So, what do you think of creationists trying to defend a 2000 year-old ancient text?

Question

See? My question must have gotten through your skin. I haven't mentioned a problem here at all

Answer 1

I'm one myself...and it's pretty funny because a lot of people have no idea what they're talking about...

For all my fellow peeps--take a hint and read some Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel...

Answer 2

I have no issues as the bible defends itself. Have you considered the reliability of the bible? Ignore for the moment the whole notion of God and just think about the book's content.

Some have claimed that the bible is no more accurate that Homer's Iliad. I respectfully disagree and the table shown at the link below clearly demonstrates my argument that the Bible is one of the most accurate sources for the events described in it.

Investigation will also reveal that there exists NO SINGLE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY that has been shown to prove error, factually or doctrinally, in the Bible. There is lots of speculation and hypotheses, but not a single verifiable fact.

To make this claim alone is quite a feat for ancient texts, but when you add to it the fact that the Bible was written over more than 1,500 years by forty vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology.

No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ.

The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed).

An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine authorship.

Few fail to realize this and show their lack of knowledge in the historicity of the Bible by objecting when folks use the bible to support their own positions. While no one objects when a journal article or some popular book or media piece is quoted, there is always lots of flippant commentary when Christians use the bible as a reference.

When I examine the evidence on both sides, I can only rationally conclude that given the bible's accuracy on so many issues, I have no reason to doubt its validity on all issues it contains, especially when it speaks to God's divine revelations.

To learn how the books of the bible came to be assembled as such see: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

Catholic and Episcopal bibles have the same number of canonical books. The Catholic and Episcopal bible also includes some non-canonical books, grouped as the Apocrypha.

Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing.
See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level use the NASB or ESV translations.

If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the two sites' content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.

http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Accuracy of bible:
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm

Answer 3

In the face if compelling evidence to the contrary where the weight of that evidence is overwhelming, they steadfastly retain their ignorance and need to believe in a supernatural being. I invite comment from creationists on this article. (Didn't mean to jack your thread) The writers of the bible thought the earth was flat and didn't realize stars were suns much like our own. Cetainly if this was the word of god, god would know what a star was
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Answer 4

What's great about is, today, many so called monkey believers are finding so many sciencific mistakes in their so called proof, take science is now backing that 2000 year old text up more and more with more sciencific proof then the man from monkey idea.

Answer 5

Uhhh...... Do you mean the New Testament or the Mosaic account? Because the Mosaic account is older than 2000 years, but the New Testament is not really a "creationist" thing......

Answer 6

Not much. I don't believe in creationism and I am a catholic, so i believe in evolution as a simple fact.

Having that said, you must feel like a real big intelligent man. Must be real tough to shoot those fish in that barrel. Is it helping your self esteem much huh?

I can't think of any other reason that you'd ask this question?

Feel all big now?

Answer 7

I think that the text of Genesis is more like 3500 years old and if you want to find out what happened in the past ancient historical records are your best source of information.

Answer 8

I think they're idiots. Most of them don't know anything at all about the Bible besides a few catch phrases they heard while trying not to fall asleep in a pew.

Answer 9

Nothing. That whole "entitled to your opinion" thing.

Oh, and the freedom of speech thing, and lets not forget the freedom of religion one too. Big players in that argument.

Answer 10

Dear, if you are speaking of the bible.....it needs no defense. That's like saying we need to "defend" gravity. The truth merely is.

There are those who are scholars of the bible for many reasons...one is to try and help those who mock and ridicule it, take the time to read and understand it's true meaning. Of course not all will...many prefer to laugh and scorn. Sad end for them.