Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

Answer: I cannot speak for a single scientist, much less every scientist, or any scientist, in the year 2023.

I cannot speak for any person but myself.

Pew does alot of polls about various issues, perhaps they have a poll about it.

You should ask scientists your question.

Are you a scientist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

As an aside: what does “good faith” mean?

What do you mean when you use that term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

Answer: I cannot speak for a single scientist, much less every scientist, or any scientist, in the year 2023.

I cannot speak for any person but myself.

Pew does alot of polls about various issues, perhaps they have a poll about it.

You should ask scientists your question.

Are you a scientist?

We do know what Frances Collins, a religious scientist who gets copy-and-pasted on this forum frequently, said:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”


A little dated, but here is what Pew reported:


And, interestingly, very few scientists are evangelicals. Probably because they have a more difficult time compartmentalizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

As an aside: what does “good faith” mean?

What do you mean when you use that term?

Good faith comments = sincere and honest

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good%20faith

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

Answer: I cannot speak for a single scientist, much less every scientist, or any scientist, in the year 2023.

I cannot speak for any person but myself.

Pew does alot of polls about various issues, perhaps they have a poll about it.

You should ask scientists your question.

Are you a scientist?

We do know what Frances Collins, a religious scientist who gets copy-and-pasted on this forum frequently, said:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”


A little dated, but here is what Pew reported:


And, interestingly, very few scientists are evangelicals. Probably because they have a more difficult time compartmentalizing.

I guess copy and pasting Pew is the good copying and pasting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

A different question for you since the last was too difficult:

Is every single word in the Bible 100% true and historically accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a scientist believes that a religious explanation supersedes a scientific explanation of events then that's bad science, not based on data.

If a scientist compartmentalizes and uses religion to fill the gaps in our scientific understanding then that's not bad science. Just a person who is uncomfortable with uncertainty and needs “answers” to the unknown.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

Who are you, and who is “Collins?” Why should anyone listen to either of you?

Collins was one of the scientists on the PP’s list. I’m an intelligent person with strong STEM background and critical thinking skills who enjoys discussing various topics.

Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What is your STEM background? Are you actively working as a scientist?

Multiple degrees in STEM. Not actively working as a scientist.

You missed my question:
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

What degrees in STEM? Did you ever do research? Are you published? Did you teach?

I have been answering your questions in good faith. You continue to ignore mine.

Is my question too difficult for you?
Do you think a scientist in 2023 would accept a religious explanation for a natural phenomenon when a scientific explanation already exists?

Answer: I cannot speak for a single scientist, much less every scientist, or any scientist, in the year 2023.

I cannot speak for any person but myself.

Pew does alot of polls about various issues, perhaps they have a poll about it.

You should ask scientists your question.

Are you a scientist?

We do know what Frances Collins, a religious scientist who gets copy-and-pasted on this forum frequently, said:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”


A little dated, but here is what Pew reported:


And, interestingly, very few scientists are evangelicals. Probably because they have a more difficult time compartmentalizing.

I guess copy and pasting Pew is the good copying and pasting?

It is when it’s actually responding to a question posed.

The more you know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

A different question for you since the last was too difficult:

Is every single word in the Bible 100% true and historically accurate?

According to Biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix, the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rate in terms of accuracy -- a better accuracy rate than any other well-known book.

When compared to other works of antiquity, the Bible has multitudes of manuscripts. The amount of manuscripts is important since individual manuscripts can be checked with the rest of the manuscripts for variants. Here is a breakdown of the amount of New Testament copies in comparison to other amount of copies of other ancient works:

Over 20,000 New Testament manuscripts exist 3 .
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome . There is only one manuscript of his first six books and another manuscript for books eleven to sixteen (the other books are lost) 4 .
Josephus's work, The Jewish War has 9 Greek manuscripts, a Latin translation, and other Russian translations 5 .
The runner-up to the New Testament in terms of manuscript amount is Homer's Iliad . There are less than 650 Greek manuscripts 6 .
Evincing the superiority of the New Testament text over other ancient works in terms of the number of available manuscripts, the comparison above reveals that the existing texts of the New Testament can be verified with multitudes of other copies and therefore can be trusted to be an accurate representation of the original texts.

The duration between the time that the work was first written and the conception time of the earliest existing copy is also important. If the duration is long, errors can propogate into the text. Here is a comparison of the duration times of the New Testament and other ancient works:

Scholars like Biblical archaeologist William Albright estimate the entirety of the New Testament to have been originally composed between 40 and 80 A.D. 7 . While the Codex Sinaiticus , a complete Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament in uncial (capital) letters, was written in A.D. 350, other existing fragments have been dated earlier. For instance, a small fragment of the gospel of John was dated to be from A.D. 100-150. Other fragments of the New Testament in papyrus have also been found and have been dated to be from the second and third centuries A.D. 8 .
Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome , which was initially written in A.D. 116, exists in only two manuscripts, one copied in about 850 A.D. and the other in the eleventh century 9 .
The existing copies of Josephus's The Jewish War (originally composed in the first-century A.D.) were written from the fourth century to the twelfth century 10 .
Homer's Iliad , which was initially composed around 800 B.C., has existing copies which were written starting from the second century A.D. 11
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.

https://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm

How Accurate Is the Bible?

(a more scholarly approach, a longer read)

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Historical Proof of the Bible
by Jim Franks

Roman and Jewish historians were no fans of Christianity, but they give historical proof of the Bible, including the life of Jesus Christ.

Being able to confirm more than 100 biblical characters in secular history is impressive and provides a remarkable proof for the validity of Scripture.
The New Testament has its own list of historical characters, such as:

“Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip, Annas and Caiaphas are all mentioned in Luke 3:1-2 in connection with the beginning of John the Baptist’s preaching, which introduced Jesus Christ. Tiberius is found on numerous Roman coins and lived from 42 B.C. to A.D. 37. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip, the tetrarch of Iturea, are mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century.

There is a stone inscription dedicated to Pontius Pilate that reads: “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea.” In archaeology it is called the Pilate Stone, and it is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Annas and Caiphas are both mentioned by Josephus as being among the Jewish high priests of the first century.“

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/is-the-bible-true/proof-3-history/

Is the Bible true?

Why should “doubt” in the truth of the Bible be surprising when we live in a world of skepticism?

