Christianity is backed by scientific evidence?

Question

I hate it when people act like it's not. Historians and archeologists have examined the Bible and they have found it to be one of the most accurate books ever.

There is a mountain of evidence for it. It's just that some people are so hell bent on proving it wrong that they will choose to ignore this scientific evidence and ONLY listen to the evidence that says that it's false.

Guess what? I can do the same thing with Abraham Lincoln to prove that he NEVER existed. Why is there no video footage of him? Why is he six foot four? Aren't all mythological figures supposed to be larger than life? Why did he die a tragic death? Isn't that a common archetype? He came from humble beginnings (once again a common cliche in belief).

How come virtually nothing is known about his childhood besides who his family members were?

Answer 1

I too don't like how some people just brush off all of the scientific evidence that is available to them. I think atheists/agnostics have not searched for God. Some questions I have read made me laugh because of their ignorance of His plan for us. For instance, He can't just appear when we pray or stop a hurricane. We need to have faith. Anyway... If you are interested, I have read several books on science and Christianity. The facts speak for themselves.

The Hidden Face of God written by Gerald L. Schroeder
The Science of God written by Gerald L. Schroeder
Creation Remarkable Evidence of God's Design written by Grant R. Jeffrey

If you have not read these, I encourage you to do so. They are very well written and thought out. This is proof.

Answer 2

You are incorrect....

I won't even respond to the Linchon part, the logic is just so flawed.

Historically speaking there is very little evidence to confirm much of the bible.

The creation story is ludacrous and has enormous scientific holes. The earth is just not 6 10 or even a hundred thousand years old. it is billions, there is no debating this FACT.

Adam and Eve has 0 proof not one single solitary speck. There is however proof of early man and a few million years of it. This also completely contradicts the bible.

Noahs flood has 0 proof and is just blatantly stolen from the epic of gilgamesh. There certainly seems to have been an epic flood of the Eufrates river, but you of course can read this in the epic of gilgamesh. The actual Noah story is actually embarassing, in the fact people can't seem to see the pure ridiculousness of it.

King David has no historical evidence. Nor does their seem to be any for Moses. For that matter if jesus was the miracle working son of god he is claimed to be there is almost no evidence he even existed.


The bible has been modified substantially. For example the earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain the story of the adulteress or the last 12 verses of mark.

The early bible was also very much shaped to eliminate the teachings or other early christianities. You just don't hear much about the Ebionites or Marcionites anymore. While many talk of early christianity, early christianities would be a much more accurate term.

Answer 3

It's my understanding that science is proving rather than debunking the Bible and vice-versa. If you make a careful study of the whole spectrum, including translations taken from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic - and not excluding first-century accounts not authorized by the Church (two centuries later) ...well, you might be surprised at what you find. Some early texts have been discovered only recently. The evidence and tales of Christ's chidhood and pre-ministry doings (while not in Isreal) I personally feel fill in a lot of the mystery... and at the least, are fastinating food for thought.

Answer 4

Christianity has existed for many ages now, and in every generation, people have tried to disprove it's authority, but every attempt has failed. This generation's attempt at disproving the Bible is the theory of evolution - which also fails. I'll give you a few reasons which, these alone, were enough for me to realize that there is pretty much a zero percent chance of evolution being correct, and I have studied FAR more beyond this, making evolution almost as far as to be less than a zero percent possibility. Here are just a few minute facts from just one book out of many I've read and articles etc:

The moon is around 3474 KM in diameter, and 384403 KM from the earth.

Now, the sun is around 1,400,000 KM in diameter and on average around 149,000,000 KM from the sun. Do the math and you find out that the relative size in the sky seen from earth is exactly the same as the moon

400*3474 = 1389600 vs 1400000 KM diameter
400*384403 = 153761200 vs 149,000,000 KM distance

Now both numbers are not 100% accurate 100% of the time so there is some variance, but basically, both the sun and the moon both look the same size in the sky so that eclipses are possible. Now tell me this happened by chance... seriously, think it through. The chances of THIS ALONE.... not counting everything else in the universe, is so astronomical as to make me doubt all of the big bang and evolution.

