The Bible is historical and scientific

[Pico]

Originally Posted by didymus

Stands up historically, literally and scientifically... In what sense?

I'm glad you asked.

Historically: The Bible has been proven to be 99.8% historicaly accurate. Archaeologist have dug up numerous cities mentioned in the Bible previously thought to be mere myths, and were in the exact loacation stated in the Bible. Many other cities (such as Sodom and Gomorah) that were destroyed, and have shown to been destroyed around the same time and time-frame as stated in the Bible. Also, Luke (who wrote the book of Luke, and Acts in teh New Testament) has been praised to be the greatest historian of all time by somone who set out to disprove the Bible. Time and time again, the Bibles account of historic events have been confirmed.

Literarily: The Bible is one of the few, if not the only, religious book that isn't constrained to a "holy language" needed to understand it. Jesus was a freakin' genius in how he taught in parables. In that way of teaching, anyone can understand the message, which can be translated into many languages, and the stories are relevant even to people reading about them 2000 years later. For a God who wants all humanity to be with him, the fact that the Bible is so vaersital makes complete sence to me.

Scientifically: For starters, the Bible is the first book to state the world being round: in the book of Job, it refers to the "circle of the earth," also it says that God "hangs the earth on nothing." When viewed from outer space, the earth, in fact, appears as if it's "hanging on nothing" like the Bible states.
Although evolution is primarily taught around the world and in schools (especialy here in the U.S.), they only metion the data that's relevant to evolution, and omit any evidence to the contratry. But the more scientists look at life, the more and more it shows that evolution just doesn't happen. Evolution is a belief about the past; it's not a theory because a theory is something you can test multiple times using the scientific method. But when the observations of life today show that no new information in the DNA is ever created, like evolution requires, and even the simple functions of cells become increasingly more complex the deeper scientists look at them. Sicentists are often baffled at how dinosaur bones are found with flesh and other systems still intact. How could cells survive over 65 million years? Well, they refuse to accept the possability that maybe it's not 65 million years old after all.

There is also evidecne to support the global flood of Noah in the Bible: such as the fact that at a certain depth of sediment layers there is life, then no life at all for some layers above it. If the layers had been layed down over millions of years, plants should have grown on those layers, but if they were layed down rapidly (as if a flood stirred them up and let them settle under water) then obviously there wouldn't be any plants inbetwen the layers. Not to mention, the "bent" sediment layers found. If the sediments were set over millions of years they would be flat, and any change in the terrain would cause them to break and snap. So they must have been wet when set down in order for them to dry bent like they are with no breaking, as if under the water of a huge flood.

I do not wish to go into more detail about how the book of Genesis is backed up scientificaly, but if anyone is intrested I would suggest checking out www.answersingenesis.org -A ministry run by many highly quailfied scientists dedicated to providing scentific evidence for the creation story written in Genesis.

[Postmaster]

As a Christian from birth and a practising one.... I have to tell you that Historically the bible is not very accurate in fact some information seems to be down right wrong in a cynical way. Misleading on purpose.

[Sarah_mye]

The evidence Pico gives is pretty sound. Considering we werent around at the creation of the universe, we'll never know for sure what actually happened!
Also take into account that many scientists are discarding Darwins theory of evolution, because it doesnt match up with the new evidence they are discovering!
If we should all believe what science states as fact . . .

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

As a Christian from birth and a practising one.... I have to tell you that Historically the bible is not very accurate in fact some information seems to be down right wrong in a cynical way. Misleading on purpose.

The "misleading on purpose" phrase caught my attention.

Are you willing to expand on that? Are you saying that there are parts written in "code", so to speak, or something else?

[Postmaster]

No not code! Some obvious things like at the birth of Christ king Harold ordered the killing of the new born babies at the time, that is false! The census that accrued at the birth of Christ, it never happened. There is more sound historical documents that show these did not happen and other obvious inconsistencies within the bible itself. But saying that it doesn't really matter because they are not important, whats important is fudamental message.

[didymus]

Originally Posted by Pico

I'm glad you asked.

