Sorry, I have to put on my 'ignorant' head and laugh at this last point. The Bible is a completely sound source for History?!

Granted, there's the odd Historical fact - Rameses II, for example, DID exist. As did many of these "Prophet's".

But a sound source for History?! So, THE correct history, the 100% true History, is a History editted by the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, in the 4th Century? A History that was put together using the more ambiguous stories of some men, to make one person more divine? A History put together to make the Church seem legitimate? Sure, I admire the man's thinking - the Chruch was in decline, fewer people were believing, yet he, with some clever stories, managed to make it into the biggest thing in the world, based on his ideals. All to give people faith. It is actually pretty smart.

But saying that it is, how did you put it?, "Its 100% accurate and according to the constitution, is a completely sound source for history", is stretching the truth maybe just a little.

And no, it doesn't predict the future. You cannot predict the future. What look like predictions, are actually ambiguous phrases that clever little men in dark little rooms have added mystical 'hidden meanings' to, AFTER the event, to make it seem to have been predicted.

-----

Maybe I've been reading too many conspiracy theories, or "Da Vinci Code" style books. Then again, I've never liked religion, so maybe I'm just jumping at chances?

But my main point is: The Bible cannot be called "a completely sound source for history".