No, American kids aren’t being taught creation in school. I was just taught both sides and was given the freedom to make the choices on my own. Many people simply see how ludicrous it is to say all this happened by chance, the universe is eternal, and that life sprang from nowhere.

“The later ones would have required the authors to survive to an extremely improbable age, particularly for common people…”

The Book of Revelation, written by John, is dated as the last written book of the Bible, about 95 AD. Either John lived an extraordinary length of time, or he was simply a young teen about 30 something AD when he became a disciple. Since a twelve year old was considered an adult in that culture, that’s not a stretch at all.

“Textual criticism also reveals that some books might have more than one author, and that some parts are probably unauthentic.”

Much of this “textual criticism” about more than one author is simly speculation. However, books like Psalms, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles probably did have more than one author. Other books like Peter’s works (Mark [John Mark being a protoge' of Peter], and 1,2 Peter) were more than likely written with an amanuenses, or one of his “disciples”, especially since we don’t even know if Peter could read or not. Why do things like these make the Bible un-authentic?

“Ron Wyatt has no credibility for good reasons (even frauds like AiG concede to this)…”

I won’t argue Wyatt’s credibility, because I can definitely see and concede your point. However, Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba does exist, and after doing some research, your claim that those “chariot wheels” are from a steam ship needs some evidence. From what I understand, coral can’t grow on gold and there is one picture of a “chariot” wheel that has no coral on it, which makes me wonder what steam ships are doing with gold. While I’m not saying it’s so, I’m saying the evidence seems legit.

As far as his evidence on Noah’s Ark, the Turkish government seems pretty convinced since they opened a visitor’s center at “Noah’s Ark National Park, at the site attesting to the site’s authenticity. Intersting…

“And speaking of Bible, it doesn’t really claim that it is the “word of God” either. There are some rather weak references to this, for example, in 2 Timothy, but 2 Timothy’s authenticity is disputed anyway.”

This really shows you’ve never read the Bible, just “studied” it from an outside perspective. Many times in the Old Testament it says, “the word of the Lord came unto..” and then the person proceeds to say what the Lord tells him to say. Also, you forgot one verse on prophesy from 2 Peter 1:21, “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
To say the Bible never claims to be written by God is just hilarious.

“You have no evidence of the Ten Plagues or Exodus, no evidence of early 1st century Nazareth…”

I’ve already mentioned the plagues and the Exodus, but are you really surprised there’s no evidence of 1st cnetury Nazareth? I spent seven years in a town of 250 people (probably a similar size to Nazareth). If someone asked 2,000 years from now for evidence that this town existed at this precise time would any expect any evidence? Why? Every large city the Bible says exists is there, and the more they dig, the more evidence they find that confirms the Bible’s accuracy. You’d think if the Bible was all messed up, the more they find, the more they would disprove it, not the other way around.

“…no contemporary evidence of Jesus and so on.”
Again, you don’t count the Gospels, since they were written as “memoirs” later in the disciple’s lives.

“…but then there are also things like the saints raising from graves en masse that would certainly have caused an uproar and leave at least some records.”

Perhaps it did, but obviously the records have been lost. I’m sure there is a lot of things written in the Library of Alexandria that we’d like to know about too, but just because we don’t have more than one record doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You have to remember too that those who rejecting Jesus, because they wanted a political messiah, were actively trying to destroy anything Christian. Rome also tried to destroy anything Christian as well, so it’s a miracle in and of itself that the Bible survived, let alone writings from early church fathers.

Again, I will say that the Bible is historically accurate. I went to the link on wikipedia (a great source for getting truth by the way) and saw these arguments against the Bible. Again 9 out of 10 of them took the Bible out of context to find a problem with it. For instance, taking New Testament passages that said we are no longer under the law and that all is now clean, and quoting an Old Testament law that says what is clean and what is not, then saying the Bible is inconsistent.

There were, however, several good arguments that people have wrestled over. Though I have taken the apologist’s view point and have chosen to trust the Bible as true based on the facts, not just belief, I do understand why others may not choose to. If someone demonized my wife the way that article demonized the Bible I would never have gotten married!

Eltower, “OK, lowerleavell: There are countless holy book apart from the Bible which make far more accurate prophecies about the world they were created in.”

That’s one difference between Christianity and Atheism, as C.S. Lewis states. Christianity can see the truths that are found in all religions and still be true, whereas Atheists must disprove every single religion in order to be true. It would only take on god (among the zillions “invented” by man) for your theory to be incorrect. I simply happen to have put my trust that that the one true “God” is the God of the Bible.

“At any rate, that a book claims to be infallible is only reason not to take it seriously. You’re trying to adapt reality to conform to your views.”

