The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[ST88]

Historically, the Bible names real people and places.

If the Gospel Writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy

Establishing the credibility of the Bible is step 1.

Greenlight:
This is an admirable thread. I have to hand it to you that you're willing to put your evidence where your mouth is. But the purpose of this thread is to support that Christianity is the Way, not that the Bible is a historical text.

The historical correctness argument fails. That there are personnages and places that actually existed and are mentioned in the Bible does not help to show that the supernatural explanations as given are true. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was a historical figure, for example, but historical proof that Jesus existed does not constitute proof of claims of his deific nature.

The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit. Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen.

The veracity argument, as presented, fails. Reasoning that criminals would be truthful under an oath of law does nothing to support your case here. There is either trust that the writers knew what they were talking about, or skepticism. That they were desciples of Christ also does not help your case. There are plenty of examples in recent history of people refusing to see the flaws of their leaders because they are followers. Even if the testimonies could be trusted as the result of clear minds, at this time in history, being a historian did not mean being a reporter. Hagiographies and panegyrics in favor of accurate testimony and research were the norm, especially for leadership figures. It was expected that flaws were glossed over in friends and exaggerated in enemies.

So, if they learned anything from Jesus it was to live in truth for this is exactly what Jesus said, "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. 18"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19"And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," (John 17:17-19).

Saying that Jesus told them to tell the truth also does not help your case because they are the ones telling us that Jesus said this. Even if this is what Jesus said to them, there is no reason to expect that they took his advice. It is the same as believing that the thief is innocent because his mother says he would never do anything like that.

Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time.

The Nag Hammadi: the Gnostic Gospels tells of a different kind of Christ. Written by Thomas (a personnage mentioned in both Matthew and Luke), it tells of a different kind of teaching from the rest of Christianity. Jesus is shown as a Son of God, just like we all are. one of Jesus' sayings in this gospel is that you should look not to the sky for answers:

"If you seek the Kingdom of God in the sky then the birds will precede you. And if you seek it in the sea, then the fish will precede you, but the Kingdom is in you. And if you know yourself then you know the Kingdom of God."

The Gospel of Mary Magdelene also talks of a different kind of Christ:

I said to him, 'Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?' The Saviour answered and said, 'He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two - that is [what] sees the vision...'

The Gnostics were a sect of Christianty that were crushed by the Roman-supported, hierarchical version of it (4th-5th century?). I would not be surprised if these Christians sought out and destroyed alternate documents of Christ's life because of it. Hence the need for an authoritative document.

Even despite this archaeological find -- and others that may be found or have already been found (I don't claim to be a historian), there are two reasons that the alternate history argument fails:
1) Just because there are no documents that show an alternate version of Christ (for the sake of argument), does not mean that the one that has survived is the correct one. Again, the positive hypothesis is the one that requires support. In addition, these alternate documents could have been suppressed or destroyed by the Church (or by chance) in the intervening 2,000 years; or they could have been hidden in places we have not yet thought to look (like the Nag Hammadi).
2) The happenstance of Christ, despite the purported appearance of the Magi, was little mentioned in historical documents of the time as being a threat to anyone's world view. There would have been no reason to refute Christ because he was not on the map.

Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.

Again, it is more likely that followers of a charismatic leader will stretch the truth for their leader's cause because it would be a psychological need to follow such a leader.

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy

This is nothing more than the veracity argument applied to mathematics. If we are skeptical of the witnesses, how can we be certain of the prophecies? It is quite clear that Jesus and the apostles, by their own admissions, were aware of the Old Testament. But even assuming that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, it would not have been by as much chance as you (& Peter Stoner & Josh McDowell) say they are because everyone knew what those prophecies were and could have either manipulated them to show fulfillment.

I believe one of the prophecies was that Jesus would enter Jerusalem on an ass, or something like that. No one even needs to lie about something like this. Jesus could simply enter Jerusalem on an ass and BAM! fulfillment.

[chrispalasz]

I am almost, now, willing to concede that this thread isn't working.

bernee51... ST88... and anyone else...

Please understand that the rules on this thread are not the same as the rules on another thread. If you want to take each piece of evidence and pick it apart with your mouth... lets head over to another thread such as "Why do you believe in Creation or Evolution".

