Contridictions in the Bible

[Hitsumei]

You made the original assertion (that if a fertile hybrid existed, then they ought to have surviving descendants), you support it.

I find it stunning that you would disagree. Do you not agree that if you go back far enough, that we all share a common ancestor? If you do then it simply must be the case that we share no relation to any of the contemporaneous individuals that lived with this common ancestor.  

I probably wouldn't be able to find the percentage of individuals that lived thirty thousand years ago that have surviving descendants. It simply follows from a basic knowledge of evolution that the vast, vast majority of genetic legacies dry up. You think that the majority of living things that have ever lived have surviving descendants? Or are humans the exception?

[Man-ofGod]

Ill just give the historical document the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so far it hasn't been wrong.

Given that logic, I have an historical document called "The Odyssey" about a Greek man's travels.  He meets gods who have extraordinary and supernature powers, women women who sing to distract sailors, and is given a bag filled with winds.  I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that these things are true because so far, it hasn't been proven wrong.

That is why the Odyssey has already been deemed a work of fiction.  Did not quite pass the test the Bible has been through.  

The Bible has already has been authenticated a million times over by scholars of all background.  (Not bad for 66 books written by 40 different authors on 3 different continents.)  Therefore, accepting its claims are a little different then accepting the claims in the Odyssey, assuming we are still operating on some form of logic.

[G.ENIGMA]

Possibly that the context in which the Bible was written is so far removed from modern (or, dare I say, postmodern) life that to say the Bible makes sense "in context" is, in and of itself, illogical.

The Bible is, plain and simply, anachronistic.

I had to look up anachronistic
and learnt a new word so thanks for that

[Ihateyoumike]

That is why the Odyssey has already been deemed a work of fiction.  Did not quite pass the test the Bible has been through.  

The Bible has already has been authenticated a million times over by scholars of all background.  (Not bad for 66 books written by 40 different authors on 3 different continents.)  Therefore, accepting its claims are a little different then accepting the claims in the Odyssey, assuming we are still operating on some form of logic.

What test is that that the bible has been through?
Authenticated a million times over? Authenticated how? Do you mean they actually authenticated that it was written by men? Because I'm pretty sure the Odyssey was written by men, as well as the bible. Authenticated as in it has been authenticated as being the true word of your god? Nope. I'm sure you can't find me one legitimate source that authenticates it that way, let alone a million.

It is no different. It was written by human men. There is no proof that it is anything more than a work of fiction, just like the Odyssey.

[McQ]

perhaps you missed this, where I explained my reasoning?

That is basically what you said to begin with, so, to reiterate: "This is a non sequitur, by no means all of the individuals that lived thirty thousand years ago have surviving descendants. Because we don't see neanderthal DNA in the modern population merely reveals that no hybrids that achieved a successful genetic legacy existed. There is a reason that when you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor: the overwhelming majority of genetic legacies dry up."

For this reason it in no way follows that because no Neanderthal DNA exists in the modern population that any hybrids must have been infertile. A larger percentage of all fertile homo sapiens living thirty thousand years ago do not have surviving descendants.

I'm gonna need a link I'm feeling a bit dubious about this. While I don't think you are intentionally being misleading, I don't think your right. There were fewer people the farther back you go so yes we do have common ancetors but it seems to me that with fewer breeding partners available It would be more likly that if a viable match existed it's genes would be passed on.  ( I know I haven't posted any links myself, and I could try to find some if you wish, I just happen to get alot of my knoledge from printed matierial

Go with Hitsumei on this one. She's got it right.  

[Man-ofGod]

There were people created separately, and outside of the Garden of Eden that are not descendants of Adam and Eve? What is your biblical support for this assertion? Who was created separate, and outside of the Garden of Eden? What was their relationship to god?

This would seem to have massive theological implications, which would almost certainly be support for racism, so I find it incredibly strange that I've never heard this before.  

No worries, if you need me to elaborate, I will do so.

In GE 1, GE 2:1-3, covers creation week.

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens --    Now at this point we are transitioning into a brief history of creation week. (Thats the 9nth grade English you were referring to down below).  

5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- still creation week.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.  -- creation of man on day 6

From this point we now have life inside the garden.  In fact, NKJV titles it:

Life in God’s Garden

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This should really be followed by an apology.  

:brick:

Should have researched both sides.

I have.

The flood is impossible, there isn't enough water on earth to flood all of the land period, let alone to the depth claimed in the bible.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet).  If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level."  So, if everything were leveled out - if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in - the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/preview/i_3211.html  -- interesting video,  "defies this (millions of years) explanation"

It is also completely absurd to think that the some 10 million land animal species could have fit on a boat themselves, let alone to leave room enough to feed them for the duration of the flood. Also, any marine biologist would tell you that such an event would kill most of the marine life as well.

