I Wear Pants;1148948 wrote:So you're saying that if part of a book is true than the rest of a book is true. You're saying that if the purely historical parts of the Bible are true it gives weight to the claims of magic found in the Bible.
I strongly disagree.
I am not saying that...AiG's premise is that. They are going on "Biblical authority." That the Bible is accurate "here, here, and here" so then the rest are accurate -- and they are doing this on multiple levels. Not just going off of a "flood" and saying EVERYTHING is accurate. They are going on multiple things throughout the whole Bible to prove it's "authority" (or accuracy).
But, (this is what I'm saying) why can't this stuff be true? Why not "prove" things throughout a book, which was written for a specific purpose, in order to "prove" its legitimacy? Why can't that happen? Just because you don't think the "magic" could happen doesn't mean it couldn't (or didn't). Just because you (or anyone else) cannot understand how someone could be the "Son of God" doesn't mean He isn't -- sound similar to the Judaism and Christianity rift?