In the future, if you want to refute something that I post in this thread... use evidence. When you say it's not true - doesn't offer me any bit of evidence that you're correct.

Do you want to continue this discussion? Then start digging for solid sources and use them to show me why these things aren't correct.

Your posts, for the most part, have added nothing to this discussion (although there were small things here or there that count).

Please refer back to the first post on the thread. Thanks.

[ST88]

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

If you want to take each piece of evidence and pick it apart with your mouth

I assume that "pick it apart with your mouth" means using reasoning and logic. If so, I'm afraid that you've lost me here. I don't see how a debate can be completed without using reasoning.

The post-modernists, if nothing else, showed us that facts and objects by themselves mean nothing -- taken together to create a story, they must all be superimposed upon a context and a purpose in order for them to make sense. In The Erasers Alain Robbe-Grillet attempted to show (among other things) that evidence has no weight without a narrative thread, and that this narrative thread can change depending on who is interpreting the evidence. I subscribe to this view. Without a narrative, facts mean nothing. Without reasoning, you can't accumulate a narrative.

In the future, if you want to refute something that I post in this thread... use evidence. When you say it's not true - doesn't offer me any bit of evidence that you're correct.

I have to ask what you believe "material evidence" to be. If you want to frame this debate as archaeological evidence that the Bible was historically accurate vs. archeological evidence that it was not historically accurate, please do so. But your question was asking for evidence about whether or not "Christianity holds the truth about God and humanity." Archaeology and historical facts do not indicate whether or not this is true.

Evidence, in my book, includes reasoning. You're looking for truth -- not just accuracy, but Truth. I will readily accept that your collected factual claims are accurate, but there is no Truth in there. I've indicated why I think this. You are free to continue to post these kinds historical facts which may or may not be accurate, but in my opinion it will get you no closer to the Truth.

Do you want to continue this discussion? Then start digging for solid sources and use them to show me why these things aren't correct.

There is no need to refute the accuracy of facts like these by producing "counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted." The only thing that needs refuting is the interpretation of these facts. Your narrative is different from mine. Again, you are free to refute my reasoning as well as the facts I have presented. I can do this for you, if you like.

Your posts, for the most part, have added nothing to this discussion (although there were small things here or there that count).

Please indicate which pieces of "evidence" you accept and then refute them, if that is your goal.

[Arch]

YOU WANT THE TRUTH, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

excuse me I just always wanted to say that...lol

Now seriously, it seems greenlight wants proof that the bible is not accurate well then.

The bible has many inaccuracies and similarities to pre-existing cultures mythology and folklore.

The Bible clearly indicate that the Earth is motionless.

Witness Joshua's telling the Sun (and not the Earth) to stop just so he could win one of his battles The sun does not move the earth does

The Joshua story can be used to find a Biblical estimate of the distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth. Since we are told that the Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, we conclude that either one of them would have been insufficient for both -- and that requires that the Sun be low when viewed from the Moon's valley, as it were, and vice versa. This implies that the distances to the Sun and the Moon are comparable to the distance between the Valleys of Gibeon and Aijalon, which is about 10 mi.

Some of the Psalms that state that the Earth is motionless.

Biological errors

Leviticus 11:113,19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 list fowl, and both have bats in the list with heron, lapwing, and bat closing off the list. The bat is not a bird.

Leviticus 11:6 has a hare chewing its cud. Rabbits do no such thing.

Genesis 3:14 "...and dust though shalt eat all the days of thy life." Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt.

Creational Errors
Gen 1:20-21 has the waters bringing forth the living creatures and fowls
Gen 2:19 has them coming from the ground. Maybe some one should tell them about eggs?

Here is the order in (Genesis 1),
The Six-Day Story:

Day 3: Plants
Day 5: Sea animals and flying animals
Day 6: Land animals, then humanity (both sexes)
The Adam-and-Eve Story:

Here is the order in (Genesis 2),
The first man (Adam)
Plants
Animals (both land and air)
The first woman (Eve)

Geographical and Scientific Errors

Matthew 4:8 ..took upon a high mountain and shewed all the kingdoms of the world.
1. Geology - rock simply isn't strong enough for such a megamountain.
2. astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace.


