How We Know the Bible is God's Inspired Word

[rusra02]

Technically, the Earth isn't "hanging" at all, so that verse is actually scientifically inaccurate. Do you still want to claim that it's trying to state a literal fact?

The Bible is not a "technical' or 'science' book. I'll leave it to each reader to decide whether Job 26:7 is inaccurate or is, in fact, exactly what one sees when looking at the earth from space. It is suspended, it hangs upon...nothing.

The Wizard of Oz is historically accurate on some points: Kansas does exist, it has tornadoes occasionally, and even some of the details about farming practices and mode of dress that the book/film provides are accurate. Does this lend weight to the idea that the rest of the story is historically accurate as well?

The few examples of historical accuracy given are but a sample of the Bible's historicity and accuracy. Time and again, Bible critics who claimed the Bible was wrong have been silenced as archeological discoveries increased. I doubt you could say that about the Wizard of Oz.

BTW - on the subject of historical accuracy, can you answer two questions for me?

- when did Herod the Great die?
The Bible does not state the exact date of Herod's death. Matthew 2:19 indicates it was after Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flight to Egypt to escape Herod's decree to murder all infants.

- when did Quirinius serve as Governor of Syria?
Luke 2:1,2 indicates Quirinius served as Governor when Caesar ordered "all the inhabited earth to be registerd", which decree sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.
(Luke 2:4,5)

Prophecy is a fool's game: if a prophecy fails, it can always be explained away as describing "the future". It counts the hits and ignores the misses.

I find your explaining away the Bible's foretelling the name of Babylon's conqueror before he was born unconvincing. As to Bible prophecy, there are no misses. Jehovah proves his Godship by foretelling the future, and bringing to pass what he prophecies. (Isaiah 46:9,10)

 

[Caladan]

So is it your position that the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have occurred because they are miraculous and miracles don't occur? That Noah didn't build the ark because you don't believe he could?

Its a much more academic and reasonable approach than taking these verses at face value. in today's academy miracles do not hold and you cannot use them to create a historical or archaeological narrative.

 

[Caladan]

The few examples of historical accuracy given are but a sample of the Bible's historicity and accuracy. Time and again, Bible critics who claimed the Bible was wrong have been silenced as archeological discoveries increased. I doubt you could say that about the Wizard of Oz.

This is simply not true. the Bible of course contains more historically relevant information than a fiction book such as the Wizard of Oz, but archaeologists who try to present archaeological sites in a Biblical narrative have to really bend the rules in order to do that, and their critics are not silent at all. the entire archaeological department of Israeli Tel Aviv University does not subscribe to the concept that archaeology needs to be read according to the Biblical narrative.

 

[not nom]

Reference please: where does the Bible say the sun moves around the earth?

well, I just quoted it? what do you think "moving the shadow on a sundial" refers to?

and I'm pretty sure if you simply stopped earth, or even moved it back, that would be a HUGE acceleration relative to the speed it's moving at right now, so I'd call BS either way. though I'd love to see how that would work out -- would people just feel a slight jerk, or fly off the planet like an ant hill exposed to a leaf blower? -- but it never happened. it's kinda like god counting the hair on our heads, then never making with the exact number so we can actually confirm the claim. but I digress.

So is it your position that the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have occurred because they are miraculous and miracles don't occur? That Noah didn't build the ark because you don't believe he could?

it's not about noah, it's about physics, and about a whole lot of water coming from and disappearing into thin air.

same with that mountain: that's possible on a flat earth with no particles in the air or something, not on the sphere earth actually is. let's not even get into the optical limitations of the human eye.

as a parable, it makes totally sense. the devil tried to tempt jesus with worldly power -- leave it at that. but the devil never showed jesus the kingdoms of the world from a mountain, that's just not how the universe (which god is supposed to be self-evident in) is made up.

The Bible has also been subjected to relentless efforts to discredit it. But still, it endures.

the bible in and of itself is a relentless effort to discredit anyone not wearing the armband, that's number one, and compared to that energy and relentlessness, nobody else ever cared about the bible, nor will they ever... that's just the usual fantasies of victimhood perpetrators so love to engage in, if you ask me.

saying in passing "yeah, right", isn't the same as relentlessly trying to discredit something. you see, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and the bible needs credit before it can be discredited ^^

 

[waitasec]

The Bible has also been subjected to relentless efforts to discredit it. But still, it endures.

because of the endurance of the human ability to imagine

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible is not a "technical' or 'science' book.

You're moving the goalposts. You're the one who claimed that it's scientifically accurate. Are you withdrawing that claim?