Thats why 10 million land animals were not packed in the Ark.  Surely you know the Creationist argument for this?  

The whole entire concept is completely and utterly absurd from a scientific point of view. In order to think that it happened you need to repeatedly invoke a miracle to explain away everything that would be impossible, hardly making it reasonable, let alone scientific.

Says evolutionist.

"This isn't about "interpreting evidence" this is about attempting to mash the evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion. Any scientific analyzes of the evidence leads to only one conclusion. You already have to be a YEC in order to conclude that the flood was responsible."

I disagree.  People who believe like you do in the scientific community create an environment where no-one can entertain a flood idea.  

Because it contradictions almost all of the life sciences, and a large portion of the physical, and cosmological sciences.

Cause it contradicts your theory/belief/worldview, not facts.

since you do not believe the Bible to begin with, why would you believe its claims about the origins of the earth?  

 

One isn't suppose to accept conclusions before they have reason and evidence to do so, that is known as "begging the question", and is an informal logical fallacy. It makes no logical sense to accept a conclusion before it has been demonstrated.

What conclusions was I asking you to accept?

Its a dead end discussion in my opinion. There are Christians that cannot even let go of this concept of evolution because it is so ingrained in their head.  So ill think Ill pass.

YEC is simply disproved. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of the sciences knows this. To put it bluntly, anyone who doesn't accept that evolution at least occurred -- whether they agree that Darwinism can explain it all, or not is a different story -- is either ignorant or dishonest.

 Translated -- anyone who does not accept that my world view at least occurred is either ignorant or dishonest.

Even the major ID architects, including the only scientist among them, Michael Behe, do not deny that evolution occurred. They merely disagree that Darwinism is apt to explain it all.

And that means what?

We've mapped the human genome. We can demonstrate genealogy between species in the exact same sense that paternity tests demonstrate genealogy between fathers and their offspring for the courts. Even if we completely lacked a fossil record, the DNA evidence is completely overwhelming. Though we do have the fossil record, and it matches exactly with what genetics tells us.

Do I have to search for a comparison of DNA similarities between inanimate objects and living organisms to illustrate how silly this point is?

What is a really interesting piece of information, is the fact that donkeys, and horses can reproduce offspring -- mules. Homo sapiens and chimpanzees as more closely related than donkeys and horses are. This implies that without any aid from science, and homo sapien, and a chimpanzee could most likely reproduce. We might be able to produce male offspring with any of the great apes, but could most likely produce both male and female offspring with a chimp or bonobo, and given evidence from similarly related species, many of them may very well even be fertile.    

In any case -- just reading about what we know about ourselves, other species on earth, and how we can form genealogies alone makes denying that evolution at least occurred simply unreasonable.

It sounds like your mind has been made up.  If I am mistaken then I am sure ill be corrected.

[Man-ofGod]

That is why the Odyssey has already been deemed a work of fiction.  Did not quite pass the test the Bible has been through.  

The Bible has already has been authenticated a million times over by scholars of all background.  (Not bad for 66 books written by 40 different authors on 3 different continents.)  Therefore, accepting its claims are a little different then accepting the claims in the Odyssey, assuming we are still operating on some form of logic.

What test is that that the bible has been through?
Authenticated a million times over? Authenticated how? Do you mean they actually authenticated that it was written by men? Because I'm pretty sure the Odyssey was written by men, as well as the bible. Authenticated as in it has been authenticated as being the true word of your god? Nope. I'm sure you can't find me one legitimate source that authenticates it that way, let alone a million.

It is no different. It was written by human men. There is no proof that it is anything more than a work of fiction, just like the Odyssey.

Why reinvent the wheel?  