Earth is unsupported (Job 26:7)
YET
Job 38:4 says Earth has a foundation. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.Sound just like other mythologies of people during ancient times.

22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle? <-- This is GOD speaking no less

That has to be the power of GOD to be able to store hail and snow in storehouses.

Maybe what happened was that the sciences that existed back during the time of the prophets are different than what we have today. Maybe the properties of the universe were different as well.

Or maybe GOD in all his infinite knowledge felt it just immaterial to tell the prophets how snow and hail actually comes about. It must of been to hard for GOD to explain to his beloveds the ends and outs of the solar system.

Maybe even GOD forgot if he brought fourth the creatures and fowls from the waters or the ground.

Regardless what the reason are the inaccuracies listed here aren't debatable. They are factual, they exist and by mere physical science that children know in 5th grade have been proven wrong.

Maybe those facts or evidence weren't enough here is more.

John 12:21 (NIV), "They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee...." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.

The exact location of Bethsaida is of some controversy, but archaeologist Rami Arav and the University of Nebraska-Omaha have concluded that the location is at et-Tel (a-Tel), east of the Jordan river in the land of Geshur. The government of the country of Israel was convinced enough by the evidence to officially declare the et-Tel site to be Bethsaida.

http://www.imakenews.com/gems/e_article000001697.cfm

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0gby0

http://www.unomaha.edu/~betsaida/

A number of Christians argue that Bethsaida was located West of the Jordan or even that there were two Bethsaidas, but the researchers from Israel and the University of Nebraska have rejected these claims based on the evidence they have discovered.

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1456: This site discusses all three theories.

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... saida.html: This site advances the two Bethsaidas theory

http://www.israel2000.tourism.gov.il/pope/3.html: This site discusses the controversy

http://www.bartleby.com/65/be/Bethsaid.html: This site discusses the controversy

According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Geshur and Galontis (Golan) were both located in the same area east of the Jordan in the modern area of Jaulan, this is the same area that Israel has declared to be the correct location of Bethsaida

Everyone seems to agree that Galilee was located west of the Jordan.

http://www.ourfatherlutheran.net/bibleh ... alilee.htm

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3643

"Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it."


The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, Ed. Tim C. Leedom

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia at http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6297, the supposed site of Nazareth is not definitely known, although some suggest that a modern city is on a site near what they claim to be the original Nazareth

Historians have determined that the story of a worldwide flood, as set forth in the book of Genesis, is a myth. For example, Andrew White reports that nineteenth century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before the biblical Flood of Noah and that no such flood had ever interrupted it.

White, Andrew D., A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. I, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1910). p. 257

"There is simply no evidence whatever, from archeology, geology or history, which indicate a worldwide flood that wiped out all but eight people." http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /flood.htm

Problems with a global flood, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

What would we expect to find if the world had flooded, http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/flood.html

The Smithsonian Institution's Department of Anthropology says that it is impossible to verify the flood. Generally (but not always) things are impossible to verify because they didn't happen.

"However, htus far, after literally hundreds of archeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found."

"In addition, there is no hard evidence of an early ship resting on top of any mountain anywhere in the Near East."

"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropol ... /ssotb.htm or on my site

In addition, the book of Exodus claims to contain an historical account of the escape of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, but historians and archaeologists have been unable to verify the events related in that book. No known Egyptian records refer to the biblical Moses, the devastating plagues that God supposedly inflicted on the country, the escape of the Hebrew slaves, or the drowning of the Egyptian army. Moreover, Andrew White reports that the records contained on Egyptian monuments show that the pharaoh ruling at the time of the alleged escape of the Jews was not overwhelmed in the Red Sea.

White, Andrew D., A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1910). p. 375.

Scholars Doubt Truth of Exodus, http://nowscape.com/mormon/moses-news.htm

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting, http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/arti ... 906776.xml

The history and geography of the book of Judith appear to be inaccurate.

"The historical setting of the book of Judith does not square with recorded history; this is an indication of the literary form. The author is not writing history as we understand it. The book has been called a 'historical romance.' The situation is the following: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, decides to invade Israel. He sends his general Holofernes with an army of 120,000 soldiers and 12,000 cavalry to the West. They camp near Bethulia in Israel (there is no record of a city by that name)."

