Please give supporting evidence showing why we can trust it....like fulfilled prophecy ect.
1-888-888-1906
|
|
About •
Track Order •
Outreach •
Wholesale •
Employment •
How We Give •
Customer Service
• FAQ • Locations • Corporate • Need Jesus? • Affiliates • Blog
• FAQ • Locations • Corporate • Need Jesus? • Affiliates • Blog
C2:8 Christian T-shirts, Inc ©2013 -
-
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
76 replies on this topic
Alpha - 12/22/09 @ 5:42 PM
Cant think of any reason to trust it. :) However there are many reasons not to.
Feng - 12/22/09 @ 6:34 PM
Okay, well there actually are several reasons as to why and how we can trust and believe the Bible. One reason is that scientists have found artifacts (such as the arc of Noah) and actually observed them and found that they had dated back to the time of which was stated in the Bible. Really though, I think that theyre trying to mock us because they have also proven that God supposedly "doesnt" exist, not only that, but that we had came from evolution. Another reason is that also there was a test that was proven that people havent tampered with the Bible by scientists, they compared a Bible from way back then to a Bible today in our time period and they had found that the only difference with the two Bibles were that the words were so you could say "modernized". I could probably go on and on but Id rather not, I had that same question when I was discussing different religions with my dad. I hope that this helped at least a little bit.
-Feng (aka Naomi, Marina, etc.)
Alpha - 12/22/09 @ 7:03 PM
"One reason is that scientists have found artifacts (such as the arc of Noah) and actually observed them and found that they had dated back to the time of which was stated in the Bible."
-I have no idea where you got that idea. The arc has never been found and especially not by scientists, which means no such tests revealing age could have happened.
And a correct reference to history does not prove the literal validity to the entire book. Merely the specific historical claim that is proven.
"Really though, I think that theyre trying to mock us because they have also proven that God supposedly "doesnt" exist"
-Any scientist who says their is proof of that is not being objective, or scientific. As the purpose of science is NOT to prove or disprove the supernatural, but to observe and explain the natural.
"Another reason is that also there was a test that was proven that people havent tampered with the Bible by scientists, they compared a Bible from way back then to a Bible today in our time period and they had found that the only difference with the two Bibles were that the words were so you could say "modernized"."
-It was not a Bible from way back then. It was several copies of scrolls(much in fragments.)
And they found many differences. Especially in books such as Exodus and Samuel; and they never even found fragments of the book of Ester.
Crazy Rocker Barbie - 12/22/09 @ 8:44 PM
historians evaluate the textual reliability of an ancient literature according to two standards: what the time interval is between the original and the earliest copy; and how many manuscripts are available. some examples:
homers illiad was written 800 b.c. the earliest copy: 400 b.c. thats a time gap of 400 years and there were 643 copies. the time gap between when platos writing were written and the earliest copies is 1,300 years and there were 7 copies.
the new testament was written 50-100 a.d. there were copies from 130 a.d. to 500 a.d. that means that the time gap between when it was written and the first copy is only 50 years and there were over 24,600 copies!
a routine criterion in examining the reliability of a historical document is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the document itself. in all of history, the Bible is by far the most widely referenced and quoted book. consider the following facts:
the new testament alone is so extensively quoted in the ancient manuscripts of nonbiblical authors that5 all twenty-seven books from matthew through revelation could be reconstructed virtually word for word from those sources.
the writings of early christians like eusebius (a.d. 339) in his ecclesiastical history 111.39 and irenaeus (a.d. 180) in his against heresies 111 reinforce the text of the apostle johns writings.
clement of rome (a.d. 95), ignatius (a.d. 70-110), polycarp (a.d. 70-156), and titian(a.d. 170) offer external confirmation of other new testament accounts.
non-christian historians such as the first-century roman historian tacitus (a.d. 55-117)and the jewish historian josephus (a.d. 37-100) confirm the substance of some scriptural accounts.
over and over again throughout the centuries, archaeological discoveries have discovered have confirmed once-doubted parts of the biblical accounts such as:
the confirmation that writing existed long before the time of moses,
the existence of king david,
the existence of king belshazzar,
the existence of pontius pilate and caiaphas, who are figured in the gospel accounts pf Jesus trial and crucifixtion,
the existence of lysanias the tetrarch during the time of Jesus,
and many many more.
and that isnt even close to the most convincing evidence ive seen! unfortunately i dont have those sources in front of me right now and its a little late for me to go around looking for it or asking people. i can do that tomorrow. : )
God bless! <3
Alpha - 12/22/09 @ 9:18 PM
For once I cannot argue. :)
However, historical accuracy does not prove spiritual truth(which seems - to me - to be what the OP is looking for.
