Can the Bible be trusted?

[Kenisaw]

Recently Student claimed that he had a list of information as to why cultists believe the Bible accounts are true, and even scientific. That information can be found here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 48#798148]

The question is, can the information in the Bible be trusted?

I will give my answer: Most certainly not.

Evidence 1) The claim that the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end is clearly and flagrantly fraudulent. Even in Gen 1 and 2 the creation stories are clearly different. In one man comes after the animals, and in the other man comes before the animals. Is this harmonious? Of course not. There is a whole list of contradictions at this website: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_ ... tions.html

From a historical note, the composition of the Bible itself also shows that it is not a harmonious book. The earliest known copies of various texts, which are known as Codex, show many differences between them. Even Answers in Genesis admits as much: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... f-a-codex/. There are also several gospels and other books that were omitted from the final modern Bible, either because they were from the gnostic side of early Christianity or they were considered redundant or unimportant.

Clearly Evidence 1 does not show the Bible can be trusted.

Evidence 2) We are given a passage of Leviticus. Most of it deals with orders about eating blood, which isn't evidence of anything in particular. One statement though, "For the soul (or life) of the flesh is in the blood" makes a pretty concrete claim. Is this evidence that the Bible can be trusted?

No, it isn't. If blood is the life of living things, so is oxygen, and water, and the magnetic field around Earth, and vitamins, and amino acids, and a fair number of the elements on the periodic table. So while blood is important, it is just one of a whole list of necessary things. Take salt away and the brain can't use electrical impulses to order muscles to move for example.

The ancients of course knew that blood was important. They slit the throats to slaughter animals, so they knew that lack of blood would kill. They saw humans bleed to death on battle fields or hurt in accidents. Throat slitting is still used in butchering today. They also knew the head was important. That is also still a butchering technique. Is the head not the life of the flesh too? To claim that this knowledge was first discovered by biblical peoples is utter nonsense, and it is isn't even biologically accurate because so many other things are important too.

PS - There is also a passage from Acts in here, but for no useful purpose. The finding of donor DNA in the recipients blood has no plausible connection to the Acts passage, and quite frankly it's inclusion in this information is baffling.

Next up is a rather simple geometric error that Student believes. The Bible calls the Earth a circle, but he says "or sphere" as if they are one and the same. This is geometrically incorrect. A circle is a 2D object. The word for circle was specifically used in the original Hebrew. Job 38 mentions the "edges of the Earth", as if it is flat, and Daniel 4 and Matthew 4 also talk of flat geometry. Isaiah 40 calls the Earth a circle and the sky is a tent spread out over it, clearly an example of something covering a flat spot.

This is followed up by a cherry picked passage pertaining to astronomy. What Student fails to disclose is all the OTHER passages in the Bible, like Psalms 93, 96, and 104, and Isaiah 45 and 51, and even later in Job 26, refer to a fixed planet or a place on a foundation or pillars. Not only does this further demonstrate Evidence 1 is nonsense, it also shows that most descriptions of the world were not astronomically correct.

Clearly Evidence 2 does not show the Bible can be trusted. Evidence 2, in fact, helps disprove Evidence 1!

Evidence 3) This deals with archaeological evidences that have been, for the most part, independently confirmed thru other sources. The Babylonian Exile, for example, is a known event. Student therefore claims: "From what I have seen, The Bible has been tested, using the most established method of analysts in existence - and it have been proven to be a reliable source. The primary source and secondary source has established that fact. It has passed the test as a book of facts."

Facts about mundane, everyday occurrences? Sure, I can agree to that. I don't know of anyone that doesn't find a story about people killing each other, or the sacking of cities, or the names of leaders to be out of the ordinary. We know these are plausible claims because human history is littered with them.

But what about every single supernatural claim it contains? Where, Student, is the independent corroboration for that? You list NOTHING supporting anything that isn't within the common human experience of the time. Given the inability to supply such evidence when asked for it in the past, there's no reason to expect it now. The Bible, therefore, is not a "book of facts". It is a work of historical fiction. It is a mythological tale that contains historically accurate places and people. Stephen King's 11.22.63 contains historically accurate information about the Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald. Does that mean that we believe someone went back in time to try to prevent it from happening? No. Your claim is false.

Even claiming that the fact that defeats were mentioned doesn't say much. You are wrong that this is unique, the Greeks and Egyptians had such records of their history as well. And they were mentioned for other purposes. The Babylonian Exile, for instance, is mentioned in order to create a prophecy claim. It wasn't included in their for honesty's sake.