Historically: The Bible has been proven to be 99.8% historicaly accurate. Archaeologist have dug up numerous cities mentioned in the Bible previously thought to be mere myths, and were in the exact loacation stated in the Bible. Many other cities (such as Sodom and Gomorah) that were destroyed, and have shown to been destroyed around the same time and time-frame as stated in the Bible. Also, Luke (who wrote the book of Luke, and Acts in teh New Testament) has been praised to be the greatest historian of all time by somone who set out to disprove the Bible. Time and time again, the Bibles account of historic events have been confirmed.

Literarily: The Bible is one of the few, if not the only, religious book that isn't constrained to a "holy language" needed to understand it. Jesus was a freakin' genius in how he taught in parables. In that way of teaching, anyone can understand the message, which can be translated into many languages, and the stories are relevant even to people reading about them 2000 years later. For a God who wants all humanity to be with him, the fact that the Bible is so vaersital makes complete sence to me.

Scientifically: For starters, the Bible is the first book to state the world being round: in the book of Job, it refers to the "circle of the earth," also it says that God "hangs the earth on nothing." When viewed from outer space, the earth, in fact, appears as if it's "hanging on nothing" like the Bible states.
Although evolution is primarily taught around the world and in schools (especialy here in the U.S.), they only metion the data that's relevant to evolution, and omit any evidence to the contratry. But the more scientists look at life, the more and more it shows that evolution just doesn't happen. Evolution is a belief about the past; it's not a theory because a theory is something you can test multiple times using the scientific method. But when the observations of life today show that no new information in the DNA is ever created, like evolution requires, and even the simple functions of cells become increasingly more complex the deeper scientists look at them. Sicentists are often baffled at how dinosaur bones are found with flesh and other systems still intact. How could cells survive over 65 million years? Well, they refuse to accept the possability that maybe it's not 65 million years old after all.

There is also evidecne to support the global flood of Noah in the Bible: such as the fact that at a certain depth of sediment layers there is life, then no life at all for some layers above it. If the layers had been layed down over millions of years, plants should have grown on those layers, but if they were layed down rapidly (as if a flood stirred them up and let them settle under water) then obviously there wouldn't be any plants inbetwen the layers. Not to mention, the "bent" sediment layers found. If the sediments were set over millions of years they would be flat, and any change in the terrain would cause them to break and snap. So they must have been wet when set down in order for them to dry bent like they are with no breaking, as if under the water of a huge flood.

I do not wish to go into more detail about how the book of Genesis is backed up scientificaly, but if anyone is intrested I would suggest checking out www.answersingenesis.org -A ministry run by many highly quailfied scientists dedicated to providing scentific evidence for the creation story written in Genesis.

Pico, I can't argue that many sites have been unearthed and proven to be accurate as far as the Bible describes them. Of this there is no doubt. I was referring more to the christian doctrine put forth and allegations of what Jesus said and what he actually meant. There are alot of inconsistancies in the Bible that people choose to ignore because it threatens the doctrine that they hold sacred. The Bible was written over a 70 -80 year period largely by people who didn't know Jesus. If one takes Jesus' words aside from narratives and interpretations his words speak for themselves. He was teaching people to have a personal relationship with God. I for one believe that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. I believe that he was a man filled with the spirit of God and pure love and compassion. But there is very little evidence of his life apart from the Bible. I think the only literary source out there besides the Bible is a writing by Josephus. This is scant evidence at best. Personaly I feel that additional writings about him were suppressed and destroyed because they would have further revealed his humanity.

[Postmaster]

Well done, read that mans work... He also wanted the Romans out at the time, and claimed to be a prophet too. However Josephus didn't mention the mass killing of new born babies... He'd had loved to have mentioned that because he didn’t like Harold a foreign ruler of the Jews, he became a Jewish Roman historian. Long story but read about him.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Historically: The Bible has been proven to be 99.8% historicaly accurate.

Am I allowed to disagree with this? If so I would simply ask how objective the source is. My understanding is that the consensus of objective biblical scholorship is that the historicity of the Bible is ultimately unverifiable.

