Page 5 of 7

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:49 pm
by Kurieuo
Ashley wrote:I don't want to push too hard to the extreme. plus i am not scholar so i have to be emphatic that all are personal opinion. But I am speaking on good faith based on reading the bible only once.
You read the Bible only once? That is perhaps more than most ;)
Ashley wrote:human traits are only a part (or probably a very small part) of what God is. we never know God.
Unless a personal God reveals Himself to us as I believe He did through Jesus.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:13 pm
by Kurieuo
Ashley wrote:Thanks for your information and reply. Before going through your linkage in details, I agreed that the analysis in support of the truth of the religion is more convincing than the analysis attempting to refute them.
I really do recommend Craig's debate. If interested he has many well reasoned articles about God at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... icles.html and debates at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... bates.html. But such reading is not everyone's cup of tea. y~o)
Ashley wrote:Facts interweaving together can't be so perfectly related to lead us to a religion like this, especially over a time span of more than a few hundred years. Sometimes things are frustrating in this real world. I am quite unhappy at times people spread rumours,
TV commercials are exaggerating, lies sound like a game more than a sin, and the world is running in such a way so deviant from what it should biblically look like. Its life that we drift shiftlessly on the sea; we know that something is wrong, but we can't do anything and, are discouraged to do anything for righteousness, simply looking at on the sidelines, shunning the vicious happenings.

Among some people who never believe, to convince them about the biblical truth result only in being talked of as eccentric. It is tiresome to preach and share with people about the good news some time.

...

To me, it is even ok if the bible is a fiction. Even though it is not factually convincing, it is spiritually convincing. Jesus's teachings, St Pauls' laws of spiritual struggle, pharisees' yeast ... all spiritually reflect what is happening now a day. We pray, and we can see how prayers are fulfilled. No we can't put it in laboratory for demonstration, but we know that it is true in our heart. Even if the bible is a fiction, so what? it only indicates that God inspires some one to write such a fiction that inspire people in the past, present and future. They are still God's words, simply in the form of a fiction.
It is true there are many who attack what is in the Bible. In fact, it can be quite deafening and disheartening. You hear something enough times whether truth or a lie, and corrosion begins to happen. Hence why propaganda is so effective. However, whoever has the loudest voice does not equate to being the right voice. Truth can be found in a whisper. And if Christ might be but a whisper, I am convinced when He talks of Himself as being the truth even if I might be shunned or seen as eccentric.

Have you heard the story called "The Magician" by G. K. Chesterton? I only read it the other night in one of Ravi Zacharias' books ("Cries of the Heart") which I will here quote from. It is a story of a magician who visited a town and was performing a number of tricks to entertain the people there. To quote Ravi's words:
  • While everyone else was thoroughly enjoying the magicians performance a scholar sitting near the front of the auditorium persisted in finding his own explanation for every trick. The magician was getting rather exasperated and finally came upon a trick that this intellectual would find unexplainable.
    He called the analyst over and asked him, "What color was the light outside your home when you left?"
    The scholar answered that is was a red light. "Run along home," said the magician, "and even as you are running I will turn it into a green light."
    "You cannot do that!" retorted the young man.
    "Oh, yes I can, and I will," came the answer.
    The young man began to run toward his house, and as he came within a few feet of it he saw the light change color. Completely astounded, he turned around and ran back to the magician. "All right, how did you do it?"
    The magician looked at him and said, "I just sent a couple of angels to change the bulb."
    "That is nonsense," came the answer. "Tell me how you did it." No matter how belligerently the scholar protested, he received the same answer: "I sent a couple of angels to change the bulb."
    The young many retreated to his science laboratory, trying to figure out how a red light can be changed into a green light. He became so obsessed with his quest that he finally went insane. His sisters came to the magician and implored him to give his trick away just this once so that their brother would regain his sanity.
    "But I have already told him the truth," he said.
    "All right, then, why don't you tell him something that is not true but sounds reasonable? At least it will bring his sanity back."
    The magician reluctantly agreed and fabricated an explanation for his trick, which the young man readily accepted. Immediately he regained his sanity.
Having read this story, which do you think is truer of the critical scholar: a) The scholar was more sane when he had no explanation for the red light turning green?; or b) The scholar was, in fact, truly insane when he bought into the lie?