It appears that Evidence 3 shows that the Bible cannot be trusted for supernatural claims.

Evidence 4) This is a rather odd "evidence", and is a weak attempt to pad the number of "evidences" in my opinion. The fact that there is some good wisdom in the Bible doesn't mean all the Bible can be trusted. There is good wisdom in 11.22.63, but I still don't trust that someone went back in time to try to prevent the JFK murder.

The golden rule, for example, existed in other forms long before the Bible. So even though many accept it as a good saying to live by, we can't credit the Christian god or the writers of the Bible as coming up with it. Maybe we should credit them for repeating good stuff that was learned from earlier peoples. Of course since that saying already existed, we didn't need the Bible in order for it to exist today, either.

Which makes the 2 Tim quote about everything being inspired by the Bible god creature a lie by whoever wrote it...

Which means that Evidence 4 does not show that the Bible can be trusted.

Evidence 5) There are no known prophecies in the Bible that are accurate. To focus on your Isaiah example, it is scholarly consensus that Isaiah was written during the Babylonian Exile and after. So the fact that it "predicts" the end of the exile when Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus is not surprising at all, because it was written after it happened!

This is a common theme of prophecy claims. They "predict" things that already happened, and then back date the supposed year it was written, and POOF a prophecy.

Evidence 5 does not show that the Bible can be trusted.

I look forward to the comments of others.

[endtimer]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

PLease dent rope the christian gpspels into it..its the poeple hehind it that sway from trut and money

[theStudent]

Thanks again Kenisaw for this reference, although I prefer the direct sources, since they don't add their views, which might be shaped by a negative attitude to the Bible.
For example:
SUCH A DESCRIPTION SUGGESTS THAT THIS ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT SHOWS OUR MODERN BIBLE TO BE A FRAUD.
This coming from someone who says Jesus claimed to be God,

If a person were to try to strike all verses from the Bible that recorded miracles or Jesus’s claims to be God, the result would be a very different (and far longer) list of missing verses.

is understandable.

So here are some official sites:
Codex Sinaiticus
What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? Here you go DI.

The manuscript Codex Sinaiticus is not new, but only now being made available online, which is a good thing, only perhaps not for some of mainstream religion.
However, it doesn't present a problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, or others who believe the Bible is authentic, since it doesn't affect the Bible. They are thankful for the efforts of Konstantin von Tischendorf.
Not only him, but others who have discovered older manuscripts.

Here are parts of their expressions:

Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts.
For example, the reference to Jesus at 1 Timothy 3:16 in Sinaiticus reads: “He was made manifest in the flesh.� In place of “he,� the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,� made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.� However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.� Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Since Tischendorf’s time, more manuscripts have come to light. Today, the total of known manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures is about 6,000, and of the Greek Scriptures, over 13,000. Comparative study of these has resulted in an original-language text that can be trusted confidently. As scholar F. F. Bruce put it: “Variant readings . . . affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.�

The NWT is actually recognized by many as a very accurate translation, and used the most reliable manuscripts.
See =2fba8717-0846-4b0f-a7c5-3451ecddbed8&insight[search_result_index]=0]Is the New World Translation Accurate?

Both the Sinaiticus and the Leningrad codices have made valuable contributions to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses and released in its complete form in 1961. For example, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, used by the New World Bible Translation Committee, are based on the Leningrad Codex and use the Tetragrammaton, or divine name, 6,828 times in the original text.

Also, there are other translations where most of those verses are excluded from the Codex Sinaiticus are not found. For example - the Common Bible (an ecumenical edition for Catholics and Protestants), The New English Bible, the New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, to name a few.


What does the above information have to do with if the Bible can be trusted?
Expanding on this quote:

Today, the total of known manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures is about 6,000, and of the Greek Scriptures, over 13,000. Comparative study of these has resulted in an original-language text that can be trusted confidently. As scholar F. F. Bruce put it: “Variant readings . . . affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.�

Consider:
The copyists generally used extreme care to make sure that their work exactly duplicated the originals. Many proofreaders today exercise similar care. But you likely have seen that in modern newspapers and books typographical errors do occur, such as a misspelling of a word or an omitting or the repeating of a line. If such small misprints occur despite our present technical advances, you can appreciate that they could occur when entire Bible books were being copied by hand. The later copies, those farthest from the originals, tended to have more mistakes.
Consider how this might develop. A scribe who was very familiar with Matthew’s Gospel might, when copying the Gospel of Mark or Luke, tend to use the wording he knew so well from Matthew. Or, he might note that a sentence Matthew used was not in Mark’s or Luke’s parallel account. So he might add the sentence in the margin. A later copyist, however, might move that sentence into the main text of Mark or Luke, believing it to have been there originally since it made the accounts agree more closely. For example, in Luke’s account of the Lord’s Prayer some manuscripts add “Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.� Yet, the weight of evidence suggests that this was interpolated from Matthew’s account, and it is omitted from Luke 11:2 in modern translations of the Bible. (Matt. 6:10) As you can see, such sincerely motivated scribal harmonizations tended to add material.

As the trickle of newly discovered ancient Greek manuscripts turned into a virtual flood, scholars were able to compare them critically. This textual criticism should not be confused with “higher criticism,� which tends to lessen respect for the Bible as the Word of God. Textual criticism involves a careful comparison of all known manuscripts of the Bible in order to determine the true or original reading, eliminating any additions.
To illustrate how this works, imagine what would happen if you asked 200 persons to make a handwritten copy of a longhand manuscript. Most of them would make errors, some minor and others more significant. But they would not all make the identical mistakes. If, then, an alert individual took all 200 copies and compared them, he could isolate the errors. An error in one or two would show up because it would not be in the other 198 having the correct reading. Thus, with effort he could come up with an exact script of the original document even if he never saw it.

Though others had previously worked at thus refining the text of the “New Testament,� in the late 19th century two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, produced a refined text that has been widely accepted. It was published in 1881; yet a professor recently said:

Westcott and Hort did their work so thoroughly and with such exceptional skill that textual work since then has been either in reaction to or in implementation of theirs. . . . What is significant is that even those who tended to disagree with Westcott and Hort’s [method] published Greek texts that differed very little from theirs.

— Christianity Today, June 22, 1973, p. 8.
This refined text by Westcott and Hort has been used as a basic text for a number of recent translations, including the New World Translation.

This consideration of some isolated verses that clearly are no part of the inspired Bible should not leave anyone with doubts about the authenticity of God’s Word the Bible.
Rather than undermining confidence in the Scriptures, it serves to underscore the fact that God has preserved his Word in a remarkably pure state.

Conclusion
The Bible can be trusted. (Each person can decide that for themselves, based on the evidence.)

There is abundant evidence showing that the text of the Bible is reliable.
It is, for instance, far more reliable and accurate than accepted writings of Tacitus, Thucydides or Herodotus.
The evidence consists of many thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts that can be checked to prove that the basic text of the Bible is precisely what was originally written.

Sir Frederic Kenyon (deceased) - palaeographer and biblical and classical scholar.

It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.

#1
So the evidence shows that the Bible is authentic - it can be trusted

[endtimer]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

I agree with you in that the new translations and the systems that follow them cannot be trusted... that is why I walk alone with God. I dont and never have belonged to a church, religion, following, or any such things. I believe in supernatural and dimensions and no one had to convince me, I was born like this, not a gift as some calls it, I call it a curse because I know for a fact what's cooking on the other side, not by choice...All I want to do is help people, but I see that online is the last place where you will find such people. The net is just full of horrible images and deceit. nothing good can come from it.

[theStudent]

Evidence 2

I'm not sure what's going on with this part about blood.
The poster seems to be implying that I claim that the Bible is saying that one only needs blood to live.
Perhaps Kenisaw, you can clarify, if that is what you are saying.

From my post, which I cannot post here, that is far from what I presented.

The book of Leviticus, written by Moses, contained laws for the ancient Israelites, on quarantine, hygiene, and the sacredness of blood, when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters.
Take this truthful statement on blood.

Anyone can read further to see that I was not saying that the Bible claims that blood is all we need to live.
To say something like that would be so absurd that I would have to be totally brainless to even suggest that.
But I get the impression that that is how particular individuals try to paint persons, who give them a challenge.

Nothing here to consider, so so far, the evidence still support the fact that the Bible is trustworthy.

Next up is a rather simple geometric error that Student believes. The Bible calls the Earth a circle, but he says "or sphere" as if they are one and the same. This is geometrically incorrect. A circle is a 2D object. The word for circle was specifically used in the original Hebrew. Job 38 mentions the "edges of the Earth", as if it is flat, and Daniel 4 and Matthew 4 also talk of flat geometry. Isaiah 40 calls the Earth a circle and the sky is a tent spread out over it, clearly an example of something covering a flat spot.