But there's more, much much more... I'll stop with this next example, but trust me, there is much more that supports creation and rejects the possibility of random chance. This following example is quite good in my opinion.

Various forces (I won't go into the full boring details unless you want it) on the moon cause it to get farther away from the earth constantly, although very very slowly. The equation for tidal recession is dr/dt = k / r^6 where dr/dt is the current measured rate of lunar recession.

Thus k = R^6 * dr/dt = 384403^6 * .000038 km/year which = about 1.2 x 10^29 km^7/year

then dt = (r^6/k)dr

integrate to get this equation: T = R^7 / 7 K

T is the maximum possible age of the earth given the distance of the earth from the moon and using the constant k.

T turns out to be 1.47-- billion years (384403^7) / (7*.000038)

I don't even think I need to tell you all the implications of this, but I will, just to be perfectly clear. For starters, evolutionists believe the earth is 3-5 billion years or even older. There's also another issue. Can you imagine the problems on earth if the moon was literally ON earth itself? (This would be true if the earth were even only 1.5 billion years old... the distance would be literally zero from earth at this point.)

Through minor research, you can come up with MANY examples that support creationists/christianity and easily reject evolution such as this. But all the evolutionists just conveniently ignore evidence such as this and just shrug it off to more dumb luck or just don't even discuss it at all because they have no explanation for it. Well guess what, it's because evolution is completely illogical. And there's no way around this.

The only thing that makes sense is that someone designed it. Unless you're willing to go so far as to say space itself has evolved and can adapt, but that is so far fetched it's laughable. I'm sorry, but it is.

Answer 5

The Bible has been found to be one of the most accurate books ever? Where do you get your information? From some fundie website that uses the bible to support the bible? Puhhhhhleeese! The bible is a compilation of a lot of stories made up by goat herders. Some of the are pretty good but FACT? I hardly think so.

Answer 6

please prove to me that abraham lincoln didn't exist. others have claimed they could, but i have seen photos, and contemporary references to his existence. there is no contemporary reference to the life of jesus. given the things he supposedly did and the large crowds that supposedly followed him, and the quantity of material from that time and region, it is not likely the the person or events happened. somebody would have mentioned it.

there is, however, solid evidence for some of the events in the old testament. that is because the old testament is a tribal history. none of the supernatural events can be proven, as there is only evidence of places and major world figures. there is no credible evidence of the existence of the jewish, christian, or muslim god.

you don't need evidence if it is truly what you believe, so maybe it's time to reevaluate your beliefs.

Answer 7

Even with evidence some people will still question things. Like the Holocaust, and did we really go to the moon, and the list goes on

Answer 8

Here is a little help: Francis S. Collins is a Scientist who debated Richard Dawkins in Time Magazine. He was also an Athiest. He has a book called "The Language Of God."

And there is overwhelming evidence of Christ and his existance. But again, it's not so much Jesus that people refute, it's the STANDARDS that he taught.

Answer 9

>> Historians and archeologists have examined the Bible and they have found it to be one of the most accurate books ever <<

Well, I have math and science books that are 100% accurate. The Bible is not even close so it certainly is not one of "the most accurate books ever".

But you are missing the point of your own religion my friend. Religion is suppose to transform your mind/heart. It does this by methods often rightfully outside of science and history.

For example, it uses metaphor. You dream using metaphor. Poetry and art are metaphoric. These are often *more* powerful in transforming your mind than science, so why do you dumb down your own religion by trying to make it 'factual'?

Religion *should* incorporate science, art and philosophy in its methods to tranform your mind in a positive way. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Answer 10

this is so ridiculous. what archeologist has ever said it to be one of the most "accurate books" ever? fear and loathing in las vegas carried more truth than the bible. and comparing the jesus story to the chance abe lincoln never existed is so crazy that i'm hating myself for even responding to such rubbish.

Answer 11

Aren't Christianity and science mortal enemies?
)o( Blessed Be!