If the bible is so true, why cant believers use science or history books to back up stuff in the bible?

Question

It is pretty funny when believers use the bible to back another verse in the bible

Answer 1

Christianity is not against science because science is part of God's creations. Scientists are the ones who're against the living God and His Written Word, The Holy Bible. Amen.

Answer 2

Read the books of Luke and Acts in particular. You will find archaeological, nautical, cultural, and personal information that we can show accurate even today. Luke is also the only one of the New Testament history authors to refer to himself in the first person (though John refers to himself through his gospel as "The disciple who Jesus loved"), and claims he was personally present for much of the events described in Acts.

Luke names the Roman officers in charge of several cities, spells out precise navigation routes, local slang and the correct honorific for local officials in different regions, and both natural and manmade geographic features of the area.

There are over 40 documents that survive from the first century that agree with these parts of Luke's two books. He names almost 30 historic figures (besides Jesus and his menagerie, and many Roman officials) that we have additional confirmation of today. And while these documents survive in a mere handful of copies (most less than 10) the two books of Luke have well over 12,000 surviving transcripts all dated within 150 years of the events they describe, and nearly half in the same language (Greek).

The thing about any ancient document... the Bible included... is that societies in those days were an oral culture--they did not have written history but passed down oral tradition throught the centuries. By the time it was written down in many cases the history had changed--sometimes slightly, and sometimes drastically.

This is not so much in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament there are even multiple accounts of the same event that provide conflicting information. But often these were again oral traditions that were passed on several hundred years before they were ever written down, and two people may have remembered the story differently. Humans aren't perfect.

Answer 3

To be fair, some central Christian assumptions are pretty understandable. If you take a good hard look at the hardheartedness of people, the murder, the rape, the crime, the neglect of children and the elderly, and so forth - you can make a pretty good argument for the idea that human nature is inherently flawed and in need of redeeming. If you take that viewpoint and believe in Deity, a Messiah figure seems pretty necessary. God needs to intervene. To restore order. To remind people of the enduring values that have held society together. To save people from themselves.

Is their logic perfect? Hell, no. Is their book historically accurate - just read Genesis. You'll figure that out pretty quickly. But is the central assumption understandable? Of course it is. I just happen to disagree with it.

But whatever.

Hail Satan,

Lazarus

Answer 4

Science and history books were written much AFTER the bible.

Answer 5

It happens all the time. For example this verse was written thousands of years ago:

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

"THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH" he says! But only until a couple hundred years ago people though the earth was flat!

Answer 6

Its called internal evidence, and most often it is because another author collaborates it. For instance if Matthew says Jesus was crucified and Mark, Luke and John say so too, then they corroborate the fact. It would be the same if I were to say, "My mom was sick yesterday" then my dad said so too, it would be corroborative evidence. The more corroborative evidence you have, the better. It also helps, historically and judicially, if there is a small degree of contradiction. If someone gives a story the EXACT same word for word then it is obvious they collaborated together and their stories are not quite so reliable, but if they have some slight differences in their wording it is obvious they are giving their own unique and independent testimony. Hence in the Bible there are slight differences, like one says Jesus wore a scarlet robe, another says red.

Answer 7

Because they don't know what's in the science or history books.
Which says something about their abilities to make critical decisions concerning extra curricular materials in life like religion.


♥Blessed Be♥
♥=∞

Answer 8

Many Biblical occurances are recorded historically.

As for science, if it's so true, why can't unbelievers use a Bible to back up stuff in the scientific world?

Given your question, I think you'd be amazed at how often science and Scripture line up with each other. Not to say that the Bible needs science to prove it, but that the Bible frequently proves science.

Answer 9

Well, actually, there are a few things that archeologists (and they are scientists really) have found and historians have written that agree with what is in the bible.

Not alot, but there is some.

Answer 10

there are many people with closed minds and you seem to be one of them. the bible contains history of kings and genealogies. personally i really dont care to find out whose children are whose but it is a valid history book. as far as religious sayings, you are not required to believe them. i respect believers but i would never base my life on only one book. you may have had a bad experience with some religious people but you dont need to use inductive reasoning and think all believers are bad and formulate an attack on an entire religion. just show respect and expect the same in return.