The few examples of historical accuracy given are but a sample of the Bible's historicity and accuracy. Time and again, Bible critics who claimed the Bible was wrong have been silenced as archeological discoveries increased. I doubt you could say that about the Wizard of Oz.

That's not exactly true. As I touched on earlier, archaeological discoveries are what led us to see that the Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible, for instance.

And as for the Wizard of Oz, well, can you point me to a single peer-reviewed paper that even suggests that Oz is not a real place?

The Bible does not state the exact date of Herod's death. Matthew 2:19 indicates it was after Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flight to Egypt to escape Herod's decree to murder all infants.

Luke 2:1,2 indicates Quirinius served as Governor when Caesar ordered "all the inhabited earth to be registerd", which decree sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.
(Luke 2:4,5)

I didn't ask you when the Bible said it happened; I just asked you when it happened. There are other sources besides the Bible.

But since you aren't willing to play along, I'll answer for you:

- Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.
- Quirinius was appointed Governor of Syria in 6 CE.

The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. The Gospel of Luke says that Jesus was born while Quirinius was Governor of Syria. Since Herod died 10 years before Quirinius became Governor, at most only one of these could possibly be true.

BTW - you mentioned Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Don't you think it's strange that Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote extensively on Herod's reign and was no fan of his, decided to omit any mention of what would have been - if it had actually happened - the single most important event of his reign? If the event actually happened, why would have Josephus done this?

I find your explaining away the Bible's foretelling the name of Babylon's conqueror before he was born unconvincing.

Probably not as unconvincing as I find your claim that the prophecy was fulfilled. For starters, how do you know that the prophecy was written before the event occurred? What date do you give for the authorship of the passage? What support do you have for that dating?

As to Bible prophecy, there are no misses. Jehovah proves his Godship by foretelling the future, and bringing to pass what he prophecies. (Isaiah 46:9,10)

Great. Can you give us a prophecy that's we're likely to see fulfilled in the next little while? Something where the prophecied signs are in place, so if we see that the prophecied event doesn't occur, we'll know that the prophecy failed? Please be specific.

 

[rusra02]

well, I just quoted it? what do you think "moving the shadow on a sundial" refers to?

and I'm pretty sure if you simply stopped earth, or even moved it back, that would be a HUGE acceleration relative to the speed it's moving at right now, so I'd call BS either way. though I'd love to see how that would work out -- would people just feel a slight jerk, or fly off the planet like an ant hill exposed to a leaf blower? -- but it never happened. it's kinda like god counting the hair on our heads, then never making with the exact number so we can actually confirm the claim. but I digress.

You are making assumptions. The Bible doesn't state that the Sun moves around the earth. God made the sun appeared to go back 10 steps on the stairs. How Jehovah accomplished this miracle is not stated. But in any case, it doesn't state the sun revolves around the earth.


it's not about noah, it's about physics, and about a whole lot of water coming from and disappearing into thin air.

The Bible explains where the water came from. It never states anything about the water "disappearing into thin air."

same with that mountain: that's possible on a flat earth with no particles in the air or something, not on the sphere earth actually is. let's not even get into the optical limitations of the human eye.

as a parable, it makes totally sense. the devil tried to tempt jesus with worldly power -- leave it at that. but the devil never showed jesus the kingdoms of the world from a mountain, that's just not how the universe (which god is supposed to be self-evident in) is made up.

This account tells us that "the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." (Matthew 4:8,9) Obviously, it would require superhuman ability on Satan's part to do this. How Satan did this is not known. Once again, we cannot reject a miracle on the basis that it is miraculous, nor ascribe human limitations to spirit creatures such as Satan.

​

​

​

​

​

the bible in and of itself is a relentless effort to discredit anyone not wearing the armband, that's number one, and compared to that energy and relentlessness, nobody else ever cared about the bible, nor will they ever... that's just the usual fantasies of victimhood perpetrators so love to engage in, if you ask me.​

saying in passing "yeah, right", isn't the same as relentlessly trying to discredit something. you see, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and the bible needs credit before it can be discredited ^^

I don't think the people imprisoned and killed for their faith in the Bible in our day, and throughout history, are "victimhood perpetrators."

 

[rusra02]

I would just like to mention that being God's inspired word does not mean it is 100% accurate. If we start with the assumption that there is a God (which I think is a fine assumption for this case, as there is no evidence a god doesn't exist, and it stays in line with the thread), then it would not be a stretch to say that God inspired a number of authors to write separate books that ended up becoming one collection.