This is followed up by a cherry picked passage pertaining to astronomy. What Student fails to disclose is all the OTHER passages in the Bible, like Psalms 93, 96, and 104, and Isaiah 45 and 51, and even later in Job 26, refer to a fixed planet or a place on a foundation or pillars. Not only does this further demonstrate Evidence 1 is nonsense, it also shows that most descriptions of the world were not astronomically correct.

Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is flat. Nowhere does it say the heavens is a tent.
Every mathematican knows that a sphere is circular.
The Bible was not written to explain the expansion of the physical universe, and the position or shape of the earth.
In other words - The Bible is not like a kindergarten schoolteacher teaching 2 year olds.

The poetic language used in the Bible, brings praise to it author - the grand creator - the one responsible for our very existence.
When we read the poetic expressions of King Solomon - Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastical, and book in proverbs, rather than pick at and try to discredit the author, we appreciate the value in those words - in the same way many people appreciate the little nuggets they find in Shakespeare's writtings.

The Bible contains gems that will benefit us greatly, if we look for them, instead of trying to find faults.
To illustrate this.
The hardest natural substance known to mankind - the diamond - is formed when carbon is subjected to extreme temperature and pressure.
In that form it is rough and barely emits any glow.
However, when a diamond is cut and polished, what do we get?
A girl's best friend - so they say.

But a sparkling diamond is not something someone so easily throws away. It's considered priceless.
In my opinion, I personally think that can illustrate how the Bible can be viewed.

#2
The evidence still support the fact that the Bible is trustworthy, and beneficial..

Evidence 3

Kenisaw, I need you to clarify Evidence 3 for me please.
You mentioned the archaeological evidence, but I'm not sure whether you are agreeing that it supports the Bible or not. Are you saying it does, or it doesn't?
Because you quickly moved on to a supernatural being (which is not addressed in that post), as though archaeological findings meant nothing.

[theStudent]

Okay. Deafening silence.
So I will conclude that there is no objection to archaeological evidence supporting the Bible's reliability. How could there be?

Since the supernatural was brought in however, and it is important, I will merge the last 3, in showing how it proves the existence of a creator.

History is past, but before it was past, it was present, and before it was present, it was future.

Going by the facts

• It is accepted that the book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem in the eighth century BC (700s B.C.E).
• It is accepted that the writer of the book of Isaiah, in chapter 45 is speaking in the present concerning the future.
• The first verse of Isaiah introduces the author as Isaiah. No other writer makes any introduction.
• The ancient Jewish rabbis recognized Isaiah as the writer and included the book as the first book of the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel).
• The oneness of the book is indicated by the expression, “the Holy One of Israel,â€� which appears 12 times in chapters 1 to 39, and 13 times in chapters 40 to 66, a total of 25 times; whereas it appears only 6 times throughout the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.
• The apostle Paul testifies to the unity of the book by quoting from all parts of the prophecy and crediting the whole work to one writer, Isaiah. (Compare Romans 10:16, 20; 15:12 with Isaiah 53:1; 65:1; 11:1). As well as other writers.
• The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, gives added evident the the scroll of Isaiah is a united text, beautifully written in well-preserved pre-Masoretic Hebrew and is some 2,000 years old, from the end of the second century B.C.E. Its text is thus about a thousand years older than the oldest existing manuscript of the Masoretic text, on which modern translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are based.

It is expected that there will be differences, and difficulties with what may be considered factual.
Each person will make their decision what they accept, and what they don't accept. We're free to accept or reject any information.

Traditionally the entire book of Isaiah has been viewed as the work of one man who lived from about 760 to 700 b.c. However, for the past two hundred years many interpreters have suggested that this view should be more finely nuanced.

...precisely because Isaiah has such accurate predictions about the future, liberals have attacked its authenticity. Well of course, predicting the future is impossible—for those with a dogma against miracles and who ignore that a God who created time itself would know the future. There have also been a number of headlines claiming that scholars have proven that the book has been radically changed.

Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled exactly as stated.