Andrew - 12/23/09 @ 12:44 PM
actually it says that we evolved from dinosaurs saying dinosaurs went extinct they do not use that as a scientific fact in schools anymore to help prove evolution and i do not blindly follow anyone but it says have faith like a child to go back to sunday school yes i do follow that but now that i am older I specificlly need to know that it is truth and what is not. other wise right here and right now i would not be aruging for the reason that if i was lead blindly i would be beliveing everything the school system told me would i not? natural section (evolution) remember that shirt on c28? Darwins eyes? Darwin said himself it would be easier to kill God than for an eye to come about by natural selection. look around and tell me that came by chance? i cant remember the exact statistic but scientists agree that any closer or farther from the sun and it would be to cold for living or to hot for living creatures. and look at how many times eveolution can be proven wrong yet they just discard that fact and say that it is totally false when they themselfs proved it. and yes my mother did tell me that santa claus was real but does that mean we should be lied to by the highly trained minds that have taken oaths? they are supposed to be the ones that know everything right so when they post false information what does that tell you? You keep taking our quotes and turning it on turn you own quotes its just about as easy
Andrew - 12/23/09 @ 1:03 PM
I never knew how much i like arguing points before its quite fun lol hope your not mad at me alpha but i really like descussing the points its entertaining
jay.me - 12/22/09 @ 10:43 PM
Hi Feng,Alpha and Crazy Rocker Barbie,
Thats great information Crazy Rocker Barbie.
Exactly what we would expect from a book by God.
Feng mentioned scientific proof..
Alpha said "As the purpose of science is NOT to prove or disprove the supernatural, but to observe and explain the natural."
Like the scientist Louis Pasteur?
"Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life."
And he proved ...life comes only from life.
"He was truly a scientist who sought to understand the truth of God’s living creation."
Quotes are from an interesting article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/louis-pasteurs-views
............................................................
Here are a couple of scientific reasons to trust the Bible:
*Some cultures used to believe that the earth was held up by 4 elephants on top of a giant turtle, or it was floating in an ocean ect.
*Science now has powerful telescopes that can prove that the earth is suspended in space(on nothing).
*3500 years ago, the Bible accurately stated the earth is hanging upon nothing (Job 26:7) “He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing."
............................................................
*Not too long ago there were no practices in place to combat against the spread of germs because no one knew about them.
*Most people today would not dispute the scientific discovery that diseases are spread by micro-organisms.(*see more below)
*In about 1500 B.C.E. the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of sick people, handling of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.
Long before science knew about germs and the need for washing.
.............................................................
*"The years between 1879 and 1900 are frequently referred to as the "germ revolution". This is the point in history when medical science began to advance to the point where doctors began to discover the role of germs in illness and disease, and they began to fully comprehend the modes of disease transmission.
When people could not see something, touch it, taste it, smell it, etc. they assumed that it did not exist. Prior to the use of microscopes, germs and microorganisms remained unknown to the public and scientists. In fact, it was commonly believed by scientists that diseases were spontaneously generated from non-living things.
The discovery of the germ theory and of microorganisms has been hailed as the most important discovery in medicine, and possibly the...
MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY FOR MANKIND AS A WHOLE.(my caps)
Many scientists are cited with discovering various parts of the germ theory. Ignaz Semmelweis in the 1840s found that hand washing helped to prevent the spread of childbirth fever and...
hand washing slowly became a standard practice for healthcare workers prior to examining patients,
medical gloves had not yet been considered as an alternative. By far though, the most notable scientist is Louis Pasteur in the 1860s. With his discovery of the fermentation process he was able to completely disprove the idea of spontaneous generation of diseases."
from:
http://thephantomwriters.com/free_content/db/a/germ-theory-and-your-health.shtml
Alpha - 12/22/09 @ 11:34 PM
"spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life."