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/is-bible-true

The Old Testament Matches up with Known History
The claim that God has acted in history is backed up by the evidence. The archaeologist John Elder, who spent over thirty years working in the Middle East, offers a fitting summary of the issue of the Old Testament’s historical reliability. He wrote:

It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists... The over-all result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to the newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history. (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, Bobbs-Merrill, Co. 1960, p. 18)

1. The Old Testament Is Familiar with Local Laws
There are a number of biblical episodes that show intimate understanding of local laws at the time. For example, when Sarah the wife of Abraham was childless, she suggested that Abraham take Hagar his handmaiden as a secondary wife and raise up an heir through her. This fits well with the practice at that time as recorded in the Eshnunna law code ? a law code that dates about 1900 B.C.

The Nuzi tablets, 20,000 clay tablets that were discovered 150 miles north of Baghdad; also confirm such customs as to the role of secondary wives and their rights of inheritance. Therefore, the episode of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar fits the local laws of the time.

2. Local Customs Are Correctly Recorded
We find that the customs recorded in Scripture fit the time frame in which the stories were said to have occurred.

From the Nuzi tablets we also find that one brother sold his birthright for three sheep—similar to Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of soup. This confirms that the practice was legally binding at that time in history. It also tells us that the price paid for the birthright did not have to be of equal value.

In another example, we find that the Bible states the patriarch Joseph was sold for twenty shekels of silver. We read in Genesis:

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28)
Although the price paid for Joseph is an incidental detail, it proves to be an exact representation of what slaves were being sold for in that day. Joseph lived in the eighteenth century B.C. Before that time the price of slaves was cheaper—ten to fifteen shekels. As time went by, the price of a slave increased. The price of twenty pieces of silver fits into the period when the Bible says that Joseph lived.

After that time, the price of a slave further increased. Thus the recording of Joseph being sold for twenty pieces of silver fits only a limited historical period; the same one in which the Scripture says the story took place. It seems clear that the writer of this account had access to accurate historical information.

3. The Geographical References Are Minutely Accurate
There are a number of specific geographical references in Scripture. As we examine the evidence, we find that they match up to the geography of that day. For example, the biblical account of the life of Abraham documents a number of cities that he visited. The location of almost every one of these cities is now known. All of those that have been positively identified were important caravan centers during the time the Bible says that Abraham lived.

However, in later times, not all of these cities were important centers. This is another indication that the travels of Abraham fit exactly into what is known of that particular historical period, but would not fit with a later period.

In another illustration, we find that the Scripture is very specific as to the route that the nation of Israel took from Egypt on its way to the Promised Land. For example, in Numbers 33, there is a detailed description of where the Israelites camped on their way to Jericho. It says:

They left Iye Abarim and camped at Dibon Gad. They left Dibon Gad and camped at Almon Diblathaim. They left Almon Diblathaim and camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo. They left the mountains of Abarim and camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. There on the plains of Moab they camped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim. On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses. (Numbers 33:45-50)
Notice the detail. We are told specifically where the nation camped on their way to Jericho. This route was once considered to be unhistorical. Yet the discovery of three ancient Egyptian maps, dating from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth century B.C., shows that this was the same route that was taken in those days. The cities mentioned in Numbers were also mentioned in the Egyptian maps. It was a heavily traveled road in those days. Again, the historical details of the Scripture prove to be true.

4. The Correct Titles Were Used to Describe People
In every nation, the titles given to people are different. In addition, these titles can actually change throughout history. In the Old Testament, we find a number of different people to whom specific titles are given. When compared with the known evidence, we find that the biblical writers used the exact title for the people in the time period when the narrative took place.

For example, in the story of Joseph, there are a number of titles that are mentioned. We are told that Joseph was put in prison with the “chief” or “royal” baker:

Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. (Genesis 40:1-2)
While this was once considered to be an incorrect reference, an ancient Egyptian picture recorded acknowledgment of wheat by the royal baker of the Temple of Amun. Thus, the title “royal baker” or “chief baker” was accurately used. This gives credence to the story as literally occurring instead of being some type of parable or myth.

5. The List of Pagan Kings Is Amazingly Accurate
The Bible lists a number of kings who ruled countries other than Israel. Although they were not the main characters in the story, they are always recorded in an accurate manner. Indeed, the writers of Scripture placed these kings in the exact chronological order in which they ruled. This is in contrast to some of the historians from these same countries who did not have the correct chronology.

This has been documented in the work of the great Old Testament scholar Robert Dick Wilson. In examining the Old Testament Scripture, Wilson noted that there are twenty-six pagan kings of various nations that are mentioned. The names of these rulers are also found on the monuments of these kings as well as in documents of their own times. Wilson found that all of these names of the pagan kings are spelled correctly in the Hebrew text. In contrast to the accuracy of the Bible, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers are frequently garbled. Indeed, there are times when it is hard to identify the person.

An example of this is Ptolemy; an ancient writer who drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings. However, on his list, none of the names of these eighteen kings is spelled correctly.

On the other hand, the biblical writers were always precise in the spelling of the names of their enemies. So we ask the question, “If the Old Testament writers took this much concern to spell the names of the pagan kings correctly, how much more effort would they have given to spell the names of their own people correctly as well as to accurately record the events connected with their rule?” The answer seems obvious. This is a further testimony of the basic reliability of the Old Testament.

6. The Existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount
Today, in our world there is a growing problem of denying the Jews their ancient heritage with respect to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It is claimed that there has never been a Jewish Temple in the city of Jerusalem. While this is a relatively recent development, it is gaining more and more adherents; particularly in the Islamic world. Muslims fear that the Jews are working toward building another Temple in Jerusalem and thus will regain their control over the Temple Mount. Thus, they continue to deny that the Jews ever had a visible presence on the Mount.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/10-reasons/reason4-the-bibles-historical-precision.cfm

There are lots of reasons to believe the Bible is true/accurate/historically correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

A different question for you since the last was too difficult:

Is every single word in the Bible 100% true and historically accurate?

According to Biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix, the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rate in terms of accuracy -- a better accuracy rate than any other well-known book.

When compared to other works of antiquity, the Bible has multitudes of manuscripts. The amount of manuscripts is important since individual manuscripts can be checked with the rest of the manuscripts for variants. Here is a breakdown of the amount of New Testament copies in comparison to other amount of copies of other ancient works:

Over 20,000 New Testament manuscripts exist 3 .
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome . There is only one manuscript of his first six books and another manuscript for books eleven to sixteen (the other books are lost) 4 .
Josephus's work, The Jewish War has 9 Greek manuscripts, a Latin translation, and other Russian translations 5 .
The runner-up to the New Testament in terms of manuscript amount is Homer's Iliad . There are less than 650 Greek manuscripts 6 .
Evincing the superiority of the New Testament text over other ancient works in terms of the number of available manuscripts, the comparison above reveals that the existing texts of the New Testament can be verified with multitudes of other copies and therefore can be trusted to be an accurate representation of the original texts.