Chesterton believed that the scholar was truly insane when he bought into the lie as being the only suitable explanation. I am inclined to agree. For any explanation outside of the scholar's sensibilities he could not bring himself to accept. He was trapped in his own conceptualised world and viciously held to his own philosophical inclinations to the point of insanity. In the end he bought into a lie in order to keep his world settled.

Of course it is only a story, however there are many truths which could be drawn from it and I find it very applicable to the "enlightened" climate we as Christians often find ourselves within. Yet, I know I have my sanity with my belief in Christ and I think I have seen many react quite insanely just because I am a Christian.

You say the Bible is fiction on matters about history and so forth, and you believe this is fine because although it is not factually convincing, it is spiritually convincing. You believe in Christ y:-/ because of the spiritual truths you see embedded in Scripture. Yet what if what you see as lacking factually convincing power because of "people spread[ing] rumours, TV commercials... exaggerating, lies..., and the world... running in such a way so deviant from what it should biblically look like" is, in fact, the truth as the magicians answer was? Are you not mixing yourself with such insanity just for your own peace of mind?

Do you believe Paul's words in Romans 1:
  • 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
    19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22Professing to be wise, they became fools
I think the "wise" here sound a lot like the skeptical scholar in the magician story. Continuing, we find further spiritual truths from Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:20:
  • "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
And Paul continues further on:
  • 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong
Perhaps the foolish belief of a personal God who exists dwelling among us in human form of Jesus to live with us... perhaps the foolish belief of Christ who healed many both physically and emotionally... perhaps the foolish belief that he was a rabbi with disciples... perhaps the foolish believe that this rabbi kept all God's commandments... perhaps the foolish believe that he was innocently crucified upon a cross... perhaps the foolish belief that his dying on the cross for our sins is how we can be reconciled to a fully righteous God... perhaps Christ's being risen three days later to prove his identity and claims and as such provide us with an eternal hope... perhaps all these beliefs are foolish to believe because they are not as convincing as a certain type of explanation the world wants? y#-o However, I see the truth in such "foolishness" and I am content that in the end all will be revealed. I do not want the insanity of the world. And if I am wrong, well what will it matter anyway?

Yet, what I find significant is that the foolish beliefs surrounding Christ are not without evidence; evidence we should expect if they did in fact happen. We have writings from witnesses, in the Talmud, historians of the time, archeology, true places and people in history, and even the way wind blows in a particular geographic location. And if a personal God is true than should we not expect such a God would interact with us? I am not ashamed of my foolishness for I have found God through it, and not just that, I think it is rationally justifiable even if the world begs to differ because it only accepts carnal explanations. As Paul wrote: "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)
Ashely wrote:It doesn't mean that I lost my faith. I reacted to this thread because the world that I know is beginning to be discouraged about the truth. It is simply being drowned out by "noises". Got it?
Yes I understand the sound is deafening which makes it hard to uncover and hear the truth. Such sounds of the world are deafening to the point that God's special revelation of Himself as found is Scripture can only be fiction. Yet, who do you want to be? The self-deluded scholar who only accepts particular kind of answers favorable to such deafening cries from the world? Or one who sees and embraces the wisdom found in God's whisper? Could what is fiction to the world be truly non-fiction?

I often find myself reflecting upon this last centuries once greatest atheistic thinkers. I greatly admire this person for his strength in the face of a world which has now largely turned their back on him. Dr. Antony Flew who strongly believes we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, and who as everyone now knows is now a Deist, admits: "The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events." (The Answer Is the Resurrection [recommend]) Thus, I see there are warranted grounds for my foolishness and fiction of the world. But where others just see foolishness and fiction, I see God and truth, grace and hope.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:23 am
by Ashley
First of all I must clarify for myself I wasn't standing in any absolute position. I am neither absolutely against the religion (I look at myself being a Christian; so if anyone scoffs at Christian faith he does at me just as well as all others), nor absolutely for the religion (it is hard testing to me because, like everyone else, I may stumble or revive, and stumble again and later revive again...; it swings like a yoo-yoo; the experience, I trust, assures us of His words and existence day by day. That's why I read Christian website)

I believe that the questions I raised to challenge the authenticity are good that strengthen our understanding about His will; they come in handy when unbelievers intelligently challenge us of our faith our answers to them are always in place.