International Catholic University http://www.catholicity.com/school/icu/c03005.htm

"The historical authenticity of the book is open to question, for it contains serious errors relating to historical and geographical details, but the story is often considered a symbolic representation and celebration of chastity."

B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (eds.), The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 399-402.

The book of Esther purports to tell how a young Jewish girl named Esther was chosen by the Persian King Xerxes I to be queen after the king had divorced Queen Vashti. Although historians know a great deal about Xerxes I, there is no record that he had a Jewish queen named Esther or that he was married to Vashti.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2d ed., (Palo Alto and London: Mayfield Publishing, 1985). P. 178.

"There are, then, decidedly more mythical than historical elements in the story. The name Esther itself is a variation of 'Ishtar,' the Babylonian goddess of love and fertility. The name Mordecai derives from 'Marduk,' the leading Babylonian deity. Indeed, some interpreters have suggested that the book's Jewish author deliberately fictionalized an old Babylonian myth in which Marduk defeats his demonic enemies (Haman and his cohorts in this narrative)." (Understanding the Bible, A Reader's Guide and Reference, by Stephen L. Harris, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 148-150).

The Catholic Encycolpedia agrees that some of the passages are improbable when viewed from a historical standpoint. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05549a.htm

"There is absolutely no historical evidence that there ever was a Jewish Queen of Persia." Alice Parmalee, A Guidebook to the Bible. London: English Universities Press. 1964. p. 78

The following sources also all conclude that the book of Esther is not historically accurate:

Adele Berlin. "The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling." Journal of Biblical Literature, 120 (1). 2001. P. 3-14. http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JB ... berlin.pdf

Lewis Bayles Paton. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther. New York: Scriber, 1908. P. 64-77.

Carey A. Moore. Esther. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1971. P. XXXIV-XLVI.

Michael V. Fox. Character adn Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 1991. P. 131-40.

Jon D. Levenson. Esther, A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1997. P. 23-27.

Adele Berlin. Esther. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 2001. xvi-xvii.

Lawrence M. Wills. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1995. P. 96.

Additionally, the book of Esther insists that the Persian empire was divided into one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, but historians tell us that there was no such division of the empire.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2d ed., (Palo Alto and London: Mayfield Publishing, 1985). P. 178.

"There are, then, decidedly more mythical than historical elements in the story. The name Esther itself is a variation of 'Ishtar,' the Babylonian goddess of love and fertility. The name Mordecai derives from 'Marduk,' the leading Babylonian deity. Indeed, some interpreters have suggested that the book's Jewish author deliberately fictionalized an old Babylonian myth in which Marduk defeats his demonic enemies (Haman and his cohorts in this narrative)." (Understanding the Bible, A Reader's Guide and Reference, by Stephen L. Harris, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 148-150).

The Catholic Encycolpedia agrees that some of the passages are improbable when viewed from a historical standpoint. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05549a.htm

"There is absolutely no historical evidence that there ever was a Jewish Queen of Persia." Alice Parmalee, A Guidebook to the Bible. London: English Universities Press. 1964. p. 78

The following sources also all conclude that the book of Esther is not historically accurate:

Adele Berlin. "The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling." Journal of Biblical Literature, 120 (1). 2001. P. 3-14. http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JB ... berlin.pdf

Lewis Bayles Paton. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther. New York: Scriber, 1908. P. 64-77.

Carey A. Moore. Esther. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1971. P. XXXIV-XLVI.

Michael V. Fox. Character adn Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 1991. P. 131-40.

Jon D. Levenson. Esther, A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1997. P. 23-27.

Adele Berlin. Esther. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 2001. xvi-xvii.

Lawrence M. Wills. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1995. P. 96.

Also contrary to what the book of Esther says, historians state that Xerxes I did not order Jews in his territories to attack his Persian subjects.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2d ed., (Palo Alto and London: Mayfield Publishing, 1985). P. 178.