The duration between the time that the work was first written and the conception time of the earliest existing copy is also important. If the duration is long, errors can propogate into the text. Here is a comparison of the duration times of the New Testament and other ancient works:

Scholars like Biblical archaeologist William Albright estimate the entirety of the New Testament to have been originally composed between 40 and 80 A.D. 7 . While the Codex Sinaiticus , a complete Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament in uncial (capital) letters, was written in A.D. 350, other existing fragments have been dated earlier. For instance, a small fragment of the gospel of John was dated to be from A.D. 100-150. Other fragments of the New Testament in papyrus have also been found and have been dated to be from the second and third centuries A.D. 8 .
Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome , which was initially written in A.D. 116, exists in only two manuscripts, one copied in about 850 A.D. and the other in the eleventh century 9 .
The existing copies of Josephus's The Jewish War (originally composed in the first-century A.D.) were written from the fourth century to the twelfth century 10 .
Homer's Iliad , which was initially composed around 800 B.C., has existing copies which were written starting from the second century A.D. 11
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.

https://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm

How Accurate Is the Bible?

(a more scholarly approach, a longer read)

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Historical Proof of the Bible
by Jim Franks

Roman and Jewish historians were no fans of Christianity, but they give historical proof of the Bible, including the life of Jesus Christ.

Being able to confirm more than 100 biblical characters in secular history is impressive and provides a remarkable proof for the validity of Scripture.
The New Testament has its own list of historical characters, such as:

“Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip, Annas and Caiaphas are all mentioned in Luke 3:1-2 in connection with the beginning of John the Baptist’s preaching, which introduced Jesus Christ. Tiberius is found on numerous Roman coins and lived from 42 B.C. to A.D. 37. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip, the tetrarch of Iturea, are mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century.

There is a stone inscription dedicated to Pontius Pilate that reads: “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea.” In archaeology it is called the Pilate Stone, and it is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Annas and Caiphas are both mentioned by Josephus as being among the Jewish high priests of the first century.“

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/is-the-bible-true/proof-3-history/

Is the Bible true?

Why should “doubt” in the truth of the Bible be surprising when we live in a world of skepticism?

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/is-bible-true

The Old Testament Matches up with Known History
The claim that God has acted in history is backed up by the evidence. The archaeologist John Elder, who spent over thirty years working in the Middle East, offers a fitting summary of the issue of the Old Testament’s historical reliability. He wrote:

It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists... The over-all result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to the newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history. (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, Bobbs-Merrill, Co. 1960, p. 18)

1. The Old Testament Is Familiar with Local Laws
There are a number of biblical episodes that show intimate understanding of local laws at the time. For example, when Sarah the wife of Abraham was childless, she suggested that Abraham take Hagar his handmaiden as a secondary wife and raise up an heir through her. This fits well with the practice at that time as recorded in the Eshnunna law code ? a law code that dates about 1900 B.C.

The Nuzi tablets, 20,000 clay tablets that were discovered 150 miles north of Baghdad; also confirm such customs as to the role of secondary wives and their rights of inheritance. Therefore, the episode of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar fits the local laws of the time.

2. Local Customs Are Correctly Recorded
We find that the customs recorded in Scripture fit the time frame in which the stories were said to have occurred.

From the Nuzi tablets we also find that one brother sold his birthright for three sheep—similar to Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of soup. This confirms that the practice was legally binding at that time in history. It also tells us that the price paid for the birthright did not have to be of equal value.

In another example, we find that the Bible states the patriarch Joseph was sold for twenty shekels of silver. We read in Genesis:

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28)
Although the price paid for Joseph is an incidental detail, it proves to be an exact representation of what slaves were being sold for in that day. Joseph lived in the eighteenth century B.C. Before that time the price of slaves was cheaper—ten to fifteen shekels. As time went by, the price of a slave increased. The price of twenty pieces of silver fits into the period when the Bible says that Joseph lived.

After that time, the price of a slave further increased. Thus the recording of Joseph being sold for twenty pieces of silver fits only a limited historical period; the same one in which the Scripture says the story took place. It seems clear that the writer of this account had access to accurate historical information.

3. The Geographical References Are Minutely Accurate
There are a number of specific geographical references in Scripture. As we examine the evidence, we find that they match up to the geography of that day. For example, the biblical account of the life of Abraham documents a number of cities that he visited. The location of almost every one of these cities is now known. All of those that have been positively identified were important caravan centers during the time the Bible says that Abraham lived.

However, in later times, not all of these cities were important centers. This is another indication that the travels of Abraham fit exactly into what is known of that particular historical period, but would not fit with a later period.

In another illustration, we find that the Scripture is very specific as to the route that the nation of Israel took from Egypt on its way to the Promised Land. For example, in Numbers 33, there is a detailed description of where the Israelites camped on their way to Jericho. It says:

They left Iye Abarim and camped at Dibon Gad. They left Dibon Gad and camped at Almon Diblathaim. They left Almon Diblathaim and camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo. They left the mountains of Abarim and camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. There on the plains of Moab they camped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim. On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses. (Numbers 33:45-50)
Notice the detail. We are told specifically where the nation camped on their way to Jericho. This route was once considered to be unhistorical. Yet the discovery of three ancient Egyptian maps, dating from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth century B.C., shows that this was the same route that was taken in those days. The cities mentioned in Numbers were also mentioned in the Egyptian maps. It was a heavily traveled road in those days. Again, the historical details of the Scripture prove to be true.

4. The Correct Titles Were Used to Describe People
In every nation, the titles given to people are different. In addition, these titles can actually change throughout history. In the Old Testament, we find a number of different people to whom specific titles are given. When compared with the known evidence, we find that the biblical writers used the exact title for the people in the time period when the narrative took place.

For example, in the story of Joseph, there are a number of titles that are mentioned. We are told that Joseph was put in prison with the “chief” or “royal” baker:

Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. (Genesis 40:1-2)
While this was once considered to be an incorrect reference, an ancient Egyptian picture recorded acknowledgment of wheat by the royal baker of the Temple of Amun. Thus, the title “royal baker” or “chief baker” was accurately used. This gives credence to the story as literally occurring instead of being some type of parable or myth.