"I. The Bibliographical Test
A. Reliability of the copies
It is important to examine the textual transmission by which documents reach us. What this means is since we do not have the original documents, we must determine how reliable our copies are based upon the number copies we have and the time interval between the original writing and the existing copies.
For example, Plato’s work Tetralogies was written between 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy we have of this work is dated 900 A.D., meaning a time span of 1200 years between the original writing and a copy in existence. We have only seven copies of this work. Similarly, Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote about 100 A.D. The earliest copy we have of his work 1100 A.D., which leaves a time span of 1000 years. We have less than 20 copies of his work. For a complete chart of historical documents, I encourage you to read Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
William Shakespeare wrote his plays in the 17 th century. Yet in every one of his plays we have gaps in the printed text, where we have no idea what originally was said. Textual scholars must make emendations (a good guess) to fill in the blanks. We see that every historical document has problems when it comes to the number of copies which exist and how many years removed the copies are from the original.
What would you suppose is the number of New Testament copies we have in existence today? Would you suppose we only have a handful, like the works of Tacitus? Would you suppose that we only have a few like the works of Plato and Pliny? We have over 24,000 ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament. This is an astounding number. In fact, the next greatest amount of manuscript copies we have of any other historical work is Homer’s Iliad which has only 643 copies. We have nearly 40 times as many ancient copies of the New Testament than we have for Homer’s Iliad. We have over 5600 Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament alone!
Further, the earliest copy we have of Homer’s Iliad was written about 500 years after the original was penned. Hundreds of years passed allowing time for changes from the original writing. The earliest copy we have of the New Testament is 25 years after the original writings. We have copies dating to 125 A.D., 25-50 years time from when the originals were penned. These early copies show us that we have the original writings in our copies.
Realize that when you only have seven copies of an ancient manuscript, if a couple have a discrepancy, it is hard to know what the original said. Four manuscripts read one way and three manuscripts read another way. How can you know which is the original reading? However, when you have over 24,000 ancient manuscripts, if a handful of manuscripts have a discrepancy, it is easy to know what the original was because of the majority reading of the other manuscripts.
B. Variants and discrepancies?
So are there any variants or discrepancies between the manuscript copies? Homer’s Iliad has 764 lines in doubt. 764 lines where there are variations and thus there is argument over the reading. Does anyone today read Homer’s Iliad and say that they cannot trust the reading because of these variations? Not at all. I have never heard any English professor declare Homer’s Iliad as untrustworthy because of these variations. How many variations are there in the New Testament? There are 40 lines (400 words) that are in doubt, which amounts one-half of one percent of the document.
Now let me put this into proper perspective. You may read the claims that there are 150,000 variants in the New Testament. This means if the same word is misspelled in 3000 manuscripts then there are 3000 variants. Of the 150,000 variant readings, they occur in only 10,000 places. Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in according with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. This is what we said above that there are 40 lines (400 words) in doubt. Of the 400 words, only 50 are of great significance. In some places the copies have “Lord Jesus” while others have “Lord Jesus Christ.” This is not significant because the meaning is clearly obvious. Of the 50 of great significance, not one of these changes one article of faith that cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages.
I would like to show you one of the places where there is a significant variant. In Acts 8:37 most of the manuscript copies contain the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch. Some of the manuscript copies do not contain this confession, and many of your Bibles make a marking designating this variation. Does the loss of the eunuch’s confession change an article of faith? No article of faith is lost because the scriptures abundantly teach the need for confession. Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.” Confession is taught in the scriptures as necessary for salvation. We do not need to eunuch’s confession in Acts 8 to know a confession is necessary by all who desire to be disciples of Christ. Acts 8:37 is a significant variant, perhaps one of the largest variants, yet it does not change any teaching in the Bible.
No one questions the historical books of antiquity simply because we do not possess the original documents. Based upon only a handful of copies dates hundreds of years later from the originals, we still have confidence in the works of Plato, Tacitus, Homer, and many others. The New Testament has thousands of copies, some of which are dated within 25-50 years of the originals. No one has a claim that the New Testament is untrustworthy based upon textual transmission.
I do not have as much time to go into the same amount of detail concerning the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a historic find bringing the gap of time between the original and the copies to only a couple hundred years. Up until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest copies were 1300 years from the originals, which was no better than some other ancient literature. The Dead Sea Scrolls also proved the accuracy of the later copies because there were no significant changes between the manuscripts. The scribes of the Old Testament were very meticulous about copying word of word such that they felt they could destroy the original because the copy was completely accurate to the original.
II. Internal Evidence Test
A. Literary criticism
Aristotle’s dictum toward literary criticism was this: “The benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Basically, what this means is that we must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author of the document disqualifies himself by contradictions or known inaccuracies.
If this is not the basis for examining a historical document, then anyone could simply declare a historical document fraudulent and therefore discarded. Rather, we must assume accuracy and reliability unless something in the writing proves itself false.
B. Inaccuracies or contradictions?
Of course, many critics have come along a declared that there are geographical inaccuracies or contradictions. First, if anyone claims contradictions, let them prove it. This is an unsubstantiated charge that is constantly thrown about without any merit or proof. Any time the charge of contradiction comes up, we must ask if there is a good and sufficient answer for the charge. It is not enough to claim contradiction but not try to reconcile the alleged contradiction.
Second, the Bible has constantly been charged with geographical inaccuracies. There have been claims that the Bible is in error concerning the location and naming of cities because we have no record of the city. However, archaeology continues to prove the words of the Bible as we excavate and find more remnants of the past. In future lessons, Lord willing, we will look in more detail at the internal evidences of the Bible to see if it truly reliable.
III. External Evidence Test
A. Writings
Not only must the document be validated by its own internal evidences, but must maintain accuracy to the external evidences. We must determine with other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the document. Therefore, we are looking for other sources to substantiate the document’s accuracy and reliability.
We first have the writings of other Christians in the early centuries of the existence of the people we read in the Bible. Eusebius speaks of Mark writing down the words of Peter concerning Christ, which is a reference to the gospel of Mark. Ireneus speaks of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all publishing their gospels in different locations at varying times. Other Christian writers validating the Bible are Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Tatian. They all wrote within the first hundred years of the writing of the New Testament.
We also have the writings of non-Christians which confirms the accuracy of the scriptures. Tacitus records Christus who suffered extreme penalty by the hands of Pontius Pilate. Suetonius confirms the Bible record of Jews being expelled from Rome under the reign of Claudius Caesar. Josephus also verified many statements of the New Testament.
B. Archaeology
As we mentioned a moment ago, archeology is another test used to verify a historical document. Other books that claim to be the word of God have obvious geographical inaccuracies. For example, the book of Mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem. The Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem. To reconcile this, the Mormons say that Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem. But archaeology and other external evidence show that such an argument is false. Bethlehem was a distinct town unto itself.
The Bible has stood the tests of archaeology, never one artifact disproving anything recorded in the Bible. In fact, archaeology continues to prove the validity of the Bible throughout time.
Conclusion:
We can trust the Bible as reliable. We will spend more time in future going into detail to prove the reliability of the Bible in regards to the internal and external evidence we have today. But no one should ever claim the Bible to be untrustworthy because of the length of time removed we are from the first century. We have greater manuscript witnesses for the New Testament than we do any other historical document. We have greater testimony for the New Testament than we do for Shakespeare’s plays which were only written three centuries ago. The Bible stands the test and we can trust what we read today is what the apostles penned nearly 2000 years ago."