Chris

[Postmaster]

I think Pico should have done as I have in the past, opened a post saying how Mystical Christianity is. It's a very mystical religion.. Saints from the Greek orthodoxy and the Catholic faith have don some pretty amazing things if you were to believe them. All we have is people trying to explain Christianity in one book, it is the best source we have. It is mystical because you can't explain it, that is why it doesn't matter if the bible is correct. However there is fundamental truths which are significant in the bible and of course the biggest relgion in the world.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by didymus

Pico, I can't argue that many sites have been unearthed and proven to be accurate as far as the Bible describes them. Of this there is no doubt. I was referring more to the christian doctrine put forth and allegations of what Jesus said and what he actually meant. There are alot of inconsistancies in the Bible that people choose to ignore because it threatens the doctrine that they hold sacred.

Inconsistant how? I've read over the New Testament, but it doesn't seem very inconsistant to me. I know it's quite different than the Old Testament, but that's because Jesus came to fullfill the law, and since his death whiped clean man's sin, there obviously would be some changes in the law.

Originally Posted by didymus

The Bible was written over a 70 -80 year period largely by people who didn't know Jesus.

Actualy, it was a period of 5-80 (maybe 70) years after Jesus' death are when the manuscripts date back to being written

Also, it was written by people who did know him. John, James, and Peter were his diciples (I think the book of Matthew was written by his diciple too, but it could be a different Matthew), and they consisted of Jesus' "inner circle" of diciples who he told and shared great secrets to. In short they knew him the best. Not only that, but they (every one of his diciples except for John, the one "who Jesus Loved") willingly gave up their lives for Jesus rather than denouch his name, so they must've known something pretty heavy in order to do that.

Although Paul (who wrote many of the letters of the New Testament) didn't know Jesus personaly, he saw him in a vision which completely changed his life (he used to persecute christians with a vengence), and he also knew many of the diciples who did know Jesus personaly.

Originally Posted by didymus

If one takes Jesus' words aside from narratives and interpretations his words speak for themselves. He was teaching people to have a personal relationship with God.

Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and also claimed that he was God, himself.

Originally Posted by didymus

I for one believe that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. I believe that he was a man filled with the spirit of God and pure love and compassion.

Yeah, and all that he did fullfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament about the massiah who would "bear the sins of many" (as said in Isaiah 53)

Originally Posted by didymus

But there is very little evidence of his life apart from the Bible. I think the only literary source out there besides the Bible is a writing by Josephus. This is scant evidence at best. Personaly I feel that additional writings about him were suppressed and destroyed because they would have further revealed his humanity.

Jesus was human, yes. As for literary sources outside the Bible, I'm not sure, but I do know that there are some 30,000 historic sources about Jesus. With outside sources about the ressurection too.

[Quahom1]

I have no intention of detracting from the original thought that started this thread. That said, I wish to point out how the Bible can be considered not quite as accurate as some claim, and why people may question this.

We know that the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation are not authored by the same "John". Yet for ever we have been taught that, or assumed that. Second, there is strong evidence that points out to the possibility that the Gospel of John was not "written" by John at all! Who wrote it then? Consider Jesus' beloved one. The one who is named only once as such. Then consider the "first person" perspective of the author who wrote the Gospel according to John...

First person perspective, implies direct observation of things, situations, events, and people.

John, was a fisherman, and spoke Aramaic, yet his Gospel and other works were written in Greek. The Gospel of John is alleged to be written circa 70 AD. Yet John died (also alleged) in 68 AD and was buried outside of Ephesus. This would have made John both literate in Greek as well as over 100 years old when he died. The average life span of people of the time was 38 to 45 years of age.

John was not present during several "signficant" events during Jesus's walk on earth, yet the description of those events are from a first person perspective (eye witness description).

So who was the possible author of the Gospel of John...?

Evidence points strongly to the one who understood unequivicably the resurrection of Jesus, because he too had been ressurected...Lazarus.

It is also known that Lazarus came from a well to do family and was well educated in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Why use John's name instead of his own? Simple. After his ressurection, Lazarus was an instant celebrity. All the beautiful people of the time wanted to be associated with him. But Lazarus knew his fame must not override the importance of Jesus (he was very wise), and understood the shallowness of people's minds. He wanted the message of Jesus to be accepted on its own merit, and not on Lazarus' famous name, as author.

