There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

It amazes me how people argue about the bible. Look at the fist few sentences that describe creation, pretty much as the big bang. There was chaos until light. at the introduction of light, came time. After that was day and night. A day, is one rotation of the earth...so no one knows the length of time this really means, but creation is described just as we know the order had to be. Now look at the fulfillment of prophecy. I think the bible has been pretty accurate, and the only place this info could have come from, is outside space-time...thus from God.

It says that God separated the light from the dark. can you really argue such a small point when it is clearly demonstrated that modern physics was understood by early man. Where did the info come from.Of course one would expect the creation story to come from earlier sources than the Bible. It's probably been around since well... creation...

It certainly doesn't look like the myth of a turtle that holds the world on it's back or anything you'd expect from early man, but that's just my opinion. It is also my opinion that since the dawn of language, man has protected the words in the bible from change, because they considered them holy. Knowledge that couldn't be replaced. To be handed down to future generations.To completely discount the book as myth and ignore the painstaking effort that went into preserving it and the lifetimes spent copying it, is almost like slapping your oldest ancestor in his face. As for me, I will consider it an important link to the past and am continue to be amazed at the accuracy of it.

There's no need to get personal. the fact is that even though it was written over 2000 years ago (at least) and you can't come up with any glaring falsehoods, (like let's say, the earth is flat) shows me that there is enough to call it amazing.there are many stories in the Bible that could not be literally true to the letter. I'll give you that. But I find it to be as a multi-layered onion with many lessons and much good advice and yes, a record of Man's interaction with God, creator, higher power, whatever. I'm sure parts might have been tampered with, but I'm equally sure it is a minute amount.Th thing is that I do not use IT to justify my beliefs, I honestly try to believe what it teaches and refer to it for guidance when in doubt. I know there is a big problem with those who get it wrong. there always has been and always will be. I can certainly understand why some would find offense in some people's interpretation of the Bible. I certainly do. that though is not the fault of the book, but the reader.There are wars fought and atrocities committed in the name of God. There are charletons that manipulate people and justify it by misusing the Bible. All that is true and terrible and should be stopped. But you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. To me, the Bible is a magnificent work and when read with the major principles in mind, that we love one another... there is alot to learn in it.one of the reasons I actually started reading or myself is because I had an ignorant "Born Again" brother in law, who kept quoting passages that to me didn't sound very God-Like. Sure enough I found that he had omitted certain things and strung together different parts to prove his own beliefs. It was not at all what was meant by the writers.People will believe what they want to believe. And many will say the Bible justifies their hate or even violence, but the fact is that most of them haven't even read it for themselves. It just isn't about that. There's an old saying hat goes something like this... Lord please save me... not from your enemies, but from your followers.It's sad. I think most major religions get it wrong to some extent. But it's not the books fault.

It is a fact that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the parts of Isaiah that were found, were pretty much the same as we have today. So I think for the most part there was an honest effort to faithfully reproduce the text as best they could in most cases. You don't need to read Greek or Hebrew, thee are concordances that will give you the meanings of any questionable word and it's possible alternative translations. Mostly unless you are a biblical scholar, there's no great difference.Those who misrepresent what they read do it purposely. It's not honest language problems.Anyway there is evidence that it comes to us much the same as it was at least two thousand years ago.

I believe the day/night thing was an indication that measurable time was created when light was created. Actually that's a big part of the genius... there could not be a day and a night until God said "let there be light". Because without light...there is no time. As for the billions of stars...I would say that they were mentioned when God separated the light from the darkness. That is, the stars were lights, being separated from the vast darkness of space. Perhaps they were only visible on earth as stars, after the flowering plants... Actually, since there was no one to observe them, they weren't really stars in the sky... since that is a very human perspective.I'm sorry. I guess my first post wasn't deep enough. I also pointed out that the length of time this actually took could be much more than five days... since a day simply means a period of time, and before the earth there was no measurable 24 hour day.

This always surprises me as well. In a court of law, an eyewitness testimony is enough evidence to hang a man. Yet when it comes to the Bible, eye witnesses don't count for anything... Why would you doubt that historical figures are accurate. That seems like a waste of time. I can't believe there are records that go back that far to prove one way or another whether a person actually was. I think I'd just as soon take the Bibles word for it.As for a flat earth from that dream/vision... I think that's stretching it, though no doubt people thought the earth was flat. All the more reason one should be surprised not to find that mentioned in the story of creation.