5. The List of Pagan Kings Is Amazingly Accurate
The Bible lists a number of kings who ruled countries other than Israel. Although they were not the main characters in the story, they are always recorded in an accurate manner. Indeed, the writers of Scripture placed these kings in the exact chronological order in which they ruled. This is in contrast to some of the historians from these same countries who did not have the correct chronology.

This has been documented in the work of the great Old Testament scholar Robert Dick Wilson. In examining the Old Testament Scripture, Wilson noted that there are twenty-six pagan kings of various nations that are mentioned. The names of these rulers are also found on the monuments of these kings as well as in documents of their own times. Wilson found that all of these names of the pagan kings are spelled correctly in the Hebrew text. In contrast to the accuracy of the Bible, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers are frequently garbled. Indeed, there are times when it is hard to identify the person.

An example of this is Ptolemy; an ancient writer who drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings. However, on his list, none of the names of these eighteen kings is spelled correctly.

On the other hand, the biblical writers were always precise in the spelling of the names of their enemies. So we ask the question, “If the Old Testament writers took this much concern to spell the names of the pagan kings correctly, how much more effort would they have given to spell the names of their own people correctly as well as to accurately record the events connected with their rule?” The answer seems obvious. This is a further testimony of the basic reliability of the Old Testament.

6. The Existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount
Today, in our world there is a growing problem of denying the Jews their ancient heritage with respect to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It is claimed that there has never been a Jewish Temple in the city of Jerusalem. While this is a relatively recent development, it is gaining more and more adherents; particularly in the Islamic world. Muslims fear that the Jews are working toward building another Temple in Jerusalem and thus will regain their control over the Temple Mount. Thus, they continue to deny that the Jews ever had a visible presence on the Mount.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/10-reasons/reason4-the-bibles-historical-precision.cfm

There are lots of reasons to believe the Bible is true/accurate/historically correct.

Nice cut and paste job. However, even religious people who follow the Bible don't care if it's historically correct, and many realize that it isn't. Faith is required to believe in religion.

[Anonymous]

Nice cut and paste job. However, even religious people who follow the Bible don't care if it's historically correct, and many realize that it isn't. Faith is required to believe in religion.

Which is weird because some are draw “scientific” conclusions without science. They just have “faith” in science? Even if it doesn’t actually “prove” anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

A different question for you since the last was too difficult:

Is every single word in the Bible 100% true and historically accurate?

According to Biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix, the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rate in terms of accuracy -- a better accuracy rate than any other well-known book.

When compared to other works of antiquity, the Bible has multitudes of manuscripts. The amount of manuscripts is important since individual manuscripts can be checked with the rest of the manuscripts for variants. Here is a breakdown of the amount of New Testament copies in comparison to other amount of copies of other ancient works:

Over 20,000 New Testament manuscripts exist 3 .
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome . There is only one manuscript of his first six books and another manuscript for books eleven to sixteen (the other books are lost) 4 .
Josephus's work, The Jewish War has 9 Greek manuscripts, a Latin translation, and other Russian translations 5 .
The runner-up to the New Testament in terms of manuscript amount is Homer's Iliad . There are less than 650 Greek manuscripts 6 .
Evincing the superiority of the New Testament text over other ancient works in terms of the number of available manuscripts, the comparison above reveals that the existing texts of the New Testament can be verified with multitudes of other copies and therefore can be trusted to be an accurate representation of the original texts.

The duration between the time that the work was first written and the conception time of the earliest existing copy is also important. If the duration is long, errors can propogate into the text. Here is a comparison of the duration times of the New Testament and other ancient works:

Scholars like Biblical archaeologist William Albright estimate the entirety of the New Testament to have been originally composed between 40 and 80 A.D. 7 . While the Codex Sinaiticus , a complete Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament in uncial (capital) letters, was written in A.D. 350, other existing fragments have been dated earlier. For instance, a small fragment of the gospel of John was dated to be from A.D. 100-150. Other fragments of the New Testament in papyrus have also been found and have been dated to be from the second and third centuries A.D. 8 .
Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome , which was initially written in A.D. 116, exists in only two manuscripts, one copied in about 850 A.D. and the other in the eleventh century 9 .
The existing copies of Josephus's The Jewish War (originally composed in the first-century A.D.) were written from the fourth century to the twelfth century 10 .
Homer's Iliad , which was initially composed around 800 B.C., has existing copies which were written starting from the second century A.D. 11
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.

https://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm

How Accurate Is the Bible?

(a more scholarly approach, a longer read)

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Historical Proof of the Bible
by Jim Franks

Roman and Jewish historians were no fans of Christianity, but they give historical proof of the Bible, including the life of Jesus Christ.

Being able to confirm more than 100 biblical characters in secular history is impressive and provides a remarkable proof for the validity of Scripture.
The New Testament has its own list of historical characters, such as:

“Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip, Annas and Caiaphas are all mentioned in Luke 3:1-2 in connection with the beginning of John the Baptist’s preaching, which introduced Jesus Christ. Tiberius is found on numerous Roman coins and lived from 42 B.C. to A.D. 37. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip, the tetrarch of Iturea, are mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century.

There is a stone inscription dedicated to Pontius Pilate that reads: “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea.” In archaeology it is called the Pilate Stone, and it is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Annas and Caiphas are both mentioned by Josephus as being among the Jewish high priests of the first century.“

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/is-the-bible-true/proof-3-history/

Is the Bible true?

Why should “doubt” in the truth of the Bible be surprising when we live in a world of skepticism?

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/is-bible-true

The Old Testament Matches up with Known History
The claim that God has acted in history is backed up by the evidence. The archaeologist John Elder, who spent over thirty years working in the Middle East, offers a fitting summary of the issue of the Old Testament’s historical reliability. He wrote:

It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists... The over-all result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to the newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history. (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, Bobbs-Merrill, Co. 1960, p. 18)

1. The Old Testament Is Familiar with Local Laws
There are a number of biblical episodes that show intimate understanding of local laws at the time. For example, when Sarah the wife of Abraham was childless, she suggested that Abraham take Hagar his handmaiden as a secondary wife and raise up an heir through her. This fits well with the practice at that time as recorded in the Eshnunna law code ? a law code that dates about 1900 B.C.

The Nuzi tablets, 20,000 clay tablets that were discovered 150 miles north of Baghdad; also confirm such customs as to the role of secondary wives and their rights of inheritance. Therefore, the episode of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar fits the local laws of the time.

