Difference between revisions of "Talk:Biblical accuracy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? ~~~~) |
(That's not always a given.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT) | Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :* Writing about the time that one knows is not a guarantee of being accurate. | ||
| + | :* Many have disputed that the Bible was accurate, so Luke's accuracy is a valid point to make. | ||
| + | :* Most if not all of the Bible was written by contemporaries. So you'd agree that the entire Bible is accurate? (I do). | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:30, October 31, 2008
Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? HDCase 11:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Writing about the time that one knows is not a guarantee of being accurate.
- Many have disputed that the Bible was accurate, so Luke's accuracy is a valid point to make.
- Most if not all of the Bible was written by contemporaries. So you'd agree that the entire Bible is accurate? (I do).
- Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)