I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Your argument is founded upon the bible being divine. From that axiom you can prove almost anything. There are MANY Christian (and pseudo-Christian) religions that are "proven" by exactly that axiom.
The bible is written in a way that is open to interpretation in many areas (some books/chapters/verses are less so). Even the "original" scriptures (whatever that means) were this way. I debated this topic many times with my father, since he learned both Greek and Hebrew at the seminary in order to read "original" texts. We often debated the English interpretations from those "original" (meaning simply older) texts.
Regardless, it is impossible to have a debate of logical discourse with someone when you have fundamentally different axioms. You must first begin with the same axioms before logic can even come into play. I will not play the game starting with "the bible is divine." That is a path I will no longer take. However, if you wish to start with another axiom as a basis for discussion I will happily partake. If you believe you can PROVE the bible is divine, that is something else I would be willing to discuss. None of the arguments you have given above make that case in any meaningful way, especially since I can provide evidence that does not support most of your statements.
Please note I never said the bible held no HISTORICAL accuracies, on the contrary, I stated exactly that it does.
I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Your argument is founded upon the bible being divine. From that axiom you can prove almost anything. There are MANY Christian (and pseudo-Christian) religions that are "proven" by exactly that axiom.
The bible is written in a way that is open to interpretation in many areas (some books/chapters/verses are less so). Even the "original" scriptures (whatever that means) were this way. I debated this topic many times with my father, since he learned both Greek and Hebrew at the seminary in order to read "original" texts. We often debated the English interpretations from those "original" (meaning simply older) texts.
Regardless, it is impossible to have a debate of logical discourse with someone when you have fundamentally different axioms. You must first begin with the same axioms before logic can even come into play. I will not play the game starting with "the bible is divine." That is a path I will no longer take. However, if you wish to start with another axiom as a basis for discussion I will happily partake. If you believe you can PROVE the bible is divine, that is something else I would be willing to discuss. None of the arguments you have given above make that case in any meaningful way, especially since I can provide evidence that does not support most of your statements.
Please note I never said the bible held no HISTORICAL accuracies, on the contrary, I stated exactly that it does.