Since the books were written by men, there will be a human element, and that explains why in a divinely inspired work, there are flaws. Humans are flawed, and even in the best researched books, you will find flaws. So it is no wonder, that a book written by humans, be it inspired or not, has flaws, and many of them. That in itself does not rule it from being divinely inspired. When it comes down to it, it is nothing more than faith though.

That is also true for the opposition. I personally am neutral on the subject. It could be inspired or not. However, there really is no evidence one way or another.

I would agree that all humans are flawed, but this doesn't mean the Bible is. The Bible explains that "prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." (2 Peter 1:21) The Bible writers were secretaries that recorded what God wanted written. God's spirit would prevent errors. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 assures us that "All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial" (literally "God breathed") Jesus said of the Scriptures "Your word is truth".(John 17:17) As mentioned, the Bible has been attacked relentlessly as to it's accuracy, and has proven to be correct time after time.

​

​

 

[Caladan]

As mentioned, the Bible has been attacked relentlessly as to it's accuracy, and has proven to be correct time after time.

Is the Bible correct about the conquest of Joshua? is it correct about the extent of David and Solomon's monarchy? how much archaeological evidence do we have about these kings?
many people dismiss the Biblical narrative entirely when it comes to history, other take it to be completely historical and accurate. the correct approach is to use the Bible in a balanced way in the context of the other near eastern sources and finds that we have. some information in the Bible may be useful in providing an understanding of Palestine during the Iron Age, its best not to treat it as historically accurate when clearly much of it is ideological, or perhaps dismiss it by default, there are scholars who find a middle way, and try to make the best with the Biblical material.

 

[rusra02]

You're moving the goalposts. You're the one who claimed that it's scientifically accurate. Are you withdrawing that claim?

Not at all. The bible is scientifically accurate and it is not a science book.

That's not exactly true. As I touched on earlier, archaeological discoveries are what led us to see that the Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible, for instance.

There is no proof that the Exodus didn't happen.Interestingly, Josephus confirms the exodus account.

And as for the Wizard of Oz, well, can you point me to a single peer-reviewed paper that even suggests that Oz is not a real place?

Please.

I didn't ask you when the Bible said it happened; I just asked you when it happened. There are other sources besides the Bible.

But since you aren't willing to play along, I'll answer for you:

- Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.
- Quirinius was appointed Governor of Syria in 6 CE.

The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. The Gospel of Luke says that Jesus was born while Quirinius was Governor of Syria. Since Herod died 10 years before Quirinius became Governor, at most only one of these could possibly be true.

As you may or may not know, not all scholars accept the 4 B.C.E. date for Herod's death, which is largely based on Josephus history, a history containing dating inconsistencies. The Bible dates Herod's death at 1 B.C.E. or a short time later. As to Quirinius, historians note that he appears to have been Governor of Syria at two different times. "In the year 1764, an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887 vol. 14, p.397, No. 3613) It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or legate) for "the second time." On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius name, many historians acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the B.C.E. period." (Insight on the Scriptures p. 722)
Luke, who was evidently alive during these events, could speak to eyewitnesses who knew exactly what occurred. Luke records this statement: "Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus." (Luke 1:1-4) Josephus, on the other hand, was only 12 years old when Luke was a physician who traveled with the Apostle Paul.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

BTW - you mentioned Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Don't you think it's strange that Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote extensively on Herod's reign and was no fan of his, decided to omit any mention of what would have been - if it had actually happened - the single most important event of his reign? If the event actually happened, why would have Josephus done this?​

You make the mistake many Bible critics make. You assume an event didn't occur if not mentioned by extrabiblical sources. How often such assumptions have proved incorrect, as in the case of Sargon II.

Probably not as unconvincing as I find your claim that the prophecy was fulfilled. For starters, how do you know that the prophecy was written before the event occurred? What date do you give for the authorship of the passage? What support do you have for that dating?

That is said of many Bible prophecies. They are so accurate that critics claim they are history masquerading as prophecy. But the Bible writers also prophesied about events occurring in our day, and no one can claim they wrote these after the fact.

Great. Can you give us a prophecy that's we're likely to see fulfilled in the next little while? Something where the prophecied signs are in place, so if we see that the prophecied event doesn't occur, we'll know that the prophecy failed? Please be specific.

"This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

​

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

​

​

Darn! You just can't ask for better proof than that! I mean ... it's AMAZING! :thud:

 

[Big_TJ]

Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?

I must have missed this; but did the bible "make such a claim?" If so, can you please tell me the book and the verse ?

The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.

Give one example.

Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.

Are you sure? What reference do you have for this ascertion?