Science also shows that all humans are descended from one female ancestor according to our mitochondrial DNA. as for 4500 years ago, I think most scientists place the flood at at least 8000 years ago and there is evidence of such an event in sediment from around the globe which all contains volcanic ash from around the same time period.certainly there is science for and against everything.

I'm sorry, but there's plenty of precedent to say that a day is simply a unit of time... clearly it couldn't have meant 24 earth hours since there was no earth. We are talking about relatively crude language trying to explain a complex thought. I think they did the best they could. Remember we are talking for the most part about iron-age nomads.If you're looking for a modern scientific treatise and nothing less, I guess there's no convincing you. I would think that any reasonable person would have to admit that it is very much in tune with modern "big bang" theories.You're simply ignoring the fact that for the most part, early man somehow had real knowledge they couldn't possibly have known first hand. And this is only the first paragraph of the Bible.

Then...we agree

I'm not so interested in proving that there was a "world wide flood, as this is clearly supposed to support the Noah story, which most likely came from a story about a regional flood. It really doesn't matter as it was clearly written to pass on a lesson to us that God did/can/will destroy mankind when evil permeates the race.The literal truth is not important to the story and I believe that when you go back in time so far, evidence becomes scant and theories that can never be proven abound. I'm afraid there are details about early man, we will never know for sure. We just need to accept that.

Thank you for all that info. I think my point is that there were no attempts to purposely change the text. What you describe are honest difficulties with translation and doesn't substantially change the story for the average reader. Assuming this is as true for at least the old testament, we have a pretty accurate historical record and if you choose to accept it, a good source of inspiration.

Funny that geology is simply thrown out as a science because it often doesn't match the accepted theories. Science is science and geology is as valid as any other. If it doesn't square with the other scientific evidence, clearly something is wrong. As for a global flood, I won't argue that, as it is clearly a reference to the Noah story, which certainly could be as true even if it was actually a regional flood.I will say that in the Noah story it states that before the flood, there was no such thing as rain. A mist covered the earth instead. So we are talking about a time very long ago, before any other recorded history. Apparently the atmosphere was quite different. Gravity too may have been different. It could actually have been before the continents divided.Your argument attempts to pin down the dates of the flood unfairly, to a relatively recent date, using the calculations of unnamed "scientists" who have no authority to assign such dating. Then you go on to demonstrate evidence that it didn't happen in that time frame, so it must not have happened.I am pointing out that the evidence in the story itself would indicate a much earlier time frame, and thus your evidence against the flood is quite flawed.

I will look for my bible to point out that passage. It also states that before the days of Noah, the "sons of God" were mating with human women and creating offspring. They were Nephalim (giants, or men of great stature... intelligence?) Theoretically one reason for the cleansing of the earth. Extra biblical sources say that Noah's father suspected that Noah himself was the result of such a union. In any case these passages would indicate that it was a time long before the date you set, if indeed there ever were such a time.As for man appearing after the continental divide, there is a school of thought that this is not true. bananas need to be cultivated and are found in both South America and Africa from the earliest times. there's other problems with the conventional wisdom as well.As for gravity remaining the same, how could that be proven. A lighter gravity could account for the size and agility of the dinosaurs and the pterodactyl which would not be capable of flight today, yet obviously was a flying creature.I realize that all this is outside any conventional science. The point is that anything is possible. there are holes in all theories and we aren't at the point where we can be sure of anything. A global flood at some point in the earth's formation is a probability, given that it is 70% water and shows evidence of expansion. So to say that at some point it was 100% water doesn't sound improbable.The problem... as you demonstrate, for there to have been a Noah, or Gilgamesh.. is that this has to have happened at a time when some form of modern humans, in however scant numbers are also found. Right now, science and the best evidence seems to discount this but I wouldn't say it's not possible. I myself just shy away from insisting that the Noah or Gilgamesh story is absolutely to be taken literally, There's quite a bit there to swallow if taken in it's entirety and I'm afraid that the whole truth might be lost to time and we will never understand it.

Actually, I think that at the time the flood happened it probably would have meant the known world. i don't think it was intentionally distorted.But yes, the Gilgamesh story and the Noah story are similar enough to presume that they came from the same source, yet different enough that obviously the details were adapted for religions sake. Certainly, it is intended to be a morality teaching story.Again it could very well have been a regional flood and that would not change the value of the story to the faith.