You have the internet, why not actually Google this stuff and find out for yourself.  Read what people who think differently from you say and then decide.  Or you can continue to argue, but its really not going to make a diff in my or your worldview.

[joeactor]

You have the internet, why not actually Google this stuff and find out for yourself.  Read what people who think differently from you say and then decide.  Or you can continue to argue, but its really not going to make a diff in my or your worldview.

ok... without dropping a cut-n-paste bomb, here's one for you to read thru:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

As for reading what others think, that is a good basis for logic and reason - as long as you can validate and cross-reference the information.  Multiple sources make for a greater chance of historical validity.

May I point out that you seem to be placing all your eggs in one biblical basket?  That is hardly a robust position to hold when so many other sources point out the flaws.

I do agree with your above statement, tho...
JoeActor

[Hitsumei]

No worries, if you need me to elaborate, I will do so.

In GE 1, GE 2:1-3, covers creation week.

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens --    Now at this point we are transitioning into a brief history of creation week. (Thats the 9nth grade English you were referring to down below).  

5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- still creation week.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.  -- creation of man on day 6

From this point we now have life inside the garden.  In fact, NKJV titles it:

Life in God’s Garden

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That answered precisely zero of my questions, and the last quote you gave says "eastward in Eden", not outside, like you claimed. Could you please address the questions I asked you.

I get it, your smarter then me.

Knowledge and intelligence are difference things.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet).  If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level."  So, if everything were leveled out - if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in - the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/preview/i_3211.html  -- interesting video,  "defies this (millions of years) explanation"

If case you haven't noticed, the earth is not completely leveled out. Also, the bible specifically says that the water was above the highest mountain. So this may be interesting, but irrelevant. If things were not the way that they are but some different way, then anything is true. If I were small enough, then I could ride mice! Doesn't change the fact that I can't ride mice without a change to the state of affairs of the world, and it doesn't change the fact that there isn't nearly enough water to flood the entire planet without a change to the state of affairs of the planet.

Thats why 10 million land animals were not packed in the Ark.  Surely you know the Creationist argument for this?  

The "kinds" argument is irrelevant, and absurd, even considering that there are still hundreds of thousands of "kinds", and the food to feed them would still be impossible to fit on any boat, but the flood supposedly took place only four thousand years ago, it is completely absurd to say that they all speciated within that time to the millions of species today.

You also ignored my point on marine life.

Says evolutionist.

You just got done doing it. You implied that the whole surface of the planet was leveled out -- ergo, a miracle.

What conclusions was I asking you to accept?

That the bible is true. You said that you already have to believe that the bible is true in order to believe that the flood happened. Thus, you need to beg the question.

And that means what?

That creationisms new face is at least progressing. I figured since every point I made is countered by just saying how biased, and unaccepting I am that you would perhaps respond better to pointing to people that are closer to your views, perhaps they would be more apt to talk some sense into you. If you have already decided that everything I say is worthless, maybe it would help to point to other people.

It sounds like your mind has been made up. If I am mistaken then I am sure ill be corrected.

Of course my mind is made up. Isn't yours? You just got done saying you were a YEC, not an agnostic, you very much hold a position. What is your point?

You shouldn't wait to be "corrected", you should actually look into things yourself.

[PipeBox]

Sorry for video spamming, and ManofGod, I do not expect a reply to these, I just reckon you might want to watch them.  You certainly seem capable of understanding them.  For the record, I watched your NOVA video, so methinks you owe me at least the first watch.  
[youtube:28cimd75]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube:28cimd75]

[youtube:28cimd75]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc[/youtube:28cimd75]

[youtube:28cimd75]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk[/youtube:28cimd75]

And yeah, those 3 total to 30 minutes, so not for the faint of attention span.  Also, I almost PM'd this, but I figure it's relevant since this thread is slowly bending around YEC stuff.  And no, it's not perfectly on topic, so sorry for mostly off-topic post.

[rlrose328]

Ill just give the historical document the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so far it hasn't been wrong.

Given that logic, I have an historical document called "The Odyssey" about a Greek man's travels.  He meets gods who have extraordinary and supernature powers, women women who sing to distract sailors, and is given a bag filled with winds.  I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that these things are true because so far, it hasn't been proven wrong.

That is why the Odyssey has already been deemed a work of fiction.  Did not quite pass the test the Bible has been through.  

The Bible has already has been authenticated a million times over by scholars of all background.  (Not bad for 66 books written by 40 different authors on 3 different continents.)  Therefore, accepting its claims are a little different then accepting the claims in the Odyssey, assuming we are still operating on some form of logic.

Okay.  Please post or present this authentication... I'll take just 10 if that's okay.  I don't need a million.  And I'd like these to be scientific tests, not those presented by CARM or other religious websites who have an agenda to present.  I'd like to see unbiased, scientific, peer-reviewed and researched proof that the bible is truth.

And why, for the sake of argument, is the Odyssey any less "truthful" than the bible?  Have you met the author or anyone who knew him to know for sure?

[BadPoison]

The Odyssey and all of it's events are true! I know this because I believe it.

Let me tell you why!

1) The story hasn't changed very much since it was originally told. I know this to be true because I read it somewhere and I have access to every version ever told/written.

2) It contains many references to historical facts we know were true during the time!

3) It even mentions Ithaca and several other places, so I can visit where part of the story actually happened!

4) Also, we can examine the archaeological evidence and find things that point to the validity of the same text!

In conclusion, we can trust the Odyssey as a reliable story/document and know that it must be 100% true because of what we've found (even the really neat stuff about gods, sirens, and cyclops!)

   

[Kodanshi]

I would just like to remind you that there's a difference between addressing a contradiction and refuting a contradiction.

I would also like to point out that there many of works of fiction that have no contradictions within themselves. Non contradiction is a requirement of accuracy, but in itself it has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the claims therein.

Fantastic points, especially the latter.

[PipeBox]

The Odyssey and all of it's events are true! I know this because I believe it.

Let me tell you why!

1) The story hasn't changed very much since it was originally told. I know this to be true because I read it somewhere and I have access to every version ever told/written.

2) It contains many references to historical facts we know were true during the time!

3) It even mentions Ithaca and several other places, so I can visit where part of the story actually happened!

4) Also, we can examine the archaeological evidence and find things that point to the validity of the same text!

In conclusion, we can trust the Odyssey as a reliable story/document and know that it must be 100% true because of what we've found (even the really neat stuff about gods, sirens, and cyclops!)

   :eek:

[rlrose328]

The Odyssey and all of it's events are true! I know this because I believe it.

Let me tell you why!

1) The story hasn't changed very much since it was originally told. I know this to be true because I read it somewhere and I have access to every version ever told/written.

2) It contains many references to historical facts we know were true during the time!

3) It even mentions Ithaca and several other places, so I can visit where part of the story actually happened!

4) Also, we can examine the archaeological evidence and find things that point to the validity of the same text!

In conclusion, we can trust the Odyssey as a reliable story/document and know that it must be 100% true because of what we've found (even the really neat stuff about gods, sirens, and cyclops!)