 

[not nom]

Darn! You just can't ask for better proof than that! I mean ... it's AMAZING! :thud:

when I was very young, my mum told me on the phone that she bought me a present, a toy car that can "drive up the walls".

I was sooooo excited.

you know what it turned out to be? I toy car with rather big wheels; when hitting a wall, climbed up until it was vertical, then fell on its back and drove away from the wall (on the floor, naturally). that was all.

I was soooooo disappointed. (though I also had to laugh)


and that's usually how topics about bible prophecies turn out for me, too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?
• The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.
• The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.
• Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.
• It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
• It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
• The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

Obviously you've mistaken the Bible for something else. What exactly?

Nobody knows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. The bible is scientifically accurate and it is not a science book.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You said that the Bible was scientifically accurate. When I pointed out that your example of supposed scientific accuracy was actually inaccurate; you brushed this off with your statement that the Bible's not a science book, which I take as your way of saying that the Bible doesn't need to be scientifically accurate.

Well, which is it? Are you claiming that the Bible is scientifically accurate or not?

There is no proof that the Exodus didn't happen.Interestingly, Josephus confirms the exodus account.

Unfortunately, I don't have my source handy, because it was a book I took back to the library. Josephus wasn't in a position to confirm the Exodus account, only to recount the popular myth.

Please.

I'll take that as a "no".

Tell you what: do you have any sort of support for the Bible that we don't also have for the Wizard of Oz... i.e. a book we know to be fictional? If the Bible is as well-supported as you claim, then this should be a slam dunk for you.

As you may or may not know, not all scholars accept the 4 B.C.E. date for Herod's death, which is largely based on Josephus history, a history containing dating inconsistencies. The Bible dates Herod's death at 1 B.C.E. or a short time later. As to Quirinius, historians note that he appears to have been Governor of Syria at two different times. "In the year 1764, an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887 vol. 14, p.397, No. 3613) It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or legate) for "the second time." On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius name, many historians acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the B.C.E. period." (Insight on the Scriptures p. 722)

I notice you said "many" and not "most" or "all". You'll always find a small number of resisters against the most reasonable conclusion.

Luke, who was evidently alive during these events, could speak to eyewitnesses who knew exactly what occurred. Luke records this statement: "Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus." (Luke 1:1-4) Josephus, on the other hand, was only 12 years old when Luke was a physician who traveled with the Apostle Paul.

What makes you think that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the Apostle? The introduction to it suggests that it was written by someone other than an Apostle... by someone who didn't witness the events he described firsthand and put together his account from speaking to others.

You make the mistake many Bible critics make. You assume an event didn't occur if not mentioned by extrabiblical sources. How often such assumptions have proved incorrect, as in the case of Sargon II.

In this case, if the event happened, it would be expected that Josephus would have mentioned it. The fact that Josephus doesn't mention it suggests that it didn't actually happen.

That is said of many Bible prophecies. They are so accurate that critics claim they are history masquerading as prophecy. But the Bible writers also prophesied about events occurring in our day, and no one can claim they wrote these after the fact.

Really? Name them. Tell me the specific verses and the events that they supposedly foretold.

"This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

I said "please be specific". That prophecy is not specific; it would be a challenge to come up with something more vague.

 

[filthy tugboat]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

I might like to add that no matter how much magic I grant the Bible and it's author's, none of it makes it "God's inerrant word". First you'll have to show a God exists and then you'll have to show that it had a hand in the bible's authorship. Seriously, I will grant you Jesus' resurrection, I will agree that it actually happened(even though it probably didn't), none of it means God exists or the Bible is God's word. That's the very nature of the supernatural, no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from supernatural occurrences.

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate.

• 
  
  Is it scientifically accurate? Please demonstrate it's accuracy for me, what scientific claims has the Bible made that has been shown to be true.
  
  

  What other ancient book can make such a claim?

  
  None, I am not aware of any ancient book that maintains scientific accuracy.
  
  

  [*]The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.

  
  No archaeological discovery has proved the Bible right. Because, as I mentioned above, nothing could prove the Bible right. It may have some minor details correct but that's about as far as it goes.
  
  

  [*]The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.

  
  I have come across this before and I would be happy to challenge this. I have started a new thread here.
  
  

  [*]Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.

  
  Many people will disagree with you on that. I find that most people who reach this conclusion have to do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to accept it.
  
  

  [*]It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
  [*]It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
  [*]The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

  
  Fair enough. Don't know how this supports the notion that it is a product of any God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Bible has also been subjected to relentless efforts to discredit it. But still, it endures.

