Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent
|
God is clearly punishing him.
In regard to BDH's "More than a Carpenter" book, i've been reading it on and off, i'm finding it difficult to read nonfiction while traveling. I take most nonfiction pretty seriously and try to "study" it rather than just read, and fiction is much easier for lounging in buses, trains or beaches. However, i've read about half of it and the pages are stained blue in notations. The book is extremely frustrating to read primarily because from page 1, practically all the author does is quote the Bible as a definitive source. Example:
Quote:
|
This statement from the Bible HAS to be true because it says it in Ezekiel XX:XX, and Luke XX:XX.
|
I'm currently finishing the chapter on the historical accuracy of the Bible, during which the author states that there exist more legitimate ancient scripts from the Bible than any other ancient text (The Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, etc, other historical documents about wars and historical happenings) that nobody dares question like they do the Bible. This is simply put aside by saying that in almost all of these historical cases, no one is claiming to be a god, and that they healed the sick, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. etc. Those that DID claim these things (Greek mythology, for example) are nowadays obviously not taken seriously and are looked at as exaggerated tales of real events (what I believe the Bible to be) or simply fabrications.
"Why do YOU think most of the human race doesn't regard the Bible with the same kind of historical nonchalance as they do with Greek (or any other ancient) mythology?"
COULD IT BE EVIDENCE, IN IT'S TRUEST FORM, OF THE THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?!
Seriously, there are ridiculously loaded questions in the margins every few pages just like the one above, with only one Christ-implicated answer possible given the phrasing. The book on the whole makes pretty good logical sense---If you believe that every single thing in the Bible is true. It also practically only quotes Biblical or Christian scholars to back up of all it's claims, which gives way to the kind of "putting on the blinders"/"lalaalallala i can't hear you Jesus is LORD!" bias I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Anyways, just wanted to update and say i've been reading it, but have been pretty busy to give it a serious post. I'll try and put all my notes together in the form of a critique post in the coming weeks.