I would say that the authenticity is open-ended rather than close-ended. We would look like extremists if we refute all challenges, without any reservation over nuances that it poses on historical accounts. It isn't good. plus we aren't in a position to speak to mislead people that biblical truth doesn't need testing and are without slightest misunderstanding [though we may defend by saying that there must be certain kind of faith for our religion]. We are not politicians. We are followers to Jesus. It isn't bad that we have doubtful heart about the biblical truth.

Second, the lying part is too childish an accussation of a behavior. As it's true Zoegirl emphasized that even a plain lie must come with deceitful heart, it is always true that deceitful heart must be had for us to lie. And (sure my personal opinion), we must take into account what effect such lying might possibly have on other people. Lying is always bad. Onlookers never understand any lies as to why lies are good, no matter how eloquent we can possibly be to explain them away. Lies are always lies.

Things are, however, not that simple, in a lot of circumstances. I put forward a scenario. What if a guy lies in a bid to lead a guy to believe in God and to receive eternal life? How can we judge? Certainly he will never give himself away. We never know the truth that he lies. Only God and he know that he himself lies. To put someone in bar simply he is caught red-handed for his outward behavior of lying and view-camera-ed and recorded is too naive an indictment to hold. It is even hard to strike a balance if the outcome of his lies, ironically, does good to a lot a lot of people; looking back on it if those beneficiaries are to vote if the lyers should be tried and jailed, there must be a lot of veto. Look he is politically a righteous man by telling lies!

Sometimes I have trouble to accept that people look at bible simply as sets of rule that constrain our behaviors. It is highly misleading and should be condemned. I am not mad at Zoegirl or Jenna, nor sarcastic against them. I did run into some radical literal believers in church. Everyone would balk at them, I am sure.

We don't need to be a scholar; we all know very well that Pharisees created thousands of rules out of Old Testaments to constrain belivers' behaviors. It is wrong.

.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:31 am
by jenna
I agree with many points here, Ashley. Many of us stumble and are "revived" again, I know I certainly do. And also I agree that most are not scholars, but are learning on a daily basis. As far as questioning everything, I definitely do that, often quite vocally and to the concern of others. To me, unless something is proven to me in the bible, I will continue to question. I'm sure everyone here knows that by now! :lol:

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:48 am
by FFC
jenna wrote:I agree with many points here, Ashley. Many of us stumble and are "revived" again, I know I certainly do. And also I agree that most are not scholars, but are learning on a daily basis. As far as questioning everything, I definitely do that, often quite vocally and to the concern of others. To me, unless something is proven to me in the bible, I will continue to question. I'm sure everyone here knows that by now! :lol:
Really? y:-?

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:24 am
by Vicz
I'm just really thrilled with all of Lee Strobel's material regarding authenticity of the Bible. He was an atheist who married an agnostic. His wife turned Christian on him and he really felt betrayed. But, as a journalist for the Chicago Tribune, he decided to put his training to work on this problem. He wanted to show his wife that she was believing a lie and had become part of a cult. But the more he researched, the more he saw that this wasn't a cult at all--but the truth.

His books are very well grounded and supported (as you would expect from a journalist). They begin with the words "A Case for..." and end with "Christ, Faith, the Real Jesus (his latest), a Creator. All of them are superb. All are available in paperback except the latest one, A Case for the Real Jesus. I bought that one because I'm trying to witness in an atheist forum and they brought up many off-the-wall problems with Christianity that I'd never even imagined. Strobel addresses them in this book and, of course, debunks them.