"There are, then, decidedly more mythical than historical elements in the story. The name Esther itself is a variation of 'Ishtar,' the Babylonian goddess of love and fertility. The name Mordecai derives from 'Marduk,' the leading Babylonian deity. Indeed, some interpreters have suggested that the book's Jewish author deliberately fictionalized an old Babylonian myth in which Marduk defeats his demonic enemies (Haman and his cohorts in this narrative)." (Understanding the Bible, A Reader's Guide and Reference, by Stephen L. Harris, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 148-150).

The Catholic Encycolpedia agrees that some of the passages are improbable when viewed from a historical standpoint. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05549a.htm
ALSO SOME OF THE SAME REFERENCES LISTED ABOVE

The book of Daniel contains an account of certain events that supposedly transpired during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. In the fifth chapter of the book, we are told that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded on the throne by his son Belshazzar. However, historians tell us that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was never king.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2d ed., (Palo Alto and London: Mayfield Publishing, 1985). P. 184.

The book of Daniel also states that one "Darius the Mede" captured Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. In contrast, historians inform us that it was actually Cyrus of Persia who took Babylon and that there is no record of Darius the Mede's existence.

McKay, John; Hill, Bennett; and Buckler, John; A History of Western Society, Vol. I, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983). P. 61.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 3rd ed. (London and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing, 1992). P. 194.

I can keep going but this is getting long. As you can clearly see some of the references are from Christian and religious scholars or Authorities.

Before having a fit you might want to keep that in mind. Since It was you who told me to quote Biblical scholars only.

[chrispalasz]

First, Arch, I would like to say - THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! 8)
I can see that you put some work into this one! Did it take you a long time? This is by far the best post I have seen you make. It is relevant to the discussion and contains your evidence of support. Good job! Even though your post contains numerous interpretation errors... I still commend you! Now we can get this ball rollin'!

What is the point of establishing the historical reliability of the Bible? Showing that the Bible does not conflict with facts also shows that in can be trusted, to a good extent. It would still be a leap for somebody to accept Christ on account of Biblical reliability - however - it will remove some doubt.

With no further ado, I present the counter-evidence:

Science and the Bible:

The Bible is the first source to mention that the earth is spherical. The prophet, speaking in Isaiah 40:22, mentions that God "sits above the circle on the face of the deep." The word circle in Hebrew, khug, is best translated in terms of sphericity or roundness. The Bible had refuted the flat earth theory long before scientists actually disproved it.

The Bible has also accurately described the water cycle, which includes precipitation, subsequent evaporation, and transpiration followed by condensation in the clouds (see Job 36:27-29). Science later documented the direction of wind currents and wind paths. This was unknown in previous centuries, but Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:6, "The wind blows to the south and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits with wind returns."

Scientists that held the Bible as the inerrant Word of God:

Solomon also mentions about the movement of water in verse 7: "All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again." Matthew Maury (1806-1873), who is known as "the Pathfinder of the Seas," was the founder of modern oceanography and hydrography. Maury firmly believed in and was inspired by Psalm 8:8, which mentions "whatever passes along the paths of the sea." Maury believed that if the Bible wrote about "paths in the seas" then there must truly be paths in the sea. He dedicated his life to find and document these paths God had mentioned. Maury spent part of his career with the U.S. Navy charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic which were not known before his documentation.

Werner von Braun, who was primarily responsible for America's guided missile and space flight program, was the Director of NASA's Space Flight Center. Dr. von Braun was an active Christian and gave this testimony: "Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but is has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peep hole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe."

Dr. James Simpson, born in 1811, was responsible for the discovery of chloroform's anesthetic qualities. His discovery and use of chloroform eliminated pain, and it was produced on a large scale worldwide for use as a medical anesthetic. He also laid a solid foundation for gynecology and predicted the discovery of the X-Ray. Dr. Simpson was president of the Royal Medical Society and was appointed Royal Physician to the Queen, the highest medical position of his day. He once stated, "Christianity works because it is supremely true and therefore supremely livable. There is nothing incompatible between religion and science."

All of science points to the Omnipotent Creator of the universe. As we have seen throughout history, science has time and time again bowed its knees to the Author of the laws of the universe. As Owen Barfield said, "There will be a revival of Christianity when it becomes impossible to write a popular manual of science without referring to the incarnation of the Word."