Historical and archaeological evidence proves the book of Isaiah is genuine, such as the historical records of the Assyrian monarchs, including Sennacherib’s hexagonal prism on which he gives his own account of the siege of Jerusalem.
If the Bible foretold the future, with such accuracy and precision, that no human can accomplish, and it does come to past, then that proves unequivocally, that the Bible is God's word, and that an intelligence first cause - a creator - exists, and is responsible for the writing, and preserving of the Bible.
Hence the Bible can be trusted.

A few examples apart from what are mentioned, in the referenced post.
Bible prophecy reveal when Christ would begin ruling invisibly from the heavens, and provided precise details of what would follow - a composite sign, including wars, earthquakes, pestilences, drastically changing attitudes and morals. All of these have been seen since 1914, the prophetic year, which historians agree was the year the world changed. (Matthew 24; 1 Timothy 3)
1914: WHEN THE WORLD CHANGED FOREVER

The terror of total war and its revolutionary impact on life around the world is explored in this major new exhibition marking the centenary of the First World War.

Boston Sunday “Globe,� 1978

The Great War became a pivotal moment in modern Western history. It did more than decimate a generation; it changed the world.

Encyclopædia Britannica

The war of 1914-1918 broke Europe’s waning self-confidence in the merits of its own civilization. Since it was fought between Christian nations, it weakened worldwide Christianity.

Economics and the Public Welfare - Professor Benjamin M. Anderson (1886-1949)

Those who have an adult’s recollection and an adult’s understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed.

All that patriotic fervor used to bother my dad, who was the sexton of our little country church. I recall Dad’s being saddened because a preacher in a nearby church had been removed from his pulpit for refusing to preach war.[/size][/quote]
"Pandaemonium" - published 1993 by U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

War came and the world changed—utterly. There are today just eight states on earth which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of government changed by violence since then. . . . Of the remaining 170 or so contemporary states, some are too recently created to have known much recent turmoil.

"Out of Control—Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century" - published 1993 by Zbigniew Brzezinski

The onset of the twentieth century was hailed in many commentaries as the real beginning of the Age of Reason. . . . Contrary to its promise, the twentieth century became mankind’s most bloody and hateful century, a century of hallucinatory politics and of monstrous killings. Cruelty was institutionalized to an unprecedented degree, lethality was organized on a mass production basis. The contrast between the scientific potential for good and the political evil that was actually unleashed is shocking. Never before in history was killing so globally pervasive, never before did it consume so many lives, never before was human annihilation pursued with such concentration of sustained effort on behalf of such arrogantly irrational goals.

"The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" - published 2007 by Alan Greenspan

By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward higher levels of civility and civilization; human society seemed perfectible. The nineteenth century had brought an end to the wretched slave trade. Dehumanizing violence seemed on the decline. . . . The pace of global invention had advanced throughout the nineteenth century, bringing railroads, the telephone, the electric light, cinema, the motor car, and household conveniences too numerous to mention. Medical science, improved nutrition, and the mass distribution of potable water had elevated life expectancy . . . The sense of the irreversibility of such progress was universal.
World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality. Will terror, global warming, or resurgent populism do to the current era of life-advancing globalization what World War I did to the previous one? No one can be confident of the answer.

World Undone: volume A - published in 2006 by G. J. Meyer

Historic events are often said to have ‘changed everything.’ In the case of the Great War [1914-1918] this is, for once, true. The war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the postwar world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before.

Who else could predict with such precision and detail, but an omniscience - the creator of the universe.

With regard to morals, the Bible’s principles apply to all people, and its counsel is always beneficial.
That is in stark contrast to the world's wisdom, which is always changing, and at variance, based on individual views, culture, and nationality - and more recently changing times.
It is a known fact, that person who apply this principle especially, are highly commended, and are usually associated with Christianity - believes in the God of the Bible.


So, in summary, CAN THE BIBLE BE TRUSTED?

Discoveries of ancient manuscripts only verify that the Bible has not changed, despite being copied, and recopied over centuries, and is harmonious from cover to cover, proving the ability of its author - Jehovah God - to preserve it.
The Bible gives evidence not of human wisdom, but wisdom of a higher source.
We have seen that archaeology backs up the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Even in its minutest details, the Scriptural record is scientifically sound.

Where scientists to this day fail to provide an answer to the origin of life, the Bible did, long time ago.
Unlike the mythological superstitious and illogical stories given, the Bible contains a logical and comprehensible explanation of the creation of the earth and man.