-Wrong. :)
Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origins of life, merely the diversity we see in it.
jay.me - 12/23/09 @ 8:33 AM
Hi Alpha,
"Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origins of life, merely the diversity we see in it."
Maybe it knows better than to try..look at its record in merely trying to explain the diversity:
No scientific, provable evidence supporting the THEORY of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.
Since there are no transitional fossil records,
evolution is no longer presented as a phylogenetic tree, but a cladogram chart.
Scientists no longer illustrate gradual change as an evolutionary mechanism.
Isnt that a rejection of Darwin’s theory of natural selection?
Meanwhile, the evidence fully supports what God said in the Bible.
Alpha - 12/23/09 @ 11:54 AM
Try understanding the things you talk about next time. Might keep you from looking so foolish. :)
"No scientific, provable evidence supporting the THEORY of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859."
-So wrong in so many ways. There has been very much advancement in many fields that provide evidence for evolution. For example transitional fossils have been uncovered and speciation has been observed.
And to your not-so-subtle connotation that a theory is not a valid scientific proposition.
I hope you realize that gravity is only a theory. As is the atomic model, and electromagnetism, just to name a few. Much of the scientific understanding of our world is based on theories.
"Since there are no transitional fossil records,"
-Try telling a Paleontologist that, and hed laugh in your face.
A link to a very detailed example of how wrong you are: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
"Scientists no longer illustrate gradual change as an evolutionary mechanism."
-I dont think you know what a scientist is.
Roughly 99% of all accredited scientists support evolution(which is by its DEFINITION gradual change.)
"Meanwhile, the evidence fully supports what God said in the Bible."
-Not your interpretation of it.
Andrew - 12/23/09 @ 12:16 PM
yes true evidence has been submitted helping the "evolution THEORY" but do you know why they dont use dinosaures in schools to prove evolution anymore? becasue a human secleton was found under neath a dinosuars secleton and the human bones date back before the dinosaur bones... not to mention the fact that "Scientist" posted falsefied results about global warming it was all a fraud. oh by the way those scientist also believe in evolution. ya ganna believe someone who posts false results or something that when proven wrong is for some stupid reason and really is falseified to? i chose the truth but thats me you have your life and i have mine but it is our responsibility as christians to spread that truth
Alpha - 12/23/09 @ 12:26 PM
" but do you know why they dont use dinosaures in schools to prove evolution anymore?"
-They still do. Along with much more evidence.
"becasue a human secleton was found under neath a dinosuars secleton and the human bones date back before the dinosaur bones."
-That is 100% irrelevant to evolution, and there are many ways to explain such findings.
"not to mention the fact that "Scientist" posted falsefied results about global warming it was all a fraud. oh by the way those scientist also believe in evolution"
-Global warming was never proven to be a fraud.
And again, that has nothing to do with actual proof for evolution.
Im sure your mother lied to you about Santa, and you later found out. Does that mean that everything she said and knew is false? Of course not! Dont be absurd.
" i chose the truth but thats me you have your life and i have mine but it is our responsibility as christians to spread that truth"
-Your idiotic assumptions and asinine reasoning show that you have no understanding or desire to know -let alone spread- the truth. You just hold on to what you are taught in Sunday School, blindly trusting that what you are told is right.
That is certainly not the way to determine truth.
Alpha - 12/23/09 @ 1:16 PM
"actually it says that we evolved from dinosaurs"
-The scientific definition of evolution never stated that. Perhaps you should understand what evolution truly is, before you disbelieve it.
"they do not use that as a scientific fact in schools anymore to help prove evolution"
-They never did, at least, not in the form that you seem to be implying. lol Evolution is proven much easier by life that is currently observable, along with observations of the fossil record.
"i do not blindly follow anyone but it says have faith like a child"
-Thats the same thing.
And youre not going to find much truth in sunday school.
"Darwin said himself it would be easier to kill God than for an eye to come about by natural selection."
-No Darwin said that it is surprising that something so complex could be the result of natural selection.