I highly recommend two DVDs that Strobel produced, based on two of his books: A Case for a Creator and A Case for Christ. I was absolutely awestruck by the evidence for a creator (as opposed to us evolving "naturally"). In a Case for Christ, Strobel walks us through the struggle he went through, sorting out the truth by talking with those who have credentials and the ability to think critically. In the end, Lee found himself making a decision for Christ.

These are great resources for the open minded.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:13 am
by Shulgin
Canuckster1127 wrote:The Bible and much reliable church history indicates that 11 of the 12 disciples of Jesus died violent martyrs deaths, several of them, might have avoided it by recanting or denying Christ.

Why do you think these men would die for a novel or fiction, given that they were with Christ and better positioned than most to determine for themselves the truth of Who Christ is and how true His claims regarding himself were?

Canuckster,
Many people have died for things they believe in, but it doesn't make the cause right or the deity real. Just becasue the apostles didn't recant doesn't mean anything except they believed deeply in a god.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:54 am
by Byblos
Shulgin wrote: Canuckster,
Many people have died for things they believe in, but it doesn't make the cause right or the deity real. Just becasue the apostles didn't recant doesn't mean anything except they believed deeply in a god.
Not just any god, a God who came back from the dead just as he had claimed; an event to which they were first eyewitnesses. I would say that's extraordinary evidence, wouldn't you? Unless you don't want to be intellectually honest, that is.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:07 pm
by BavarianWheels
Byblos wrote:
Shulgin wrote: Canuckster,
Many people have died for things they believe in, but it doesn't make the cause right or the deity real. Just becasue the apostles didn't recant doesn't mean anything except they believed deeply in a god.
Not just any god, a God who came back from the dead just as he had claimed; an event to which they were first eyewitnesses. I would say that's extraordinary evidence, wouldn't you? Unless you don't want to be intellectually honest, that is.
Jesus: God-man or Crazy man...or something like that anyway is what I've heard asked.
.
.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:05 pm
by FFC
BavarianWheels wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Shulgin wrote: Canuckster,
Many people have died for things they believe in, but it doesn't make the cause right or the deity real. Just becasue the apostles didn't recant doesn't mean anything except they believed deeply in a god.
Not just any god, a God who came back from the dead just as he had claimed; an event to which they were first eyewitnesses. I would say that's extraordinary evidence, wouldn't you? Unless you don't want to be intellectually honest, that is.
Jesus: God-man or Crazy man...or something like that anyway is what I've heard asked.
.
.
LORD, Liar or lunitic

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:42 am
by Shulgin
Byblos,

Again, the evidence is solely in the bible, a dubious document to be sure. You use intellectually honest in your note. Do you think proof is in a document written 2000 years ago that is certainly not directly from the mouth of god. I think to be intellectually honest you have to eliminate faith and look at it scientifically. Scientifically there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus rose from the dead. No grave clearly marked and revered for 2000 years, no burial clothes, no cross, no nothing! Do be intellectually honest with yourself and try (as difficult as it may be) to eliminate faith from your suppositions. I think you'll see that without faith there are way too many holes in the whole mess. Without faith it looks more like it really is, a fairy tale similar to many concocted in the minds of ancient men.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
As people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers- Robert G. Ingersoll

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:08 am
by Byblos
Shulgin wrote:Byblos,

Again, the evidence is solely in the bible, a dubious document to be sure. You use intellectually honest in your note. Do you think proof is in a document written 2000 years ago that is certainly not directly from the mouth of god. I think to be intellectually honest you have to eliminate faith and look at it scientifically. Scientifically there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus rose from the dead. No grave clearly marked and revered for 2000 years, no burial clothes, no cross, no nothing! Do be intellectually honest with yourself and try (as difficult as it may be) to eliminate faith from your suppositions. I think you'll see that without faith there are way too many holes in the whole mess. Without faith it looks more like it really is, a fairy tale similar to many concocted in the minds of ancient men.
Let's keep the discussion in one thread shall we? Below I copied my reply from the other post here so let's continue here.
Shulgin wrote:Byblos,