Also, the Bible truthfulness is evident in scientific discoveries.
Science reveals the fact that the entire human family can trace its origin to one man. This harmonizes with the Bible, which also says that this man received his life and breath from God, his Creator.
The order in which living things were created, as presented in the Bible, is in harmony with the evidence discovered by palaeontologist, in the study of past geological periods and fossils.
The Bible states that man was formed from the dust. Scientists discoveries harmonizes with this.

In all the living organisms studied, in addition to carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, sulfur, chlorine, magnesium, potassium and sodium, the presence of the following elements can be considered to be a proved fact: six nonmetallic elements: fluorine, bromine, iodine, boron, arsenic and silicon; a transition element: vanadium; and thirteen metals: iron, zinc, manganese, copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium, rubidium, cesium, aluminium, titanium, chromium, molybdenum and also probably tin, lead, silver, gallium, strontium and barium.

For centuries, the Bible has stated that the blood of a creature represents its life, or soul. “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.� It is a scientific fact that blood is intimately involved in the life processes. Furthermore, science has discovered quite recently that each person’s blood is specific and unique.

The genetical combinations in procreation are such that our blood is unique, never identical to that of either of our parents, nor to that of our children. And we make this same blood all our life. In fact, no matter how many transfusions we may receive, we will never adopt the blood that the donor has given us; it is always our own blood that prevails and that is renewed perpetually and identically.

While scientists continue to probe the universe for answers the evidence from current discoveries gives us confidence, not only in the Bible, but in the fact that God exists.
Scientist J. Jeans

The universe appears to be designed by a pure mathematician.

EVIDENCE
The Bible stands as a solidly fixed foundation of faith - not a blind faith, but a faith based on reason, and logic - using a sound mind. It is therefore, in itself a solid basis for believing in the existence of a supreme supernatural being, who is interested is his creation, and provides us with a reliable source of information that reveals our past, present, and future.

[H.sapiens]

From a scientific perspective (this is the science and religion forum) the answer is a resounding "NO!"

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Kenisaw]

To be more precise.
That information is found
in this post, which contains a link to another post.

Thanks Kenisaw.
I've been asking for someone to provide a list like this a while now.

Only I don't know why you posted it in this sub-forum, because now I cannot use scriptures, since I would be breaking forum rules.
I am sure you didn't set out to trap me.

However, I will for now answer the first, since it's my bedtime.

You are correct that I was not trying to trap you. I started a new thread so we could specifically discuss the veracity of the claims that you have posted "evidence" that the bible is a scientific source, or that science has proven bible passages to be true, or anything along that line.

1.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_ ... tions.html

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

No contradiction.

Genesis 1 recounts the actual events in a summary.
Geneses 2 presents a history, according to Genesis 2 verse 4.
Since the creation days were possibly a thousand, or thousands of years long, and man and beast were created during that time - the sixth day, then it does not mean that God created all the animals, before he created man. Other animals were apparently being created even after the man was created. This is clear from the fact that the woman was created a while after the man, as seen in verses 19 to 22, of Chapter 2. All however were created during the sixth creative day

I see your above words as nothing more than a poor attempt at rationalization.

I cannot honestly fathom how you think Genesis 1 is NOT a history. The actions are listed in order in both Gen 1 and Gen 2. To quote from the New International Version: "26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness". Please note the "then", which denotes an order of action. Let's not forget that at the end of 25 it states "and god saw that it was good" before the "and" in 26 of your particular version of the bible. This also denotes order of progression.

On top of that, since birds were created on day 5, along with "water creatures", this further shows that animals came before man (even if we accept your rationalization about the land animals from day 6).

On top of that, plants came about in day 3! Yet in Gen 2, not even Eden was planted before man was created. Animals weren't created until after Eden.

Gen 1 lists creation by days, and Gen 2 clearly claims that it is a "history". They both make specific claims about the order of creation. And they obviously contradict each other. You have not resolved this clear and obvious contradiction that refutes your "evidence 1" as listed in Members Notes...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I actually agree to a certain degree on both of your counter arguments, however , the title reads "can the bible be trusted" ....It does not say can the vedas or the NT be trusted. Someone who doesn't know anything about the bible would not know that there even was translations, and thus my reasoning to point out that it can be trusted but only if one seeks the truth out of it. If the translations and its writers and its contents was such a huge mystery , why does everyone know about it. I believe the KJV is translated word for word accurately.

The title does read that. But I was responding specifically to your claim that it is the only "support structure known to mankind to entrust over all of time", which is untrue. The Vedas has been trusted by Hindus for even longer than christians have "entrusted" the bible. Clearly your claim is not factual, or based on any empirical evidence.