When asked what his greatest discovery was, Dr. Simpson replied: "It was not chloroform. It was to know I am a sinner and that I could be saved by the grace of God. A man has missed the whole meaning of life if he has not entered into an active, living relationship with God through Christ." The greatest discovery in history has not been the law of gravity, calculus, telescopes or the telegraph. The greatest discovery an individual could ever make is finding Jesus Christ and making Him both Lord and Savior.

http://www.r2rministries.com/apologe/X0 ... racy_.html

Does the Bible contain errors?

The question often arises when discussing the biblical records, "How can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable? Everyone knows there are tons of errors in it." While it is true that the documents have been copied many times, we often have misconceptions about how they were transmitted. All ancient documents were copied by hand before the advent of the printing press in the 16th century. Great care was exercised in reproducing these manuscripts. When often assume that one copy was made and then another from that and another from that and so on, each replacing the copy it was reproduced from. This is not how manuscripts copying worked. Copyists were usually working from one or two very old documents. They would make many copies of their source copy, all the while preserving their source and comparing the copies they have made.

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament:

"We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158).

Josephus made no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell - unlike the modern secretary who has many letters to type and must work hard to keep his job, and consequently feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this. But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors, misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our copies look nothing like the originals. This view was commonly held until recently.

In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts,

"We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158).

No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.

When we come to the New Testament we see a similar phenomenon. There are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by far more than any other historical documents, which usually have maybe a dozen copies from very late dates. The New Testament manuscripts are many and old and they are spread over a wide geographical area. What this enables the New Testament historian to do is collect manuscripts from Jerusalem and Egypt and Syria and other places and compare them for variations. And variations do exist, but as with the Old Testament they are relatively few and rarely important to the meaning of the text. What these manuscripts demonstrate is that different families of texts existed very early that were copied from the original or good copies of the original. This allows us to trace the manuscripts back to the source as one would follow the branches of a tree to get to the trunk. Aside from the manuscripts themselves, "virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).

http://www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_accuracy.htm

Archaeology and the Bible:


Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written Word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible--sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool even existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.10

The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.11

In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.12

By comparison, many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."13

Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, still taught in some colleges today, the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis suggests that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing was non-existent in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurrabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries....The 'Documentary Hypothesis' is still taught, yet its original basis has been eradicated and shown to be false."14

Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., which is hundreds of years before Abraham.15 The tablets describe culture and life in similar ways to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.

Archaeology consistently and strongly confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible. http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html#5
Click below to see charts listing some of the major archaeological finds:
http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html

ANOTHER IN-DEPTH SOURCE REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE:
http://www.slsoftware.com/study/html_ou ... Bible.html

[Lotan]

Archaeology consistently and strongly confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.

AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This lie has been repeated on this board so many times that I am beginning to wonder if there are any Christians who don't rely on apologetic sources for their information on archaeology.

For starters, the existence of sites older than 6~10,000 yrs (and there are many) should give a clue to anyone that archaeology and the biblical story of creation aren't in agreement.
Further, what do apologists do with sites that have been continuously inhabited throughout the period of the biblical 'global flood'? Were they waterproof?

Part of the problem lies with the early history of archaeology in the ancient near east. Researchers looking for confirmation of the bible's historicity found just that. More recent findings of archaeology (not 'biblical' archaeology) suggest that the 'history' of Israel as presented in the OT is collection of politically and theologically motivated legends.

From "Archaeology and the Bible"
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision
of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
"Sixty years ago, many leading scholars—the
legendary W.F. Albright among them—argued forcefully
that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
historical characters who lived in the Middle Bronze
Age. Today, most scholars deal with the patriarchal
traditions as powerful and influential literary
creations; and they consider them no less powerful or
influential in the absence of conclusive proof
of their historicity. Long gone also are the serious
scholarly attempts to trace archaeologically the
progress of the Exodus of 600,000 Israelites across
Sinai toward Canaan. The Bible offers us a powerful
expression of liberation, peoplehood, and covenant
painted in the most searing Hebrew prose and poetry
the world has ever known."

"Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho"
Ze'ev Herzog
Ha'aretz Magazine, Friday, October 29, 1999
"Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Those who take an interest have known these facts for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and doesn’t want to hear about it."