So, if this is correct, then the story though true is penned by an author who hid his true identity. That in and of itself is an inaccuracy. Yes I realise it is small and insignificant, but none the less, the John we think that wrote the Gospel most likely did not write it at all. Or at best, the Gospel of John was written by another as dictated by John (however John did not directly observe the the empty tomb on Sunday/Monday morning...only four followers and several Roman guards were present. John is not mentioned as being one of them...

If the beloved disciple who raced to the tomb first, observed the wrapped linen on the floor and refused to enter that place, had been John, this would not have been what happened. He would have continued into the tomb to search for the body (as Peter did without hesitation, because he didn't understand). Instead the beloved disciple knew exactly what happened, because it had happened to him as well. And the author of the Gospel of John makes that quite clear.

The first to believe on the risen Christ was not an apostle, but the beloved disciple...hence "John's" intimate description of the event, and an uncanny intimacy pertaining to the details of that event.

Speculation? Of course. However, it bears the merit of consideration.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[rasifnajeeb]

Bible and scientific? I quite do not agree to that...

Book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it.

Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxin.


Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days.



Historic?

We don't have to dig up History books or archealogical sites to find this. Bible itself gives two versions on one historic event. Both cannot be true.

It is mentioned in the 2nd Kings, Ch. No 24, Verse No 8, that…‘Jehoiachin was 18 years old, when he began to reign Jerusalem, and he reigned for 3 months and 10 days. 2nd Chronicles, Ch. No 36, Verse No 9, says that…‘Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign and he reigned for 3 months.

8 or 18???

[I, Brian]

Again, please I shouldn't have to point out that this discussion is in the Christianity section for the Christians and interested non-Christians to discuss.

This is not a thread for attempting a critical objective evaluation of the Bible - rather, a faith based one, specifically from a Christian perspective.

[rasifnajeeb]

Ok! Sorry!!!

As a non-Christian, I am amazed at how people are so enamoured by the Bible in spite of lot of shortcomings....

I shall start a separate thread on crictical evaluation of Bible....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by rasifnajeeb

Bible and scientific? I quite do not agree to that...

Book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it.

Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxin.

The blood of an animal (the white corpuscles) attract spores of mold and mildew. The oils of bird feathers cause material to stick to what ever it touches and prevents evaporation immediately, of water. The wood is Cedar wood, the oils and acids of which kill spores and coat with a resistent anti fungal anti spore surfactant. The hyssop also destroyed fungus that caused ailments to the resperatory system. The oils are used today for such medicinal purposes. The water is a medium by which to create a solution of disinfectant, the kind which will enter even into porous material, seek out and destroy the mold and mildew, which would otherwise cause asthma, bronchitous, lung lining ruptures, and rot of the skin, to stop (otherwise known as leperosy of the time in question).

Washing the house seven times was a measure to destroy any premature spores that might have survived AND, causing the material of the house to be treated against further infestation of mold and mildew.

In this case, the inaccuracy is the fact that the ingredients and instructions are not given in today's scientific terms...none the less, the astringent and disinfectant was very potent, and extremely accurate for fighting such infestation.

Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days.

I'll have to check with the particulars of child birth with my OBGYN cousin to see if there is a medical reason for such consideration of not becoming intimate with a woman so many days after child birth...(the unclean part is so that the husband will not lay with his wife until after the set time). I do know today, that the doctors instruct couples to refrain from sex for at least 30 days to promote proper healing of the woman's body... and to allow the woman's horomonal system to come back into balance...

Historic?

We don't have to dig up History books or archealogical sites to find this. Bible itself gives two versions on one historic event. Both cannot be true.

It is mentioned in the 2nd Kings, Ch. No 24, Verse No 8, that…‘Jehoiachin was 18 years old, when he began to reign Jerusalem, and he reigned for 3 months and 10 days. 2nd Chronicles, Ch. No 36, Verse No 9, says that…‘Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign and he reigned for 3 months.

8 or 18???

again, I don't know the particulars about this, I'll have to research. However you see, that the first two you present have valid points as to why they should be implemented as they are presented as instructions for us. They just didn't go into explanitory details as to why they should be implemented.

my thoughts

v/r

Q