Any shred of evidence would be nice. Perhaps a bible that was actually, truly, really written by god and not his fallible followers on earth. Real evidence for the divine nature of Jesus outside of the bible would be nice. C'mon now Byblos, use your imagination as to what kind of evidence one would like. How about a humongous structure out in the desert that is so amazing that it was obviously created by a supreme being? That would go a long way to convincing me.
Would such a structure really convince you of his existence? Or would you be wondering what civilization built it and why? How about the desert itself that contains this structure? Who built that? Perhaps a natural phenomenon, like a sandstorm? Where did the sand come from? How about the continent it sits on? Earth itself? Is that a big enough structure to convince you? A galaxy with billions of stars perhaps? How about the Virgo cluster, a collection of billions of galaxies? Would a mind-boggling universe, with billions of clusters, that seems to have sprung out of nothing convince you? I truly doubt it.
Shulgin wrote:There are writings from that time of a man called Jesus, but again no proof of his miracles. The writers of this time were largely superstitious and used word of mouth as evidence. Did Flavius Josephus ever actually witness a miracle performed by this man named Jesus before he wrote about his great works?
Do you know that he didn't? How do you know Hitler committed atrocities in WWII? How do you know Alexander the Great conquered half the world? How do you know Buddha existed or that the French revolution took place at all? You do because they were events recorded in history, first by eyewitnesses, then by historians. So were the events that transpired around Jesus' time. If you want to be historically ignorant then you owe it to yourself to be ignorant of history in general and believe nothing unless you witness it personally. Either that or intellectual honesty demands that you see both through the same prism.
Shulgin wrote: My point is that the bible is held up as proof, but we know that much of it is not to be believed, so how do we know what to take away from it and what to discard as the rantings of ancient religious fanatics? My opinion is that if there was a god, he would be smart enough to leave behind more than an unreliable document for folks to follow millenia later. I think there is no god and Jesus was a man like any other that might have been charismatic and had a zealous following.
The Bible is not held as proof, what the Bible promises and what has actually occurred is what's held up as proof. Every religion claims to be the true religion. What differentiates the Bible and Christianity in particular from any of the other religions is the sheer number of prophecies fulfilled. If you go to a psychic and inquire about your future and she was right half the time, would you not be impressed? I sure would. How about if she was right 70, 80, or 90% of the time? I bet she'd be on your payroll in no time and you'd be consulting her on every matter in your life. Do you know what the percentage of fulfilled biblical prophecies is? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT my friend. ALL of them (those that are not concerned with the end times and even those are coming too). Look it up and be impressed. I dare ya. I'm sure you'll also find a lot of counter-arguments, come back here and I'll direct you to places where ALL these arguments have been soundly refuted.

Are you capable of looking at the facts objectively? I really doubt it but I've been wrong before. I will quote your own signature back at you: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:11 am
by FFC
Shulgin, you bring up some good points, but do you know that they have all been suffisciently answered by Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and many other esteemed skeptics turned Christian...as well as other honest researchers who had no other choice but to believe when they honestly looked at the facts... which are more than you would think.

Check out "A Case for Christ" or "Evidence that Demands a verdict" and see if it doesn't go a little way to opening your mind.

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:35 am
by Byblos
This was copied from the other thread:
Shulgin wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Shulgin wrote:Byblos,