"What separates a Minimalist from a Maximalist? Not much"
Philip Davies
Bible Archeology Review, 2000-MAR/APR Vol. 26, #2, Pages 24 to 27; 72 & 73.
"The gap between the Biblical Israel and the historical Israel as we derive it from archaeology is huge. We have almost two entirely different societies. Beyond the name 'Israel' and the same geographical location, they have almost nothing in common."

These are the statements of real archaeologists, not apologists. In no way can they be mistaken as supporting the notion that "Archaeology consistently and strongly confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible."

[Arch]

First, Arch, I would like to say - THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! 8)
I can see that you put some work into this one! Did it take you a long time? This is by far the best post I have seen you make. It is relevant to the discussion and contains your evidence of support. Good job! Even though your post contains numerous interpretation errors... I still commend you! Now we can get this ball rollin'!

What is the point of establishing the historical reliability of the Bible? Showing that the Bible does not conflict with facts also shows that in can be trusted, to a good extent. It would still be a leap for somebody to accept Christ on account of Biblical reliability - however - it will remove some doubt.

Your welcome Greenlight, but I have to point out that again you didn't directly address most of my post and no it didn't take a long time to do. The resources are in abundance.

I seems sometimes Christians either refuse to or can't see the obvious point of most of these discussions even the ones they themselves start. You can show me and everyone else here all the points in the bible that are correct or in alignment with historical, archeological, or scientific information. The point however is,
WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU ANY POINTS THAT DO NOT! Reason being is that you say that the bible is the infallable word of GOD and that it is without errors.

If one error is shown, (and there have been many shown on this site, many in my last post) then your points are mute. One error proves that your statement, that the bible is without error and infallable, is wrong.

So in this case your responses don't help in the discussion unless you address the shown errors and show or prove why they aren't errors at all. I contend this would be hard to do, but since you are the one who is stressing the accuracy of the bible. You are the one who has to do it.

Again it's not whether or not the bible has some truth in it, the point is whether or not it contains all truth, without error.

[Arch]

I am wondering why the author of this thread has not answered the last two posts in his thread. Can any Chrisitan for that matter help Greenlight here?

[chrispalasz]

I answered the two posts you are speaking of already. Take a look at the one just before them.

Retorting your comments is not what this thread is about. Check out the First post.

http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... =7624#7624

There is no need to point out certain fallicies in your evidence and reasoning. That is for each person that visits this thread to determine, such as the statement below:

Arch wrote: I seems sometimes Christians either refuse to or can't see the obvious point of most of these discussions even the ones they themselves start. You can show me and everyone else here all the points in the bible that are correct or in alignment with historical, archeological, or scientific information. The point however is,
WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU ANY POINTS THAT DO NOT! Reason being is that you say that the bible is the infallable word of GOD and that it is without errors.

What is said is said, and it speaks for itself. It's obvious to me that what is said in those posts isn't true: that's just my view. Especially the point that is made in all capitol letters. There will always be ways to show that Christianity is not the truth, and those points will all contain evidence with at least one of the following conditions:

1. Evidence that is unverifiable
2. Evidence provided with false interpretation
3. Evidence of which the correct interpretation is not known, but does exist to favor the Truth in Christianity.

Simply put, what you see as evidence in your worldview, I say is actually not evidence at all because it is false in some way - according to my worldview.

[richic]

Since we're talking about the Bible in this vein we should also bring up prophecies that point towards a truth. In the gospels we have Jesus very specifically predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and the sacking of the city. Jesus death predated the destruction of Jerusalem by 40 years and the gospels were all written a decade or two before the event(except John which was written after).

In 70AD, the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple which was a world reknowned landmark. The Jewish uprising which brought on the vicious response was suicidal, since it was claimed to be instigated by a messianic movement. When you kill a bunch of Romans in the belief that the Messiah is about to lead you forward, then he doesn't show up, you are in for a world of hurt.

After 70 AD, there was never another Jewish sacrifice in Jerusalem and the surviving Jews were dispersed around the world.

The Jewish historian Josephus was an eyewitness to the war. The gospel authorship dates are in the bible as well as the approximate date of Jesus' death.