Is the Bible acceptable?

You said written and rewritten .....
very good point.......
how does anyone know if
words have been added throughout the years

Hi Reality Man,I think that the question you are asking is actually "can you hold an argument with only the words of the Bible to back you up?"I would say the answer is 'no'. But this is true for any debate. If you only have a single source of information to base your ideas upon, then you are severely limited in the scope of what those ideas can be. So if the question was "can you hold an argument with only the words of School Press Physical Science 2nd Edt?", then the answer would also be 'no'.So if you're trying to debate an issue of creation and your opponent can only back their statement with "the Bible says so", while you have a stack of verifiable evidence on your side, then you win. But again, the same goes for any debate where one side has a mountain of evidence and the other has only a single, unverifiable piece.Now, if your opponent has other, verifiable evidence, and adds "the Bible says so" to the stack, then it is perfectly legitimate. You said so yourself; the book is old and everywhere. And there is something to be said for such longevity and diversity.I also saw on a couple of the initial responses that I scanned, comments about the Bible having no place in a discussion of science. I refute that statement. Science was birthed out of religion - whether it likes it or not. Saying "the Bible is irrelevant to science" is like saying that your incognizant grand-pappy is irrelevant to life; that's not true - you just have to be willing to wade through the crap and gear to find the good stuff that is still inside.Obviously we can't use the Bible as a means of describing the actual events of creation. We can however gain some insight as to how our ancestors saw the concepts of the creation of the universe, and the separate creation of our Earth. And this can be reconciled against our modern views and give us a better understanding of both the then and now.I've also seen a number of "Discovery" type shows over the years where they show real science which makes possible some of the miraculous situations described in the Bible. That's not to claim any accuracy to those shows, but it is an example of science in the Bible.So there is certainly a place for an overlap between science and religion. Certainly, just as there is only one true God, there is only one true creation. This is a case where both sides are both right and wrong depending on the point and point of view.

seeing the bible is not a scientific book, we should let scientists answerIf at some point in thepast, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. ... We have to face the problem of a Beginning.Sir Bernard Lovell.Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote: That the universe has not always existedthat it had a beginninghas not always been popular. Yet, in recent decades evidence has forced most who study the universe to believe that it really did have a beginning. Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997, that the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.Robert Jastrow, professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University, wrote: Few astronomers could have anticipated that this eventthe sudden birth of the Universewould become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.In his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, published in 1993, prominent physicist Stephen Hawking concluded that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning.

Bravo!Would you be willing to extend this consideration to other natural sciences?Like all geosciences and all subfields of the geosciences that clearly show there was no global flood?Like chemistry and physics that clearly show radioactive decay has not changed over time?Like virtually all biosciences which clearly show common ancestry to all life?And these concepts are all interrelated and mutually supportive.To me pick-N-choose science is as bad as pick-N-choose Biblical literalism as both are examples of hypocrisy.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

its more inconclusive then proven. After thousands of years of geologic changes in a world with unstable weather patterns, solid evidence of an ancient flood may be obscure today it has not changed since science discovered how to use it and
we dont know how much radiocarbon was in the atmosphere in prehisotoric times...they only have recent measurements by which to measure so it is also inconclusive. Very debatable...similarities themselves do not prove common ancestry.
Its just as likely they are similar because they all have the same Designer and Maker

So what you are saying is - in short - we should let the scientists except in cases where that proves to be inconvenient?For example, look at Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) which explains how physics can conclude radioactive decay has been consistent for 170,000 years. But we shouldn't let the scientists answer on that one, right?Oh well, I doubt anglagard will be terribly surprised by your answer.