And there is no relevance either way. What Darwin said, or did not say has no merit to the concept of evolution.
"look around and tell me that came by chance?"
-Biochemistry is not chance.
"i cant remember the exact statistic but scientists agree that any closer or farther from the sun and it would be to cold for living or to hot for living creatures."
-Imagine that! The creatures that evolved on this planet are well suited to live on it? Id never have figured!
"they are supposed to be the ones that know everything right so when they post false information what does that tell you?"
-They didnt post false information. The information was meant to be read by scientists who understand the finer points of Climatology. But when read by people who are not familiar with in such areas, there seems to be inconsistencies.
"You keep taking our quotes and turning it on turn you own quotes its just about as easy "
-That made no sense.
Andrew - 12/23/09 @ 1:36 PM
my school seemed to have taught that we evolved from diniosaurs and they are still trying to push it in biology
I also said now that i am older i have to find and make sure it is true so i have faith like a child but i am now also accountable for my actions
Darwin was a christian did you know that? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
of course he did more than likely die a non believer
but look at all the holes in evolution. girrafe wood pecker humming bird you telling me they evolved from something else?
not likely
biochemistry is not chance but how did it come to be? something would have had to be living in the first place would it not have had to?
yes well suited but by chance we came? the likliness for that to happen is a 1 in a billon chance i saw a documentry once and it said that it would be like trying to win a slots machine over 100 billon times in a row with out losing one
but the scientists backed up Global warming did they not they did not say "your reading it wrong"
and i cant argue the last one it did not make much sense
dancer4jesus - 12/23/09 @ 1:52 PM
I just gotta say this quote from Louis Pasture: "A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him."
In Bible times, people didnt know much about the earth. They thought that it ws the sun that moved around the earth. Yet over 4,000 the earth was compared to clay rotating around on a potters wheel, just like it actually does.
And I love this quote by G. K. Chesterson: "The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
Ill be back with more facts after I get back from lunch. Meanwhile I reccomend you check out the facts in the Evidence Bible complied by Ray Comfort
Alpha - 12/23/09 @ 2:00 PM
Then your school is stupid. :)
"Darwin was a christian did you know that?"
-Of course. He studied to become a theologian.
"but look at all the holes in evolution. girrafe wood pecker humming bird you telling me they evolved from something else?
not likely"
-Very much likely. Your problem is that you do not understand evolution. It does not take a definable creature and change it into another definable creature in an observable period of time. Evolution takes millenia, and involves the accumulation of very subtle changes.
Also, many anti-evolutionists seem to think that evolution is a bird becoming a frog or something similar. What they dont realize is that before the creature evolved, there was no set standard of defining a frog. What would be observed(if someone were alive long enough) is the very slow change of a species to something with different characteristics. And those later characteristics being defined as something other than the original species.
"biochemistry is not chance but how did it come to be? something would have had to be living in the first place would it not have had to?"
-That is called abiogenesis, which is entirely separate from evolution. And is possible.
"yes well suited but by chance we came? the likliness for that to happen is a 1 in a billon chance i saw a documentry once and it said that it would be like trying to win a slots machine over 100 billon times in a row with out losing one"
-Did you not understand what I said?
Life coming into existence on Earth would HAVE to conform to the necessities of living here, or else it would not be able to come into existence(and later thrive.)
"but the scientists backed up Global warming did they not they did not say "your reading it wrong" "
-Or you werent listening.
jay.me - 12/23/09 @ 5:09 PM
dancer4jesus, great quotes.
heres another,Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer said,
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
Like Andrew said, the odds of life happening by chance are not at all likely.
(more support of the Bible)
............................................................
Alpha said "-That is called abiogenesis, which is entirely separate from evolution. And is possible."
To any reasonable person,(and many scientists) the improbabilities are too great and the chances of life coming from non life are too small.
Chemical evolution says(in various ways) life on Earth has arisen from inanimate matter.
Amino acids: The building blocks of life. Happened by chance in primordial soup...
............................................................
Fred Hoyle said
"The big problem in Biology isnt so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but the ordering of amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties...
if amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell.
When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, its easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes.
This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be?"