Also, your claim about "seeking the truth" out of a book that has been shown to be full of contradictions, additions, deletions, et al is the crux of the very point most often discussed at this website when it comes to the veracity of biblical claims. If the bible, which is the inerrant word of a god being, could be taken literally no one would have to "seek the truth out of it". That you admit that this needs to be done shows the very point that atheists have been making.

As for your KJV comment, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... anslations
Mark 16 is the most famous of these. The KJV we used to own even admits the addition to Mark...

If young people go onto this website and they read the title can the bible be trusted, what do you want them to believe? The truth always has to prevail no matter how you try and cover it up.

I'm not covering up any truth. I'm exposing the claim of truth to be fraudulent and baseless. I'm showing, with a systematic and ordered approach, that Student's claim of evidences is unfounded, and that any claim he or anyone else makes from here on out cannot use those particular items to legitimize their statements. I will also do so for any future claims of evidences. In fact I have been doing just this in many threads for quite some time.

I agree that the truth will prevail...

the intent behind this subject seems to state everything but a healthy and constructive debate... how can one debate details if the you dont trust old text. do u even trust your own text then?

How is this not a constructive debate? I've responded in detail to specific claims made by Student, and have done so in a respectful manner.

Your "trust old texts" comment is rather curious to me. You obviously don't trust old Hindu texts, or Greek or Roman or Norse texts. You don't trust Egyptian hieroglyphics. You obviously don't accept those claims, so why on Earth would you think your particular flavor of god story demands more acceptance without empirical support? I do accept things like the Babylonian Exile which is independently confirmed, or even claims about other things that are NOT independently claimed but are plausible, such as people existing or events that don't require supernatural components. But specific claims that the bible is scientific, or that anything supernatural happened? No, those things are not plausible, and evidence is needed as support for such things.

Prove it.

Not sure what you are going to achieve by asking that, but proving my statements none the less, it has stood the test of time and science, the archaeological finds go straight back to eden. that is enough to trust because there is supporting evidence... How about you proving that it cannot be trusted ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-a ... the-bible/
http://www.bible-history.com/timeline/
http://timeline.biblehistory.com/home
http://amazingbibletimeline.com/timeline_online/

Your first link was no good. YouTube deleted it on copyright grounds. There are no archaeological finds that correlate to Eden however.

Your second link agrees with what I've written above, and what I wrote in the OP - Mundane, plausible everyday events mentioned in the Bible are sometimes independently confirmed. Furthermore, those that haven't may still be true. Please note in your link however the complete lack of any evidence or data supporting any supernatural claim within the entirety of the texts.

The third link is really no different than the second. They try to claim that the fact that many cultures have some kind of flood story is proof that the Bible flood happened. This, of course, is not evidence of anything. There are lots of stories about hairy ape-like men from around the planet too, but I bet you don't think Bigfoot is real. There are several threads at this website that detail out the hundreds of evidence that directly contradict the claim of a worldwide flood, please read those for a refution of that particular topic.

Your fourth link makes this statement: "Regarding the chronology of the Old Testament it is important to know that most of the dates cannot be determined with any sort of accuracy." The date when these things were written, however, can. And they show that almost everything was written later than traditionally claimed.

Your fifth and sixth links I'm not sure why you included. It's a timeline, based on the Bible stories. Not sure what that is supposed to prove...

[ttruscott]

NOPE.

Every verse has multiple interpretations that will fit multiple points of view and are (at least) semi-contradictory.

The only thing trustworthy in the Christian System is the Holy Spirit guiding you into the truth. And then it is only trustworthy if you are a person of the kingdom sown into the world by the Son of Man, a sinful believer who can have his sinfulness cured and not a non-believer who is condemned already and following a demon.

[H.sapiens]

NOPE.

Every verse has multiple interpretations that will fit multiple points of view and are (at least) semi-contradictory.

The only thing trustworthy in the Christian System is the Holy Spirit guiding you into the truth. And then it is only trustworthy if you are a person of the kingdom sown into the world by the Son of Man, a sinful believer who can have his sinfulness cured and not a non-believer who is condemned already and following a demon.

So you bring us back to the private treehouse/clubhouse with secret passwords and handshakes without which understanding is impossible. This is utterly irrational. If that is what the Christian System is, then it is really indefensible.