2. Local Customs Are Correctly Recorded
We find that the customs recorded in Scripture fit the time frame in which the stories were said to have occurred.

From the Nuzi tablets we also find that one brother sold his birthright for three sheep—similar to Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of soup. This confirms that the practice was legally binding at that time in history. It also tells us that the price paid for the birthright did not have to be of equal value.

In another example, we find that the Bible states the patriarch Joseph was sold for twenty shekels of silver. We read in Genesis:

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28)
Although the price paid for Joseph is an incidental detail, it proves to be an exact representation of what slaves were being sold for in that day. Joseph lived in the eighteenth century B.C. Before that time the price of slaves was cheaper—ten to fifteen shekels. As time went by, the price of a slave increased. The price of twenty pieces of silver fits into the period when the Bible says that Joseph lived.

After that time, the price of a slave further increased. Thus the recording of Joseph being sold for twenty pieces of silver fits only a limited historical period; the same one in which the Scripture says the story took place. It seems clear that the writer of this account had access to accurate historical information.

3. The Geographical References Are Minutely Accurate
There are a number of specific geographical references in Scripture. As we examine the evidence, we find that they match up to the geography of that day. For example, the biblical account of the life of Abraham documents a number of cities that he visited. The location of almost every one of these cities is now known. All of those that have been positively identified were important caravan centers during the time the Bible says that Abraham lived.

However, in later times, not all of these cities were important centers. This is another indication that the travels of Abraham fit exactly into what is known of that particular historical period, but would not fit with a later period.

In another illustration, we find that the Scripture is very specific as to the route that the nation of Israel took from Egypt on its way to the Promised Land. For example, in Numbers 33, there is a detailed description of where the Israelites camped on their way to Jericho. It says:

They left Iye Abarim and camped at Dibon Gad. They left Dibon Gad and camped at Almon Diblathaim. They left Almon Diblathaim and camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo. They left the mountains of Abarim and camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. There on the plains of Moab they camped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim. On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses. (Numbers 33:45-50)
Notice the detail. We are told specifically where the nation camped on their way to Jericho. This route was once considered to be unhistorical. Yet the discovery of three ancient Egyptian maps, dating from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth century B.C., shows that this was the same route that was taken in those days. The cities mentioned in Numbers were also mentioned in the Egyptian maps. It was a heavily traveled road in those days. Again, the historical details of the Scripture prove to be true.

4. The Correct Titles Were Used to Describe People
In every nation, the titles given to people are different. In addition, these titles can actually change throughout history. In the Old Testament, we find a number of different people to whom specific titles are given. When compared with the known evidence, we find that the biblical writers used the exact title for the people in the time period when the narrative took place.

For example, in the story of Joseph, there are a number of titles that are mentioned. We are told that Joseph was put in prison with the “chief” or “royal” baker:

Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. (Genesis 40:1-2)
While this was once considered to be an incorrect reference, an ancient Egyptian picture recorded acknowledgment of wheat by the royal baker of the Temple of Amun. Thus, the title “royal baker” or “chief baker” was accurately used. This gives credence to the story as literally occurring instead of being some type of parable or myth.

5. The List of Pagan Kings Is Amazingly Accurate
The Bible lists a number of kings who ruled countries other than Israel. Although they were not the main characters in the story, they are always recorded in an accurate manner. Indeed, the writers of Scripture placed these kings in the exact chronological order in which they ruled. This is in contrast to some of the historians from these same countries who did not have the correct chronology.

This has been documented in the work of the great Old Testament scholar Robert Dick Wilson. In examining the Old Testament Scripture, Wilson noted that there are twenty-six pagan kings of various nations that are mentioned. The names of these rulers are also found on the monuments of these kings as well as in documents of their own times. Wilson found that all of these names of the pagan kings are spelled correctly in the Hebrew text. In contrast to the accuracy of the Bible, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers are frequently garbled. Indeed, there are times when it is hard to identify the person.

An example of this is Ptolemy; an ancient writer who drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings. However, on his list, none of the names of these eighteen kings is spelled correctly.

On the other hand, the biblical writers were always precise in the spelling of the names of their enemies. So we ask the question, “If the Old Testament writers took this much concern to spell the names of the pagan kings correctly, how much more effort would they have given to spell the names of their own people correctly as well as to accurately record the events connected with their rule?” The answer seems obvious. This is a further testimony of the basic reliability of the Old Testament.

6. The Existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount
Today, in our world there is a growing problem of denying the Jews their ancient heritage with respect to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It is claimed that there has never been a Jewish Temple in the city of Jerusalem. While this is a relatively recent development, it is gaining more and more adherents; particularly in the Islamic world. Muslims fear that the Jews are working toward building another Temple in Jerusalem and thus will regain their control over the Temple Mount. Thus, they continue to deny that the Jews ever had a visible presence on the Mount.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/10-reasons/reason4-the-bibles-historical-precision.cfm

There are lots of reasons to believe the Bible is true/accurate/historically correct.

Nice cut and paste job. However, even religious people who follow the Bible don't care if it's historically correct, and many realize that it isn't. Faith is required to believe in religion.

Are you religious?


Why are you speaking for all religious people?

You’re repeating the same phrases throughout the thread and speaking for religious people. Stop speaking for anyone but yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nice cut and paste job. However, even religious people who follow the Bible don't care if it's historically correct, and many realize that it isn't. Faith is required to believe in religion.

Which is weird because some are draw “scientific” conclusions without science. They just have “faith” in science? Even if it doesn’t actually “prove” anything.

From the evidence presented in this thread, the Bible seems to be historically accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “religion” and “mythology” refer to two completely different things.

Mythology is traditional stories associated with a particular culture that have been passed down from generation to generation and have profound cultural and/or religious significance to the members of that culture. Myths can sometimes be religious in nature, but they can also be important to other aspects of the culture.

Religion is complicated. The term “religion” generally encompasses some kind of worldview, which usually includes some sort of mythology, but also the attitudes, ritual practices, communal identity, and moral teachings associated with the worldview.

If you have ever been religious, then you probably already know that there is more to a religion than just a bunch of stories; a religion also involves an array of actions, practices, and attitudes.

So the Bible is a collection of Christian myths. Equivalent to the Greek myths we read about today.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-mythology.html

Oh dear, what a lot of wasted words. Not the PP, but I am the PP who explained that the word "myth" is used by scholars to indicate any sacred story that is believed to be true. By anyone. You are going in circles if you try to distinguish one religion's sacred stories from another religion's sacred stories based on which ones YOU believe to be true or important. That is not how anthropology works. Every sacred story falls into the same category of sacred story - if anyone believes it to be true, and it is a sacred story to those people, then it is called a "myth." You could call it something else, and probably they should, because that word means "false story" to most people who don't have PhD's in anthropology. But whatever you call it, all those stories are in the same category objectively. You cannot attempt to create a scholarly definition based on your own religious beliefs - it is the definition of bad scholarship.

The Edict of Milan was the Western world’s first known government document to proclaim the freedom of belief. At the time, Christianity probably made up 7 to 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. A mere hundred years later, half the empire’s 60 million inhabitants claimed allegiance to the Christian tradition.

How did Christianity triumph? Christianity was something new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. It was so concerned with questions of social welfare (healing the sick, caring for the poor) that it embedded them into its doctrines.

Christian believers go from roughly 1,000 in A.D. 60, to 40,000 in A.D. 150, to 2.5 million in A.D. 300.

There was no Christian secret police forcing pagans to convert: The empire was too large and diffusely governed to make such an effort feasible.

we do not see every religion grow, and I don't believe there has been much to parallel the growth of Christianity.

Everyone likes a good story. Look at how many millions of people have gotten sucked into the Q-anon theories.

Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Dr. Anon DCUM Poster has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be correct at any point.”

Known among followers and friends as Dr. Henry, Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth.

"It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group based in Kentucky.

After graduating in 1939, Morris served as a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939–1942).[1] He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946.

From 1946–1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948)and a PhD in hydraulic engineering (1950).

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957.

In 1959, Morris moved to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to serve as Professor of Civil Engineering in the area of hydraulics, and to serve as department chairman for civil engineering. There, Morris co-authored an advanced text on engineering hydraulics with J.M. Wiggert that was used in many universities, and under a decade of leadership the department became one of the country's largest civil engineering departments. While Morris' religious views and writings were controversial among university biology and geology faculty, and in the broader debate, it has been reported that Morris "kept his own counsel on [them], unless... pressed", such that his university engineering colleagues respected Morris as "a good administrator" and his religious views "because they never influenced his [administration]".

Again, people who believe that the earth is <10,000 years old shouldn’t be commenting on archeology.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

Really, anyone can comment on anything. At least this poster provided information about the education and professional qualifications of the commenter.

The people posting here don’t list their degrees, they don’t tell us their jobs, they don’t tell us the number of books they have written.

Someone called themselves “doctor anon dcum poster” and completely lied, and that’s considered bright and valuable debate, though.

Someone calling themselves an atheist but who doesn't list their degrees, tell us their job, or tell us the number of books they've written, expects to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, religious people expect to be taken seriously on the subject of religion because they believe in God.

No. Religious people gave actual evidence from archeologists and other scientists.

Evidence of what exactly?

Actual "scientists" don't believe in creationism.

Robert Boyle is known as the father of modern chemistry and considered to be the greatest physical scientist of his time. He discovered the scientific laws that show the relationship of gas pressure to temperature and volume. Boyle was a devoted student of the Bible and even sponsored a series of talks known as the “Boyle Lectures” which taught Christians about the facts for their faith.

Isaac Newton is undoubtedly known as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Although he is most famous for the discovery of gravity, he also formulated the three laws of universal motion and helped to develop the math known as calculus. His work laid the foundation for the great scientific law of energy conservation. Newton believed in the Creator and wrote papers defending creation and the Bible. He also believed that the world-wide flood, as described in Genesis, accounted for most of earth’s features.

In addition to his many accomplishments, Newton was also an astronomer, responsible for making the first reflecting telescope. Newton unmistakably witnessed the hand of God at work as he studied the movement of the planets. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Many people owe their lives to the work of physicist and chemist, Louis Pasteur, for identifying several harmful bacteria and creating vaccines to cure many diseases. Pasteur also challenged the notion of spontaneous generation – the idea that life can form from non-living objects. The ancient Greeks used to believe that mice could form from dirty rags, or that if you left out rotting meat, maggots would come to life. Although the maggot and mice theory was successfully challenged by Italian biologist, Francesco Redi in 1668, scientists continued to cling to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic creatures. In Pasture’s most famous experiment, he disproved spontaneous generation altogether. He did this by boiling broth to kill any microbes that might be living inside. He then placed the broth in a special glassware that allowed air to penetrate the broth while keeping the microbes out. As Pasteur expected, no microbes formed in the broth, proving that living microbes could only come from other microbes – that life only comes from life. Louis Pasteur firmly believed in creation and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation because it did not fit well with scientific evidence.

In Pasteur’s own words, “science brings men nearer to God.”


https://www.jonathanpark.com/blogs/journal/86986177-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-a-creator

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Is Christian philosophy good for science? In this series we showcase many examples, but the case could hardly be made stronger than to point to Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon.

Although not a practicing scientist, Bacon is considered by many historians to be the “founder of modern science.” His philosophy and writings were largely responsible for igniting the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Numerous intellectuals like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton seized on the “new philosophy” of Bacon that emphasized empiricism and induction. Casting aside dependence on authorities like Aristotle, the new science exploded on the scene, yielding a wealth of discoveries and inventions that has continued unabated to this day. But this “new philosophy” was really nothing new; it was a return to the principles of the Bible. The “founder of modern science” was a Bible-believing Christian, and Christian doctrine was the foundation of his thinking.

https://crev.info/scientists/sir-francis-bacon/

That didn’t answer the question.

Why should anyone answer any questions asked here- pp posted that Spider-man is equivalent to the Bible. It’s literally a joke of a forum.

Because this is a forum for discussion and people are discussing interesting topics. If the questions are too difficult for you to answer and if you are only capable of copy and pasting irrelevant info then maybe this isn’t the thread for you. No one is forcing you to troll here.

With no due respect, comparing Spiderman comics to the Bible is utterly laughable.

Copying and pasting relevant examples from science, research, and history, is not trolling.

I’m sorry these topics are difficult for you discuss.

Did you understand the PP’s point that just because there may be some true “facts” in a story don’t make the entire story true?

Gumball poster
emoji poster
burning in hell poster
gish gallop poster
Spider-man is like the bible poster.

I honestly think Spiderman is like the bible poster is the most interesting poster we’ve had lately.

Imagine the depth and breadth of denial and delusion it would take to propose that?

Seems like you missed the point that the PP was trying to make with the comic book reference.

Just because some factual happens in a story, doesn’t make the entire story factual.

You would agree with this?

Find someone else to play word games with, I am not interested.

Georgia M. Dunston is a pioneering scientist and Christian. She has spent a career performing cutting edge research in the field of human genetics and precision medicine, and she has established competitive programs for research scientists at minority institutions of higher learning. In addition to her scientific and organizational work, she has also spent time formally reflecting on the implications of the latest discoveries in human genetics for our concepts of race and ethnicity. And as a devout Christian, she has explored the questions of human identity that are raised by our rapidly increasing knowledge of the human genome.

Dr. Dunston was born in 1944 in Norfolk, Virginia and grew up in the segregated south on the cusp of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Dr. Dunston became the first member of her family to graduate from college in 1965 when she earned her BS in Biology from Norfolk State University, a historically black college. After gaining a master’s degree from Tuskegee University, another historically black college, she went on to the University of Michigan, the first predominantly white institution she had attended, where she received a PhD in Human Genetics in 1972.
Upon completion of her PhD, Dr. Dunston was recruited to the faculty of the Howard University College of Medicine (HUCM). At Howard she rose through the academic ranks to become a full professor of microbiology, to serve as chairwoman of the department of microbiology, and to become a member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Genetics. She served as a member of the HUCM faculty for a total of 45 years before retiring in 2017

direct quote from Dr. Dunston:

In recognition of Black History Month, I want to conclude this personal perspective with the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The science of the human genome beautifully reflects Biblical themes of human identity. It affirms our belief in a human population that is incredibly diverse, yet undoubtedly one: created in God’s image, redeemed by Jesus’ blood, and united by the Holy Spirit in the renewing and reconciling work of the Church.“

https://biologos.org/articles/scientist-spotlight-georgia-m-dunston

You do seem to care about “word games” (AKA comparing literature) since you commented on it.

Do books of fiction every contain an occasional fact?

The trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Ramsay, William (1915). The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 85, 89. Further study … showed that the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. . . . I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, but his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of its historical accuracy. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen.

In academic circles, the prevailing thought of the day regarding the New Testament, including authorship of the books of the New Testament, was dominated by the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. His school was called the Tübingen School of thought and interpretation. Ramsay initially fell in with this group, which believed that most of Paul’s epistles were not written by Paul—perhaps only four were written by Paul. They believed most of the New Testament came much later, sometime in the second half of the second century. These academics thought the book of Acts in particular was written much later; they were very suspicious of the book of Acts.


In one of Ramsay’s books, which is primarily about Paul’s travels as recorded in the book of Acts, Ramsay writes, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.” The Tübingen theory had convinced Ramsay that Acts was a second-century composition, and by his own admission, he never relied on the book of Acts to give him any reliable report or evidence.

But after years of investigating every single detail, of retracing places mentioned in Acts, and looking at all of the authorities, Ramsay came to the exact opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that not only was Luke a great historian, but that Luke was “among the historians of the first rank.” Ramsay said the first and essential quality of the great historian is truth; what he says must be trustworthy. And he found Luke to be one of the most, if not the most trustworthy historians of the ancient world. Ramsey found that Luke’s accounts as recorded in both the Gospel and in the sequel to the Gospel, the book of Acts, to be trustworthy and true. For his efforts, Sir William Ramsay was knighted—even though he turned the entire academic scholarly community on its head when he transitioned from the higher critical view of the New Testament to accepting its truthfulness.

On the authorship of the Pauline epistles he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were authentic.


https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/sir-william-ramsay

A different question for you since the last was too difficult:

Is every single word in the Bible 100% true and historically accurate?

According to Biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix, the New Testament has a 99.5% purity rate in terms of accuracy -- a better accuracy rate than any other well-known book.

When compared to other works of antiquity, the Bible has multitudes of manuscripts. The amount of manuscripts is important since individual manuscripts can be checked with the rest of the manuscripts for variants. Here is a breakdown of the amount of New Testament copies in comparison to other amount of copies of other ancient works:

Over 20,000 New Testament manuscripts exist 3 .
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the Annals of Imperial Rome . There is only one manuscript of his first six books and another manuscript for books eleven to sixteen (the other books are lost) 4 .
Josephus's work, The Jewish War has 9 Greek manuscripts, a Latin translation, and other Russian translations 5 .
The runner-up to the New Testament in terms of manuscript amount is Homer's Iliad . There are less than 650 Greek manuscripts 6 .
Evincing the superiority of the New Testament text over other ancient works in terms of the number of available manuscripts, the comparison above reveals that the existing texts of the New Testament can be verified with multitudes of other copies and therefore can be trusted to be an accurate representation of the original texts.

The duration between the time that the work was first written and the conception time of the earliest existing copy is also important. If the duration is long, errors can propogate into the text. Here is a comparison of the duration times of the New Testament and other ancient works:

Scholars like Biblical archaeologist William Albright estimate the entirety of the New Testament to have been originally composed between 40 and 80 A.D. 7 . While the Codex Sinaiticus , a complete Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament in uncial (capital) letters, was written in A.D. 350, other existing fragments have been dated earlier. For instance, a small fragment of the gospel of John was dated to be from A.D. 100-150. Other fragments of the New Testament in papyrus have also been found and have been dated to be from the second and third centuries A.D. 8 .
Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome , which was initially written in A.D. 116, exists in only two manuscripts, one copied in about 850 A.D. and the other in the eleventh century 9 .
The existing copies of Josephus's The Jewish War (originally composed in the first-century A.D.) were written from the fourth century to the twelfth century 10 .
Homer's Iliad , which was initially composed around 800 B.C., has existing copies which were written starting from the second century A.D. 11
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.

https://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm

How Accurate Is the Bible?

(a more scholarly approach, a longer read)

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Historical Proof of the Bible
by Jim Franks

Roman and Jewish historians were no fans of Christianity, but they give historical proof of the Bible, including the life of Jesus Christ.

Being able to confirm more than 100 biblical characters in secular history is impressive and provides a remarkable proof for the validity of Scripture.
The New Testament has its own list of historical characters, such as:

“Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip, Annas and Caiaphas are all mentioned in Luke 3:1-2 in connection with the beginning of John the Baptist’s preaching, which introduced Jesus Christ. Tiberius is found on numerous Roman coins and lived from 42 B.C. to A.D. 37. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip, the tetrarch of Iturea, are mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century.

There is a stone inscription dedicated to Pontius Pilate that reads: “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea.” In archaeology it is called the Pilate Stone, and it is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Annas and Caiphas are both mentioned by Josephus as being among the Jewish high priests of the first century.“

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/is-the-bible-true/proof-3-history/

Is the Bible true?

