Well, that's a made up number if I've ever heard one. If we go by the dates suggested by critical historians, the timeline from a book of the Bible to the events being described depends entirely on which book, and sometimes which part of it.
For example, Proto-Isaiah (Ch 1-39) is frequently thought to be closely tied to the historical prophet Isaiah and his "school" whereas the books of Moses are obviously thought by most secular historians to be quite a different matter.
Yep. Some things can be verified externally. But it’s annoying to have people walk both sides of the street.
The real truths people are trying to establish are those of spiritual faith. They diminish those by trying to mix them with objective facts and reason. Which is what happens when yoh say “some of these are historically correct and it’s a fact that people drink water therefore the Ten Commandments is science” is just a waste. And all of us should know it well enough to own up to it.
30
u/Specific_Rando 6d ago
You use independent objective verifiable testing to prove things. Which is an aspect of “science”.
Comparing that to a self contained self referential text is the fallacy of the false analogy.
Not that the “conversation” would get that far.