Yep. It endures same as many Dharmic works that are notably much older than the Bible. They're still around for sure. Albiet discrediting the works are not as big an issue on this side of the fence as it were.

 

[rusra02]

Is the Bible correct about the conquest of Joshua? is it correct about the extent of David and Solomon's monarchy? how much archaeological evidence do we have about these kings?
many people dismiss the Biblical narrative entirely when it comes to history, other take it to be completely historical and accurate. the correct approach is to use the Bible in a balanced way in the context of the other near eastern sources and finds that we have. some information in the Bible may be useful in providing an understanding of Palestine during the Iron Age, its best not to treat it as historically accurate when clearly much of it is ideological, or perhaps dismiss it by default, there are scholars who find a middle way, and try to make the best with the Biblical material.

While your 'middle of the road' position may seem to be balanced, it leaves out of account the fact that the Bible claims to be, not a mere historical account, but the inerrant word of God. It's historical accuracy is partial proof for that claim. Imagine a book dating world war II in the 1800s. That book would be unworthy of trust. No one has successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Note that the Bible does not depend on archeological confirmation, but on the contents of the Bible itself. Still, archeology has confirmed many of the people, places, and events in the Scriptures as the truth. King David, for example. Until 1993 no extrabiblical proof for David existed. In that year, archeologists found in
Israel a basalt stone dated to the ninth century B.C.E that bears the words "House of David" and "king of Israel". As the Bible itself states: "If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." (Romans 3:3,4)

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While your 'middle of the road' position may seem to be balanced, it leaves out of account the fact that the Bible claims to be, not a mere historical account, but the inerrant word of God. It's historical accuracy is partial proof for that claim. Imagine a book dating world war II in the 1800s. That book would be unworthy of trust. No one has successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Note that the Bible does not depend on archeological confirmation, but on the contents of the Bible itself. Still, archeology has confirmed many of the people, places, and events in the Scriptures as the truth. King David, for example. Until 1993 no extrabiblical proof for David existed. In that year, archeologists found in
Israel a basalt stone dated to the ninth century B.C.E that bears the words "House of David" and "king of Israel". As the Bible itself states: "If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." (Romans 3:3,4)

​

​

​

​

​

​

There still isn't positive proof that David existed. The two archaeologists that argue for David's existence freely admit that they are stretching scanty evidence beyond reasonable limits. That is, they believe that David existed because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy and not because of the evidence.

 

[rusra02]

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You said that the Bible was scientifically accurate. When I pointed out that your example of supposed scientific accuracy was actually inaccurate; you brushed this off with your statement that the Bible's not a science book, which I take as your way of saying that the Bible doesn't need to be scientifically accurate.

Well, which is it? Are you claiming that the Bible is scientifically accurate or not?

You're twisting what I said. I disagree with your claim that the Bible's saying the earth hangs on nothing is inaccurate. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. However, when it touches on matters of science, it is scientifically accurate.

Unfortunately, I don't have my source handy, because it was a book I took back to the library. Josephus wasn't in a position to confirm the Exodus account, only to recount the popular myth.


I'll take that as a "no".

Tell you what: do you have any sort of support for the Bible that we don't also have for the Wizard of Oz... i.e. a book we know to be fictional? If the Bible is as well-supported as you claim, then this should be a slam dunk for you.


I notice you said "many" and not "most" or "all". You'll always find a small number of resisters against the most reasonable conclusion.

Right...

What makes you think that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the Apostle? The introduction to it suggests that it was written by someone other than an Apostle... by someone who didn't witness the events he described firsthand and put together his account from speaking to others.


In this case, if the event happened, it would be expected that Josephus would have mentioned it. The fact that Josephus doesn't mention it suggests that it didn't actually happen.

Really?
Really? Name them. Tell me the specific verses and the events that they supposedly foretold.

I did discuss the fact that Isaiah named Babylon's conqueror before he was born, and quoted the scriptural reference.

I said "please be specific". That prophecy is not specific; it would be a challenge to come up with something more vague.

Along with what you call the 'vague' prophecy that the good news of God's kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth, in verses 7-13 he included additional features of the sign of his "presence and the conclusion of the system of things" or "end of the world". (KJ) (Matthew 24:3,7-14) Jesus prophecied that during the period immediately before the conclusion of the system of things, "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom", food shortages, earthquakes in one place after another, world-wide persecution of God's people, increasing lawlessness, and lack of love. Lukes account mentions pestilence (Luke 21:10) All these signs must coexist to mark the time period before this world's end. Who can deny ALL these events have occurred since World War I broke forth in 1914?

​

​