Why should “doubt” in the truth of the Bible be surprising when we live in a world of skepticism?

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/is-bible-true

The Old Testament Matches up with Known History
The claim that God has acted in history is backed up by the evidence. The archaeologist John Elder, who spent over thirty years working in the Middle East, offers a fitting summary of the issue of the Old Testament’s historical reliability. He wrote:

It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists... The over-all result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to the newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history. (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, Bobbs-Merrill, Co. 1960, p. 18)

1. The Old Testament Is Familiar with Local Laws
There are a number of biblical episodes that show intimate understanding of local laws at the time. For example, when Sarah the wife of Abraham was childless, she suggested that Abraham take Hagar his handmaiden as a secondary wife and raise up an heir through her. This fits well with the practice at that time as recorded in the Eshnunna law code ? a law code that dates about 1900 B.C.

The Nuzi tablets, 20,000 clay tablets that were discovered 150 miles north of Baghdad; also confirm such customs as to the role of secondary wives and their rights of inheritance. Therefore, the episode of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar fits the local laws of the time.

2. Local Customs Are Correctly Recorded
We find that the customs recorded in Scripture fit the time frame in which the stories were said to have occurred.

From the Nuzi tablets we also find that one brother sold his birthright for three sheep—similar to Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of soup. This confirms that the practice was legally binding at that time in history. It also tells us that the price paid for the birthright did not have to be of equal value.

In another example, we find that the Bible states the patriarch Joseph was sold for twenty shekels of silver. We read in Genesis:

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28)
Although the price paid for Joseph is an incidental detail, it proves to be an exact representation of what slaves were being sold for in that day. Joseph lived in the eighteenth century B.C. Before that time the price of slaves was cheaper—ten to fifteen shekels. As time went by, the price of a slave increased. The price of twenty pieces of silver fits into the period when the Bible says that Joseph lived.

After that time, the price of a slave further increased. Thus the recording of Joseph being sold for twenty pieces of silver fits only a limited historical period; the same one in which the Scripture says the story took place. It seems clear that the writer of this account had access to accurate historical information.

3. The Geographical References Are Minutely Accurate
There are a number of specific geographical references in Scripture. As we examine the evidence, we find that they match up to the geography of that day. For example, the biblical account of the life of Abraham documents a number of cities that he visited. The location of almost every one of these cities is now known. All of those that have been positively identified were important caravan centers during the time the Bible says that Abraham lived.

However, in later times, not all of these cities were important centers. This is another indication that the travels of Abraham fit exactly into what is known of that particular historical period, but would not fit with a later period.

In another illustration, we find that the Scripture is very specific as to the route that the nation of Israel took from Egypt on its way to the Promised Land. For example, in Numbers 33, there is a detailed description of where the Israelites camped on their way to Jericho. It says:

They left Iye Abarim and camped at Dibon Gad. They left Dibon Gad and camped at Almon Diblathaim. They left Almon Diblathaim and camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo. They left the mountains of Abarim and camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. There on the plains of Moab they camped along the Jordan from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim. On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses. (Numbers 33:45-50)
Notice the detail. We are told specifically where the nation camped on their way to Jericho. This route was once considered to be unhistorical. Yet the discovery of three ancient Egyptian maps, dating from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth century B.C., shows that this was the same route that was taken in those days. The cities mentioned in Numbers were also mentioned in the Egyptian maps. It was a heavily traveled road in those days. Again, the historical details of the Scripture prove to be true.

4. The Correct Titles Were Used to Describe People
In every nation, the titles given to people are different. In addition, these titles can actually change throughout history. In the Old Testament, we find a number of different people to whom specific titles are given. When compared with the known evidence, we find that the biblical writers used the exact title for the people in the time period when the narrative took place.

For example, in the story of Joseph, there are a number of titles that are mentioned. We are told that Joseph was put in prison with the “chief” or “royal” baker:

Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. (Genesis 40:1-2)
While this was once considered to be an incorrect reference, an ancient Egyptian picture recorded acknowledgment of wheat by the royal baker of the Temple of Amun. Thus, the title “royal baker” or “chief baker” was accurately used. This gives credence to the story as literally occurring instead of being some type of parable or myth.

5. The List of Pagan Kings Is Amazingly Accurate
The Bible lists a number of kings who ruled countries other than Israel. Although they were not the main characters in the story, they are always recorded in an accurate manner. Indeed, the writers of Scripture placed these kings in the exact chronological order in which they ruled. This is in contrast to some of the historians from these same countries who did not have the correct chronology.

This has been documented in the work of the great Old Testament scholar Robert Dick Wilson. In examining the Old Testament Scripture, Wilson noted that there are twenty-six pagan kings of various nations that are mentioned. The names of these rulers are also found on the monuments of these kings as well as in documents of their own times. Wilson found that all of these names of the pagan kings are spelled correctly in the Hebrew text. In contrast to the accuracy of the Bible, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers are frequently garbled. Indeed, there are times when it is hard to identify the person.

An example of this is Ptolemy; an ancient writer who drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings. However, on his list, none of the names of these eighteen kings is spelled correctly.

On the other hand, the biblical writers were always precise in the spelling of the names of their enemies. So we ask the question, “If the Old Testament writers took this much concern to spell the names of the pagan kings correctly, how much more effort would they have given to spell the names of their own people correctly as well as to accurately record the events connected with their rule?” The answer seems obvious. This is a further testimony of the basic reliability of the Old Testament.

6. The Existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount
Today, in our world there is a growing problem of denying the Jews their ancient heritage with respect to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It is claimed that there has never been a Jewish Temple in the city of Jerusalem. While this is a relatively recent development, it is gaining more and more adherents; particularly in the Islamic world. Muslims fear that the Jews are working toward building another Temple in Jerusalem and thus will regain their control over the Temple Mount. Thus, they continue to deny that the Jews ever had a visible presence on the Mount.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/10-reasons/reason4-the-bibles-historical-precision.cfm

There are lots of reasons to believe the Bible is true/accurate/historically correct.

Nice cut and paste job. However, even religious people who follow the Bible don't care if it's historically correct, and many realize that it isn't. Faith is required to believe in religion.

Are you religious?


Why are you speaking for all religious people?

You’re repeating the same phrases throughout the thread and speaking for religious people. Stop speaking for anyone but yourself.

Speaking for myself and my religious training, religion is based on faith.