Any shred of evidence would be nice. Perhaps a bible that was actually, truly, really written by god and not his fallible followers on earth. Real evidence for the divine nature of Jesus outside of the bible would be nice. C'mon now Byblos, use your imagination as to what kind of evidence one would like. How about a humongous structure out in the desert that is so amazing that it was obviously created by a supreme being? That would go a long way to convincing me.
Would such a structure really convince you of his existence? Or would you be wondering what civilization built it and why? How about the desert itself that contains this structure? Who built that? Perhaps a natural phenomenon, like a sandstorm? Where did the sand come from? How about the continent it sits on? Earth itself? Is that a big enough structure to convince you? A galaxy with billions of stars perhaps? How about the Virgo cluster, a collection of billions of galaxies? Would a mind-boggling universe, with billions of clusters, that seems to have sprung out of nothing convince you? I truly doubt it.
Shulgin wrote:There are writings from that time of a man called Jesus, but again no proof of his miracles. The writers of this time were largely superstitious and used word of mouth as evidence. Did Flavius Josephus ever actually witness a miracle performed by this man named Jesus before he wrote about his great works?
Do you know that he didn't? How do you know Hitler committed atrocities in WWII? How do you know Alexander the Great conquered half the world? How do you know Buddha existed or that the French revolution took place at all? You do because they were events recorded in history, first by eyewitnesses, then by historians. So were the events that transpired around Jesus' time. If you want to be historically ignorant then you owe it to yourself to be ignorant of history in general and believe nothing unless you witness it personally. Either that or intellectual honesty demands that you see both through the same prism.
Shulgin wrote: My point is that the bible is held up as proof, but we know that much of it is not to be believed, so how do we know what to take away from it and what to discard as the rantings of ancient religious fanatics? My opinion is that if there was a god, he would be smart enough to leave behind more than an unreliable document for folks to follow millenia later. I think there is no god and Jesus was a man like any other that might have been charismatic and had a zealous following.
The Bible is not held as proof, what the Bible promises and what has actually occurred is what's held up as proof. Every religion claims to be the true religion. What differentiates the Bible and Christianity in particular from any of the other religions is the sheer number of prophecies fulfilled. If you go to a psychic and inquire about your future and she was right half the time, would you not be impressed? I sure would. How about if she was right 70, 80, or 90% of the time? I bet she'd be on your payroll in no time and you'd be consulting her on every matter in your life. Do you know what the percentage of fulfilled biblical prophecies is? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT my friend. ALL of them (those that are not concerned with the end times and even those are coming too). Look it up and be impressed. I dare ya. I'm sure you'll also find a lot of counter-arguments, come back here and I'll direct you to places where ALL these arguments have been soundly refuted.

Are you capable of looking at the facts objectively? I really doubt it but I've been wrong before. I will quote your own signature back at you: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".
Byblos,

I am interested in knowing more about the prophesies that have been fulfilled in the bible. But again, we do not know if the stories were made up as a self-fulfilling prophesies. That is the crux of my arguement. I think it is you my friend who is being historically ignorant. The evidence is that prophesies in the bible were fulfilled in the bible, but the bible is not true. The world insn't 6000 years old, there was no flood over the whole earth, etc. How do you, or anyone, know which stories that fulfill prophesy are true and which are made up? You don't. You have faith so you take them all to be true. Many of the ancient writings were (as far as we can tell) factually correct and didn't contain all the religious rhetoric as in the bible. As a historical document it sucks. There is so much controversy over who wrote what, why some books aren't in the bible, who changed what meaning down thru the centuries, stories that didn't happen, etc. If you take this as your source of historical validity, I would submit to you that there are far more accurate tellings of the history of that time. And yes, they mention Jesus, but that still doesn't prove he was the son of a god who was sacrificed to save us all from sin (a ridiculous and preposterous development in itself).

About the universe, well I am impressed by it and all the scientific things we have learned. No, we don't know how it formed and there is way more to discover. But my friend, just because it is mind boggleing to me doesn't prove that there is a wizened god sitting on a throne in heaven that created it all. My mind has a harder time getting around how there could be such a being that could be capable of creating all that there is in the cosmos and further, where this being might have come from.

As for Hitler comparisons etc. that is a ridiculous argument. I believe pictures and historical artifacts and war monuments and buildings that have were destroyed by the bombings and mountains of Jewish hair and fillings that were found, battlefields with real armor and bones, etc. Similar evidence for Jesus has not yet been forthcoming.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support- John Buchan

Re: The Authencity of the Bible.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:39 am
by Byblos
Shulgin, the Bible does not say the world is 6,000 years old. This very website is founded on that principal. If this was one of your stumbling blocks to seeing the truth it's just been removed. Like FFC suggested, why don't you look at the evidence presented by the very people who made it their mission to prove that Jesus isn't who he claims to be. Do that and then come back here and attempt to refute it.

An atheist is a man who has no means of support- John (Byblos).