.........................................................
Alpha said "Life coming into existence on Earth would HAVE to conform to the necessities of living here, or else it would not be able to come into existence(and later thrive.)"
And with that reasoning we would find all kinds of life on other planets...which we havent.
..........................................................
Alpha: "There has been very much advancement in many fields that provide evidence for evolution. For example transitional fossils have been uncovered and speciation has been observed."
That sounds very vague to me.
............................................................
Alpha: "Since there are no transitional fossil records,"
-Try telling a Paleontologist that, and hed laugh in your face."
Ok? Your point? :/
............................................................
Alpha: "A link to a very detailed example of how wrong you are: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm"
Looked at it, didnt see those examples, just a bunch of excuses like:
"Due to the vagaries of fossilization, it is not expected that we will ever find animals which are on the direct line between the two groups, and if we do find an animal on the direct line, it is not clear that we would recognize it as such."
..............................................................
Alpha: "Try understanding the things you talk about next time. Might keep you from looking so foolish. :)"
I may not be a smart person ...but thats ok, the wisdom of the world isnt going to save me.
1 Cor.1:18-20
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written,“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
Alpha - 12/23/09 @ 6:49 PM
"Like Andrew said, the odds of life happening by chance are not at all likely.
(more support of the Bible) "
-Argument from incredulity, and in no way does it prove the Bible.
"To any reasonable person,(and many scientists) the improbabilities are too great and the chances of life coming from non life are too small."
-Argumentum ad populum. And an incorrect one at that. Most scientists do credit abiogenesis to be true in one form or another.
"Chemical evolution says(in various ways) life on Earth has arisen from inanimate matter.
Amino acids: The building blocks of life. Happened by chance in primordial soup... "
-As I have said, Biochemistry is certainly not chance. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. Amino acids have been known to form in space.
To the Fred Hoyle quote.
-Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
"And with that reasoning we would find all kinds of life on other planets...which we havent."
-You are taking the anthropic principle out of context. He was exclaiming that life here conforms to conditions here, which would be expected if we evolved here.
"That sounds very vague to me."
-To keep the post reasonable I will only provide a few examples.
Speciation:
A new species of mosquito, isolated in Londons Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Stickers sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
Transitional Fossils:
A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
Happy?
"Ok? Your point? :/"
-That his presumption is utterly ridiculous.
"Looked at it, didnt see those examples, just a bunch of excuses like:
"Due to the vagaries of fossilization, it is not expected that we will ever find animals which are on the direct line between the two groups, and if we do find an animal on the direct line, it is not clear that we would recognize it as such." "
-The quote is saying that if you expect to fish a dog-fish, you arent going to find it. But many species show similarities to others and the fossil record shows the gradual accumulation/loss of these characteristics.
"I may not be a smart person"
-Then you should prolly stop telling them that theyre wrong. :)
dancer4jesus - 12/24/09 @ 8:39 AM
Hey guys! Im back!
So heres some stuff from the Evidence Bible by Ray Comfort:
In Bible times, they didnt know about atoms, yet Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Around 1500 B.C., it was thought that the earth sat upon a large animal or giant (wierd, I know). In Job 26:7 it says, "He...hangs the earth upon nothing."
And the whole flat earth thing. Columbus wasnt the first to prove it wrong. Isaiah 40:22 "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truthes to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the begining [time] God created [power] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter],...And the spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls the universe.
And before doctors knew about disease, they bled people to make them better. In fact this made them worse. In Leveticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, says "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
There was a time in the 1840s that as many as 30 percent of women who gave birth in hospitals would die soon afther giving birth. A young doctor named Ignatz Semmelweis saw that doctors would examine patients who had died and then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward to examine expetant mothers. Whe Semmelweis ordered them to wash their hands in running water, the death rate immediately dropped. Leveticus 15:13 gives instruction for when the people encountered disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number himself seven days for his cleasning, wash his clothes, bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean."
Luke 17:34-36 says that the Second Comming of Christ will occur when some are asleep at night and some are working at daytime activities in the fields. This is clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
Thats all Ive got for now, but I want to leave you guys with this quote from Hank Hanegraaff: "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into some dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence."