Re: Genesis 1:1-3

Home Forums Re: Genesis 1:1-3

r m

The Bibliographic tests the documents historical accuracy by considering how many different copies of the text exist and how much time has elapsed between the original and the oldest copy they have acquired. In short, the Bible passed the Bibliographic test as the most accurate text when compared with all other ancient texts! (William Green, Josh McDowell and Jay Wile)

How many copies of the text only proves how many copies of it there are; the elapsed time between the oldest and the newest only proves the time span. Neither of these things prove any validity whatsoever! The sources do explain the silliness of the assumption though!

The Internal test determines if the document contradicts itself, for instance, they may look at eyewitness accounts, contradictions amongst the writers, etc. Contrary to popular belief as most atheists/agnostics would have us believe, the Bible does not contain the contradictions once supposed. Having determined accurate translation by Hebrew and Greek scholars, the supposed contradictions no longer posed a “problem.” In short, the Bible passed the test as well as all other ancient documents!

We shall see. If your only response to contradictions is that I need to look in a different translation, then you have not resolved anything. So far, that is how you have responded to one of the contradictions regarding where fowls came from. Don’t worry, I have hundreds more!

Lastly, the External tests whether or not the document contradicts any external sources of historical fact. Archaeology has never been able to prove the Bible inaccurate, in fact, recent archaeological findings have proven the Bible 100% accurate including many of the “miracles!” Again, the Bible passed the test better than any other document of ancient history!

Where is this proof of miracles? What are your sources for ‘recent archaeological findings’? Please don’t make me run through the difference between a historical accuracy and a religious ‘truth’ and why a historical accuracy doesn’t imply a religious ‘truth’ again. Ever heard the term ‘historical fiction’?

Does this prove the Bible is inspired? Not necessarily, however, it sure is accurate and a MORE reliable source than any other ancient text in the history of man!

In terms of what? If you mean accurate and more reliable in terms of the Christian worldview, then yes you would be correct. Anything past that, however, would be incorrect.

screen tagSupport1