Not at all. The views I take are a result of studying reality. It is possible to study the supposed discrepencies and “errors” in the Bible and still come out putting your trust in the Bible because once you are intellectually honest, you’ll notice that 9/10 of the arguments against the Bible are flimsy at best. Like, a loving God wouldn’t have caused the flood, therefore there must be no God.
That’s like me saying the Queen Elizabeth I believe in would have never allowed Charles and Diana to divorce, therefore Queen Elizabeth does not exist! Do you see how silly this logic is? Yet I don’t know how many people I know who have become either atheist or agnostic simply because they can’t understand why God allows suffering, etc. God existence and His character are two totally different subjects.

“Two different NT Gospels have the ancestry of Joseph from David with completely different generations in between. In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin birth, then Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and Jesus could not have been the Messiah.”

You’ll notice that in both Gospels Joseph has two different dads. I could see if they got their history wrong then they would get maybe the “judges” era wrong, but Joseph’s dad?! You’d think someone at that time would have remembered. As you know, most apologists beleive that Luke was talking about Joseph’s father-in-law, and so Luke is a geneology of Mary, not Joseph. If not, you’d think they’d at least got the dad right, and I would soundly say the Bible is inacurate if they couldn’t even get that one fact straight.

“That you take one holy book over another is merely a product of chance that you were born where you are.” Not necessarily. Tell that to the countless converts in China, Vietnam, and other Asian countries. To them it is much more than chance that they have accepted the Gospel, it is providential. Perhaps because I’m an American and have many influences in my life that have discussed Christianity with me it made it easier, but I know many, even pastor’s kids, who are not believers. Where you’re born doesn’t decide what you put your trust in.

“P.S. Quick thought: If God is omnipotent, why did he have to order the Pharaoh to ‘let his people go’? Couldn’t he have done it himself?”

Again, God’s mercy on Pharoah and Egypt is clearly shown by Him giving Pharoah a chance to obey and trust in the Lord.

Manly Tears:
“I think they (dinos) would be noteworthy enough to be at least mentioned in the written culture.”

Wow, this is not an informed statement! Have you ever heard of the countless dragon tales? Have you ever heard of sea monsters? Have you ever heard of Loch Ness? Have you ever heard of Behemoth and Leviathan? Sure, they didn’t have the term “Dinosaur”, but there are countless stories and legends of dinosaurs living with man, as recently as the 20th century. I’m nor saying all of the culture stories are correct, just don’t tell me there is nothing “in the written culture.”

“Either the dinosaurs outgrew the boat fast, or they were incapable of surviving.”

That is an asumption that dinosaurs grew quickly. We don’t know their growth rate, we just have their bones. Sure, some of them grew to large sizes, but many they find are about the size of a cow (these just aren’t as popular to look at). Lizards continue to grow until they die, so perhaps dinosaurs were in the reptilian family and lived to a long, healthy age, which made them very large indeed.

“Being an European, your ignorance is astonishing. I wonder how can you finish school in the States and know so little about geography and biology.”

So it’s because I’m an American? That’s funny. I’m sorry if we’re not all as “englightened” over here as over there. Please don’t let this be a debate over how much “better” European education is than the States, because besides getting one currency, Europe hasn’t done much but make the world go through two world wars in the past century. Thanks guys, but if that’s enlightenment, I’ll pass.

“Needing chocolate is an urgent version of wanting it, not “totally different”. Any dictionary will support this.”

So? Again, semantics. You find the usage of “need” to fit your agenda and say that God “needs” His creation, but have changed the definition of “need” to one of it’s less primary definitions. God doesn’t “need” us in the same sense that we “need” air. He simply has a great desire and love for us, and if that’s a “need” then sure, God needs us.

I’ll have to write more later.

I didn’t say that. I’m just saying that whatever you call me or think of me does not make my statements untrue. You must examine evidence, not just the source.

It evades the burden of argument. Quite handy, actually.

I am glad too that we’ve resorted to calling me names too. Not that it offends or surprises me, it just usually means the other side of the aisle is running low on arguments and is getting frustrated.

Yeah, because the other alternative, that you actually deserve it, is impossible, right?

Time Dude, I don’t have much of it. For that reason I’ll go back to the other thread and write before returning to this one.

I am glad too that we’ve resorted to calling me names too. Not that it offends or surprises me, it just usually means the other side of the aisle is running low on arguments and is getting frustrated.

If God is omnipotent, why did he have to order the Pharaoh to ‘let his people go’? Couldn’t he have done it himself?

He actually did the opposite, he “hardened his heart”. It’s mentioned several times, including when he sends his army after Moses.

lowerleavell, by the way, there are more things that you were wrong about, but I can’t be bothered to keep writing.