Quote:
Originally Posted by SleazyDream
think about this.
archelogical evidence is proving more and more of the old testiment. Stories believed to be fables are proving true via archelogical digs more and more - and astounding us that the archelogical evidence backs up the stories in the Bible, like the great flood, sodem and gahorma, the asserian invasion, and on and on and on.
so why would the idea of creationism be wrong?
if the majority of the old testimant is proving true - why would this story be false?
think about it.
|
So you think that because a small nation of people in the Middle East were able to create some pretty far-fetched stories about some events they knew about and that were pretty contemporary to them that we should believe their stories about events that happened - in reality - billions of years earlier than that?
The flood story was borrowed from the Babylonians so should we now extend that belief to all the Babylonian "myths"? (See syncretism). In fact, some scholars note that much of the Biblical creation story was probably borrowed from Babylon. And why would that be? Because jewish scholars were forcefully taken there during the 6th century BC diaspora. Yeah, that is in the Bible too. So final edit came after that.
But the Bible is not reliable. It is utterly not so. Who believes that the first people were "created" in the Garden of Eden in modern day Iraq? So human life didn't originate in Africa? It originated in the Middle East? Funny thing 'bout them fossils.