliefs aren't based on evidence.

[Anonymous No.19625493]

>>19625486
>Little here is actually making an argument from authenticity, i.e., why some letters of Paul are considered authentic and some are not. This just makes empty assertions based on tradition without backing them up with evidence.

The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1)

Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God.

With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed.

The testimony of later, noninspired writers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had guided and authorized.

[Anonymous No.19625500]

>>19625486
>Anyone can go online and find out why the Bible isn't reliable, for instance, that Gospels were written anonymously

Regarding his record of the events in Jesus’ life, the apostle John wrote: “He that has seen it has borne witness, and his witness is true, and that man knows he tells true things, in order that you also may believe.”—John 19:35.

One reason to trust the Gospel accounts recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that they were written while many eyewitnesses to the events they describe were still alive.

According to some sources, the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as the eighth year after Christ’s death, that is, about 41 C.E.

Many scholars favor a somewhat later date, but there is general agreement that all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written during the first century C.E.

People who saw Jesus while he was alive on earth, witnessed his death, and observed his resurrection could verify the Gospel accounts. They could also easily expose any inaccuracies if there had been such. Professor F. F. Bruce observes: “One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).”

[Anonymous No.19625506]

>>19625486
>in contradiction with each other, and decades after the events that they purport,

Nope, the entire Bible is harmonious.

While some passages might seem to show the Bible contradicting itself, they can usually be understood correctly by applying one or more of the following principles:

Consider the context. Any author can appear to contradict himself if his words are taken out of context.

Consider the writer’s viewpoint. Eyewitnesses might describe an event accurately but not use the exact same wording or include the same details.

Take into account historical facts and customs.

Distinguish between the figurative and the literal uses of a word.

Recognize that an action may be attributed to someone—even if he did not personally carry it out. *

Use an accurate Bible translation.

Avoid trying to reconcile what the Bible says with mistaken religious ideas or dogma.

[Anonymous No.19625513]

>>19625486
>or that that archeology doesn't support the historical claims of the Jewish exodus from Egypt

archaeologists have unearthed ancient settlements in northern Egypt. Dr. John Bimson reports that there is evidence of 20 or more Semitic settlements in that area of northern Egypt. Moreover, Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier says: “For a period roughly from 1800 to 1540 B.C., Egypt was an attractive place for the Semitic-speaking people of western Asia to migrate.” He adds: “This span of time coincides with the traditional ‘Patriarchal Period’ and therefore fits the period and circumstances described in Genesis.”

There is additional evidence from southern Egypt. A papyrus dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2000–c. 1600 B.C.E.) contains names of slaves who worked in a household in southern Egypt. More than 40 of those names are Semitic. These slaves, or servants, worked as cooks, weavers, and laborers. Hoffmeier observes: “Since over forty Semites were attached to this single estate in the Thebaid [southern Egypt], the number across Egypt, especially in the Delta, was likely considerable.”

Archaeologist David Rohl writes that some of the names of the slaves on the list “leap straight out of the pages of the Bible.” For instance, the fragments contain names that are similar to such names as Issachar, Asher, and Shiphrah. (Ex. 1:3, 4, 15) “This is real evidence for the time when the Israelites were in Egypt as slaves,” concludes Rohl.

Dr. Bimson states: “The biblical traditions of the bondage in Egypt and of the Exodus have a firm historical basis.”

[Anonymous No.19625516]

>>19622666
post jw booba

[Anonymous No.19625526]

>>19625486
>or why historians don't think Moses or Abraham were historical figures.

Clay tablets from the early second millennium B.C.E. list cities that match the names of Abraham’s relatives. These cities include Peleg, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Haran.—Genesis 11:17-32.

● At Genesis 11:31, we read that Abraham and his family emigrated from “Ur of the Chaldeans.” The ruins of this city were discovered in southeastern Iraq. The Bible also states that Abraham’s father, Terah, died in the city of Haran, which probably now lies in Turkey, and that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, died in Hebron, one of the oldest still-inhabited cities of the Middle East.—Genesis 11:32; 23:2.

The Egyptian historian Manetho speaks about Moses. He calls him Osarseph.

[Anonymous No.19625529]

>>19625486
>This is for people that actually care about believing things on evidence. Most people will just stop believing because society becomes more pluralistic, less concerned with religion, and since most people are motivated by herd mentalities, more people will move away from the faith, not raise their children in the faith, or will never have been exposed to it, meaning Chritistianity will inevitably become more and more irrelevant.

“Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) For a person’s expectation to be assured, he or she needs to have sound reasons for that assurance. In fact, the original-language word for the phrase “assured expectation” means more than an inner feeling or mere wishful thinking. So faith involves conviction that is based on evidence.

“His [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:20.

[Anonymous No.19625536]

>>19625486
>It would be one thing if Christianity would be supported by evidence, but it's not. People seek meaning in their life, and they find it in Christianity, regardless that their beliefs aren't based on evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus is rational because it is based on historical facts.

1. Jesus was executed on a stake
2. His disciples were convinced Jesus was alive (since he reappeared to them as a spirit)
3. Paul, who was a stouch persecutor of Christianity, suddenly became a champion of the gospels
4. James, Jesus' brother, also became a Christian, as attested by Roman historian Josephus
5. The tomb was empty

All these point to Jesus having been resurrected

Unless you can find a better explanation (you can't)

[Anonymous No.19625544]

>>19625486
>in contradiction with each other, and decades after the events that they purport,

Nope, the entire Bible is harmonious.

While some passages might seem to show the Bible contradicting itself, they can usually be understood correctly by applying one or more of the following principles:

Consider the context. Any author can appear to contradict himself if his words are taken out of context.

Consider the writer’s viewpoint. Eyewitnesses might describe an event accurately but not use the exact same wording or include the same details.

Take into account historical facts and customs.

Distinguish between the figurative and the literal uses of a word.

Recognize that an action may be attributed to someone—even if he did not personally carry it out.

Use an accurate Bible translation.

Avoid trying to reconcile what the Bible says with mistaken religious ideas or dogma.

[Anonymous No.19625561]

>>19625493
>The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers
Unclear what this means. Historians date mark to have written in 66–74 AD. I see no reason why we should find such texts reliable.
>Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.”
Baseless claim. No evidence such expressions were "inspired.

Really just a bunch of empty assertions you made, not backed by evidence.
>>19625500
>According to some sources, the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as the eighth year after Christ’s death, that is, about 41 C.E.
Historians, with much better evidence, (for reasons you can read here https://www.learnreligions.com/gospel-according-to-mark-248660 ) conclude it was written much alter.
>One reason to trust the Gospel accounts recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that they were written while many eyewitnesses to the events they describe were still alive.
So what? The Gospels were written in Greece, while eyewitnesses would have been located in Galilee region, and again, this was decades prior.

Anon, you clearly aren't making a strong case, where beliefs comes before evidence.
>>19625513
Other evidence contradicts this:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/
https://brewminate.com/the-story-of-the-exodus-and-lack-of-historicity/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-13-mn-50481-story.html
>>19625526
Does not indicate that Abraham actually existed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/leading-archaeologist-says-old-testament-storeis-are-fiction-1500431.html

The evidence for the claims in the Bible are not sufficient, especially regarding the miraculous claims, contradicting everything that has been relaibly observed.
>>19625529
And I find the evidence insufficient.
>>19625536
1. Insufficient evidence
2. Proves nothing, since people can believe to have seen things that weren't there.
3. Proves nothing except that people can change their mind
4. Authenticity of this is debatable, and even if it were true, would be weak evidence for anything.
5. Insufficient evidence of this.
>>19625544
Plenty of contraditions can't be resolved using this mentality, especially relating to the Gospel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

Again, the evidence for biblical claims are not strong, especially relative to what is actually being claimed, especially regarding miracles. Contrast this to historical claims regarding far better documented periods of history, like the Roman Civil War, or WWII, or numerous other periods. Just because you can get a modicrum of evidence that would be explained by Orthodox Christian explanations doesn't mean those are the most plausible explanations.

[Anonymous No.19625567]

>>19625544
>Avoid trying to reconcile what the Bible says with mistaken religious ideas or dogma.
Based de facto atheist

[Anonymous No.19625842]

>>19624704
Dude greek myths aren’t historical but they tell us a lot about human beings.
Jesus died for your sins.

[Anonymous No.19625954]

>>19622642
That’s a crap image OP. Next time use trolling from real biblical hermeneutics not American cults.

[Anonymous No.19626197]

>>19625561
That nigger heeb apologist got assblasted, congrats on the effortpost

[Viruses don't exist No.19626872]

>>19622642
now useless eaters like you will die from covid

[Anonymous No.19627092]

>>19622666
See, if God made us in his image, why does he punish us for our actions? Maybe he should've not make us the way he did. Or maybe he should intervene more often, instead of doing nothing for the past 2000 years. Its illogical to think God is human-like or conscious in any way. God's probably more akin to a big inert slab of stone, than an actual arbitrarily-judging creature.

[Anonymous No.19627310]

>>19625561
>Unclear what this means. Historians date mark to have written in 66–74 AD. I see no reason why we should find such texts reliable.

Matthew wrote his account in Palestine. The exact year is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E.

There is evidence to indicate that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the popular Hebrew of the time and later translated it into Greek.

In his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.”

Jerome adds that the Hebrew text of this Gospel was preserved in his day (fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) in the library that Pamphilus had collected in Caesarea.

[Anonymous No.19627315]

>>19625561
>Baseless claim. No evidence such expressions were "inspired. Really just a bunch of empty assertions you made, not backed by evidence.

Christ “gave gifts in men,” yes, “he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers.” (Eph 4:8, 11-13)

With God’s holy spirit on them they set forth sound doctrine for the Christian congregation and, “by way of a reminder,” repeated many things already written in the Scriptures.—2Pe 1:12, 13; 3:1; Ro 15:15.

Outside the Scriptures themselves there is evidence that, as early as 90-100 C.E., at least ten of Paul’s letters were collected together. It is certain that at an early date Christians were gathering together the inspired Christian writings.

