| Alistair 2008-01-29, 6:56 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 16:53, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> When the
> Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and the older manuscripts were compared
> with the best previously known manuscripts, they were in extremely
> close agreement. I believe what we have today is so close to the
> original documents that there are no significant issues of doctrine
> involved. How many people were killed when a particular wall fell is
> not going to endanger the doctrines of the Trinity or Original Sin or
When the wall of Jericho fell might imperil your faith. Where are
Sodom and Gomorrah? Fire and Brimstone would not destroy stone, brick
and mud walls. So where are they?
> Jesus Christ as the Son of God. :-)
>
> To my mind, one of the most convincing evidences for the authenticity
> and accuracy of the Bible is that the number of things in the Bible
> that are "challenged" by contemporary historical and archeological
> convention is ever decreasing, not increasing.
That is not my perception. Once upon a time (try the 1900s) all
christians believed in every word of the bible being truth. Now we
know that the bible is wrong about so many things. The only way you
can justify your statement is if you start with a plateau of disbelief
and then corroborate the odd statement or word.
> If the Bible was merely
> a human creation, there would be many inevitable flaws in such a large
> book, and over time more and more of them would be revealed. What we
> actually see is the reverse. Over time the Bible has been verified as
> correct again and again by subsequent historical and geographical
> discoveries.
Not much of the bible has been verified.
> My favorite is Sargon II, which I've listed here before.
> The only known reference to him was in Isaiah 20:1, and many bible
> critics cited that as a Bible error, until Circa 1930, when they dug
> up his palace and 100,000 volume library, in which was found an
> account of the very event mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. Just because our
> very limited secular knowledge does not always support the Bible,
> does not mean the Bible is wrong. :-)
What about the chronologies of the pharoahs (names are wrong) and the
genealogies mentioned in this thread that differ from the texts that
you would say corroborate the bible?
>
> The Bible is far more than simply a bunch of words, even divinely
> inspired words. The Bible is the written Word of God, and it is alive
> and powerful (Hebrews 4:12). After all, God spoke the universe into
> existence. :-)
The Koran is thought, by some, to be the word of god as spoken through
Mohammed even though it says, at one point, that Mohammed lied by
speaking the words of Satan. Now what proof have you that the bible is
the true word of god but that the Koran is not?
|