I can predict an answer saying, "The material world belongs to Satan and he changed the meterial evidences to confuse the unbelievers and believers alike."
2006-06-09 14:20:07 · 13 answers · asked by Grassroots 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Archeology is a science and the science is not static like the "true" Bible. In the Bible all the thinks are true without question, they are "God" words. In science we question all the thinks and the true of today maybe be false tomorrow and this concept is not bad is really good. If you are a believer your true is based on faith, if you believe in the science your true is based on proof and the proof are generally changing. Yes there are a lot of discrepancies between the evidences. Are you willing to accept the differences even if they point that Bible is incorrect?
2006-06-09 14:44:29 · answer #1 · answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think one of the most glaring examples of a discrepancy between archeological evidence and biblical account is that of how fossils are layered into strata based upon their age. Creationists try to write all the fossils off as victims of the "Great Flood", but that does not account for how the fossils are distributed into various strata. When you ask them about that, they say that the heavier fossils sunk to the bottom and the lighter ones to the top, and hence dinosaurs appear to precede mammals. But anyone who knows anything about archeological evidence has to realize that this is innane. Trilobites are far from being heavy, and yet they appear in stratum much lower than dinosaurs or even fish. That whole theory about the heaviest animals sinking to the bottom just doesn't hold water...sounds like there may have been a hole in the ark!!!
2006-06-09 21:29:57 · answer #2 · answered by magistra_linguae 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody has all the answers. Archaeology has not dug up everything, and sometimes interpretation is sketchy at best. The bible was written by man, and even if you accept it to be truth, man is obviously imperfect as well. The bible is full of stories that have existed in various cultures for thousands of years. On some level, reading it is similiar to reading Aesop's fables. But that doesn't mean that the stories weren't based on events that people experienced, just that as the stories were passed mouth to mouth from generation to generation for years, some of the facts were changed before they finally were written down.
2006-06-09 21:30:39 · answer #3 · answered by elvis150 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all of my studies regarding archeology and Biblical accounts, I have only seen confirmation to such. Fragments of ancient chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea, evidence of brimstone burning in the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the temple in Jerusalem, the pillars of the temple that Samson caused to collapse, etc, etc. Archeology lines up with scripture's accounts.
2006-06-09 21:30:56 · answer #4 · answered by rocketscientist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible isn't ... A scientific document. It doesn't deal with archeology, linguistics, genetics, paleontology, physics, evolutionary theory, astronomy, etc. & etc. That's NOT what it was meant for. I know that Biblical literalists try to MAKE it cover scientific fact, but when they do that they do a disservice to a document that, when used for what it IS contains great wealth. ~~~ The Bible is ... A spiritual document. It does deal with spiritual and religious principles. That IS what it was meant for. When its dealt with for what it IS the only true descrepencies are to be found in the HEART of the one pursueing it. And that is my opinion concerning the Bible and descrepencies pertaing to it of whatever type. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
2006-06-09 21:33:42 · answer #5 · answered by Frat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was not aware of any. There is no evidence to date that disproves any Biblical account. Many do not believe the Bible, but unbelief does not make it wrong. There is a difference..
2006-06-09 21:25:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible was physically written by human beings. Humans make mistakes. Physical evidence such as archeological finds are what they are. The bible requires absolute faith that what is written is accurate. Personally, I think the bible is a great work of fiction.
2006-06-09 21:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by Angry C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's your opinion on the high positive correlation between archaeological evidence and biblical accounts?
2006-06-09 21:24:56 · answer #8 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of archaeological stuff compliments the Bible actually, nonbelievers just try to twist the evidence...but you're right, satan is involved
2006-06-09 21:23:50 · answer #9 · answered by trace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd like to know what discrepancies you're talking about before I can make an informed decision.
2006-06-09 21:25:49 · answer #10 · answered by elizabeth_ashley44 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