i can't say that i can, as i gave the book back. but i do recall him saying that how can anyone trust the bible because it's weird.
The bible is 'strange' to most modern readers, considering that it was mostly written by humans at least 2000 years ago...
just quietly there is a whole lot of evidence as to the reliability of the bible.
Such as? The bible is an interesting historical text, which has some massive historical inaccuracies and is also full of the same sort of myths and legends we still have alive today.
and good for richard dawkins for thinking the bible is weird. but that's not an intellectual reason as to why someone should not believe it.
The only argument you took from his book was that 'he thinks the bible is weird'. I don't think the dismissal of one small, offhand comment about the bible in a rather large book full of arguments is an'intellectual reason' to dismiss the entire book.
to which writing of nostradamus are you refering?
What does it matter? Do you accept that:
A) Nostradamus was not a prophet.
B) People have interpreted things he has wrote, after an event has occured. I.e. No one foresaw 9/11 by reading his writings, but once it occured they 'discovered' it within them.
If you accept that, then surely you understand my point about how 'prophetic' texts are post-hoc rationalised.
define recent.
and why does it have to be recent to be credible?
Well... preferably something post-enlightenment. It doesn't have to be recent to be credible, but the availability of what I'd argue is sufficient evidence is far less likely to come about.
332 of 2000 were fulfilled by jesus and his life.
Okay... cool story.
well maybe. but there are non religious authors from around that time whom have written about the life of Jesus and of the things he did.
so are you saying things have been changed since the original writtings or you think that what was written originally is false?
I am saying first that what was written originally may very well have been false (heaps of people wrote about prophets etc around the time) and furthermore that over time the understanding of different phrases etc has likely changed.
Neither of these claims should be too controversial imo to anyone with an understanding of history or is at least not caught up in a rapture of believing the bible MUST BE 100% ACCURATE.
It's all silly anyway, because look around you now at the various different denominations / personal beliefs regarding the text...