[Anonymous No.19627319]

>>19625561
>Historians, with much better evidence, (for reasons you can read here https://www.learnreligions.com/gospel-according-to-mark-248660 ) conclude it was written much alter.

According to the earliest traditional testimony available, Matthew wrote his Gospel around 41 C.E. There is nothing in his Gospel to contradict this testimony.

Apparently Matthew felt it urgent to get down all the facts supporting the truth that Jesus was the Messiah; he could appreciate what a great help this would be in carrying out Jesus’ commission to make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them.

So we find that Matthew wrote his Gospel some fifteen or more years before Luke and Mark wrote theirs. The date 41 C.E. is found in manuscripts as early as the tenth century C.E.

True, not a few scholars object to such an early date for Matthew’s Gospel because Matthew and Mark have so much in common, and they theorize that Mark’s Gospel, being the shorter, came first.

But Matthew’s Gospel is by no means a mere enlargement of Mark’s. As has well been observed, the similarity between the two could well be accounted for in that Peter had a copy of Matthew’s Gospel and used it in his preaching. Mark, in incorporating parts of what Peter said, would thus be writing down much that Matthew wrote.

[Anonymous No.19627326]

>twenty years ago a revolutionary criminal who attacked a chief religious centre was executed
>nobody else records this
>none of us write this until 20 years later
It’s okay to believe your text is inspired. But everyone else who doesn’t believe it is inspired will subject it to a non-inspired hermeneutics unless they’re doing in universe work on sonichu’s many fans.

[Anonymous No.19627327]

>>19625561
So what? The Gospels were written in Greece, while eyewitnesses would have been located in Galilee region, and again, this was decades prior. Anon, you clearly aren't making a strong case, where beliefs comes before evidence.

Luke stated that he had spoken with many eyewitnesses and had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-4)

Does that sound as if he were a plagiarist or a mythmaker? On the contrary!

After a thorough analysis of Luke’s writings, archaeologist William Ramsay concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

>Other evidence contradicts this

for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, we must remember that the Jews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops. Presumably, they left behind little more than footprints. Still, convincing evidence of that sojourn can be found within the Bible itself. Reference is made to it throughout that sacred book. (1 Samuel 4:8; Psalm 78; Psalm 95; Psalm 106; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5) Significantly, Jesus Christ also testified that the wilderness events took place.—John 3:14.

Unquestionably, then, the Bible’s account of Moses is credible, truthful.

[Anonymous No.19627335]

>>19625561
>Does not indicate that Abraham actually existed

Jesus and his disciples referred to Abraham more than 70 times in their conversations and writings.

In his illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus referred to Abraham in a symbolic sense. (Lu 16:19-31) When his opponents boasted that they were the offspring of Abraham, Jesus was quick to point out their hypocrisy, saying: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham.” (Joh 8:31-58; Mt 3:9, 10)

No, as the apostle Paul said, it is not fleshly descent that counts, but, rather, faith like that of Abraham that enables one to be declared righteous. (Ro 9:6-8; 4:1-12)

Paul also identified the true seed of Abraham as Christ, along with those who belong to Christ as “heirs with reference to a promise.” (Ga 3:16, 29)

He also speaks of Abraham’s kindness and hospitality to strangers, and in his long list in Hebrews chapter 11 of illustrious witnesses of Jehovah, Paul does not overlook Abraham. It is Paul who points out that Abraham’s two women, Sarah and Hagar, figured in a symbolic drama that involved Jehovah’s two covenants. (Ga 4:22-31; Heb 11:8)

The Bible writer James adds that Abraham backed up his faith by righteous works and, therefore, was known as “Jehovah’s friend.”—Jas 2:21-23.

[Anonymous No.19627342]

>>19625561
>And I find the evidence insufficient

There is lots of evidence, see the testimony of scientists:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/awake-no3-2021-nov-dec/decide-whether-to-believe-in-a-creator/

>1. Insufficient evidence
>2. Proves nothing, since people can believe to have seen things that weren't there.
>3. Proves nothing except that people can change their mind
>4. Authenticity of this is debatable, and even if it were true, would be weak evidence for anything.
>5. Insufficient evidence of this.

There were 500 witnesses to the resurrectio and theee is no reason they would lie about this.

>Plenty of contraditions can't be resolved

there are verses that APPEAR to contradict each other.

We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1,500 years.

Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction.

It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if an answer is not available right now, that does not mean an answer does not exist.

Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered.

[Anonymous No.19627346]

>>19625561
>Again, the evidence for biblical claims are not strong, especially relative to what is actually being claimed, especially regarding miracles. Contrast this to historical claims regarding far better documented periods of history, like the Roman Civil War, or WWII, or numerous other periods. Just because you can get a modicrum of evidence that would be explained by Orthodox Christian explanations doesn't mean those are the most plausible explanations.

Where we can check biblical claims against verifiable truth, the Bible proves itself accurate. History, archaeology, science, and philosophy have shown Scripture to be factual and consistent.

[Anonymous No.19627349]

>>19622656
Jewish mythology is boring.
Also, if you find Vayikra (Leviticus) an enjoyable read, your taste is shit, bro. It's just an instructional manual.