http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-flood-and-ark, and http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...2/global-flood - but those pages don't seem to clearly lay out a set of facts from which you could conclude that there was a global flood in the last few thousand years. What pages were you thinking of?
...but going back to the main point of what I wrote, it was that (from that particular source, which is only one of many) I read that the Gospel of Luke might have been written in the the later decades of the 1st century, and that the earliest manuscripts are later still... and that an account of Jesus' life by someone who themselves only knew him through history wouldn't be something to base my life around. If you have any clearer information I am genuinely interested. It's just an example of the kind of lack of certainty I find there to be about the bible.
In some ways it seems that the bible is in many ways rather like an ancient wikipedia.... written by many people about many topics... except that we don't have the edit history to show who wrote it and when, what their sources were, etc.
Not sure why you think there's a 'spiritual war' going on. Everyone is simply seeking the truth as best as they are able.
OK, I want to jump in and ask a question myself:
Since the OP is "What evidence is there that the miracles in the Bible are true", and knowing the OP is not here, my question is this for the others here:
What evidence is there that the miracles in the Bible are not true?
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.C.S. Lewis
You're gonna make a difference when you lay down your life, and in complete submission to God, choose to die with Him in service to other people.
For a start, really proving that something specific actually happened so long ago is very difficult - especially if the evidence is only documentary.
Secondly, proving a specific negative is harder still - you have to prove a specific 'true' fact from which the falsehood logically follows. And if you are already accepting the premise that miracles can be true, proving such a negative can't happen.
But I hope no-one would fall into the trap of thinking "something can't be disproved, therefore it must be true"! God (or whoever) gave us better reasoning skills than that!
Last edited by Bandit; Jun 10th 2012 at 09:27 PM.
There is a whole lot to read concerning the flood. You won't be able to read it all in one sitting.
But you were talking about a 'spiritual war', and although I don't know you I do feel I should warn against that kind of divisive thinking. The danger of it is that you put people you understand on one side of the line, and people you don't on the other side...
Whenever it comes to anything, there are persons or sources who are going to be inaccurate.
Just because Wikipedia says something, should you trust and believe it straight away? Of course not. After all, it might change tomorrow!
I know very well that Wikipedia is often wrong, because I sometimes edit it to correct things (and reference those corrections, of course!)
The thing is, with whatever you read, to consider whether it might be worth trying the ideas that were presented, or Testing out the facts you read.
It's not good enough to just 'be careful' about what sources we trust. We have to actually take responsibility ourselves for what we think we know.
Do I believe wikipedia? Not in some unthinking way, no. But I have found that things written there are worth looking into. So when I wrote about what it says about the Gospel of Luke, I'm aware that other sources might say something different - which is why I mentioned it in this forum, in the hope I might learn more.
Hey, as far as Wikipedia and any biblical topic (like the historical accuracy of Luke) goes, I would first read the document itself (the Book of Luke, for example), then read comments from those who believe it to be true and accurate (and why they believe it to be true and accurate). One must first believe there is a God, and that the bible is true; then read the bible itself and those articles written by those who are like-minded (who believe there is a God and believe the biblical documents to be accurate). If one does not accept the bible as accurate and authoritative, then one has no leg to stand on as far as knowing the history between God and man. Either the bible is His written revelation to us, or we have no written revelation. So those who don't like His message, or want to deny it all together, will seek to alter it, destroy it, or otherwise cast doubt upon it. So if my vision of the bible comes through the lens of doubter and unbelievers, then I'm not going to have a clear understanding.
We are told to walk by faith and not by sight. I think you are wanting to see before you step.
Some pages (e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...m/v21/n3/flood) are studies only of the scripture, not in connection with physical evidence.
Others (e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-grand-canyon; http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-noahs-flood) point out interesting alternatives to widely accepted interpretations of some physical phenomena, but stop well short of any positive proof of a recent global flood. As one of those links says : "So does this “prove” the Grand Canyon is the result of a global Flood or how it was formed? No. It does show, however, that there is a legitimate, scientific alternative to the evolutionary dogma that has permeated our society. " Which is good - science should challenge science.
(Also, those pages which focus on the rocks that the canyon was cut into seemingly ignore how the canyon itself could have been formed in just a few thousand years...)
Other pages are a bit odd, e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one doesn't mention (and argue against) plate tectonics as an explanation for some of the phenonena mentioned, and seems to have an idea of how sedimentary rocks behave that's at odds with what I can find elsewhere.
Little is said about dating techniques for sedimentary layers.
Though there's some interestesting stuff there, I'm not finding much there in terms of positive evidence of a recent, global flood.
If the bible is to be my route to God, I too, don't want my vision of the bible to be through any lens - I want to see a clear chain of facts linking it to the experiences of my life. Without that, it's just words on a page - like I was earlier saying about wikipedia.
If, as you say, you must start by believing before you can understand the bible, that's pretty much the problem in a nutshell!
But why start from the idea that there is one single meaning to life?
I get so much satisfaction and peace from finding answers to much smaller problems that it seems that if there is a God, that's what he wanted me to do - not worry too much about things I don't have the information or intellect to draw conclusions about.
I can't spend any more time seeking when so far, to the best of my knowledge, we're here for a short time, and that's it.
I am willing to accept there may be a God, and I have prayed for him to reveal himself.
I think that's where I'm at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)