What evidence is there that the miracles told in the Bible are true?

[Bandit]

I did look into evidence for a global flood in recent times but as far as I can remember I didn't find much - the nearest I found was that there may have been a big surge from the Mediterranian into the Black sea.
I went to Christian schools all the way through to University, and yet we were never taught that there was really a global flood in recent times. What do you think is the evidence for such a thing?
...

Have you tried looking at any material from a site called Answers in Genesis? They (and others) have tons of material about the mounds of evidence for the Flood.

Again, I'm sure that's true about there being more evidence to support the accuracy of the bible than any other ancient text - but I don't consciously live my life by any other ancient text either. Let's say I want to learn about Jesus from Luke - Luke is a man who supposedly knew Paul, who even himself is not said to have ever met Jesus. And then if I just look at Wikipedia, it tells me 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... hardly a primary source.

I'm not a 'Naysayer'.... I'm not someone 'unwilling to accept the truth'. It's just that mankind hasn't looked after Jesus' story well enough for me to see the Bible as anything more than an old book that I don't really have the time or education to understand.

ATB

Well, when you sited Wikipedia as you just did, that raises concern over your choice of sources. I would fully expect a site like that to be a hodge-podge of information; and when it comes to information about God, Jesus, and the bible, I would expect that source (along with a great many others) to be highly compromised. Try to realize that there is a real spiritual war going on; you can't trust every source, many are intended to cause doubt and cast shadows upon the truth. Misinformation is the name of the game at a great many sites.

[nimrod]

Have you tried looking at any material from a site called Answers in Genesis? They (and others) have tons of material about the mounds of evidence for the Flood.

Thanks for the link. I've had a quick look - at 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?

Well, when you sited Wikipedia as you just did, that raises concern over your choice of sources. I would fully expect a site like that to be a hodge-podge of information; and when it comes to information about God, Jesus, and the bible, I would expect that source (along with a great many others) to be highly compromised. Try to realize that there is a real spiritual war going on; you can't trust every source, many are intended to cause doubt and cast shadows upon the truth. Misinformation is the name of the game at a great many sites.

Sources don't divide neatly into 'ones you can trust' and 'ones you can't trust'. You always have to consider if you know who has written it, and if so, how you know - and then if you do, what their level of information is, what their motivations might be, and most importantly, if what they have written agrees with other sources. Wikipedia certainly has its weaknesses, and it most certainly isn't the only thing I read! I read what you'd call Christian sites, atheist sites, and more 'neutral' sites. Wikipedia simply 'is what it is'. But you can see the edits people have made, where the debate is, what the references are...

...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.

[Bandit]

...
Not sure why you think there's a 'spiritual war' going on. Everyone is simply simply seeking the truth as best as they are able.

Um... I thought I would just answer this part for now. If you really think that everyone is "simply seeking the truth as best as they are able", then I have news for you - they aren't! There really is a battle going on for your mind, and right now it appears that you are losing.

[ChristianCoffee]

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?

[nimrod]

Um... I thought I would just answer this part for now. If you really think that everyone is "simply seeking the truth as best as they are able", then I have news for you - they aren't!

Fair enough - I can't talk about "everyone!". But it seems to be true of everyone I have really taken the time to get to know.

There really is a battle going on for your mind, and right now it appears that you are losing.

But how could that be? It was said earlier in the thread, "if you ask for your sight, He will give it to you". And I have. I really have.

[nimrod]

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?

There almost certainly won't be any.
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!

[Bandit]

Fair enough - I can't talk about "everyone!". But it seems to be true of everyone I have really taken the time to get to know.

Well, I'm glad that most of the people you are around seem to be very sincere - and perhaps they really are sincere - but can't sincere people be sincerely wrong? For example, if one sincere person says there are many ways to God, but another sincere person says there is only one way to God, then one of these is sincerely wrong.

But how could that be? It was said earlier in the thread, "if you ask for your sight, He will give it to you". And I have. I really have.

We are told to walk by faith and not by sight. I think you are wanting to see before you step. If you believe there is a God (the God of the bible), then you should also believe there is a devil. Good and evil exist, and we are inmmersed in a world filled with both, and we have to be careful. When you mentioned using Wikipedia to inquire about the historical authenticity of the Book of Luke, that right there is a source which is going to try to cast doubt on the message of the bible. Not every imformational source is equally trustworthy, and when it comes to the One True God, you had better believe there are lots of persons and sources which are going to be inaccurate (whether intentionally so, or just sincerely wrong).

[Bandit]

Thanks for the link. I've had a quick look - at 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?
...

I would have to go look at the site myself. They have lots of books which discuss evidence for the flood. I will try to go to their site and pick out a couple of books/articles.

[Bandit]

I would have to go look at the site myself. They have lots of books which discuss evidence for the flood. I will try to go to their site and pick out a couple of books/articles.

If you go to their site, they have a blue pulldown menu bar with a number of sections. I would start by clicking on "Get Answers". You would now have a blue menu bar going down the left side of the page. All these topics are good, but for the sake of looking into the flood, click the "Flood, geology & fossils" button. You should now see a sublist of choices: click "The Flood" and you will now have on the right hand side a long listing of articles. There is so much to read even in this one section, but perhaps you might want to start near the top with the Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one

There is a whole lot to read concerning the flood. You won't be able to read it all in one sitting.

[nimrod]

Well, I'm glad that most of the people you are around seem to be very sincere - and perhaps they really are sincere - but can't sincere people be sincerely wrong?

Of course... finding that you're wrong and learning from it is a natural part of life. Some people don't learn and just remain wrong of course, which is sad!
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...

Not every imformational source is equally trustworthy, and when it comes to the One True God, you had better believe there are lots of persons and sources which are going to be inaccurate (whether intentionally so, just sincerely wrong).

When you see words on a page - be it a printed page, or a web page - one one level that's all they are. Words on a page.
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.

We are told to walk by faith and not by sight. I think you are wanting to see before you step.

No, I agree that putting a little faith first can pay dividends. But if you don't see those dividends, you have to row back.

[Bandit]

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...
...

Hello nimrod,

All I did was state that there was a 'spiritual war'. And that does mean there will be people on each side, and others caught in the middle. I'm not necessarily trying to indicate which side each and every person is on.

[Bandit]

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.

[Bandit]

We are told to walk by faith and not by sight. I think you are wanting to see before you step.

No, I agree that putting a little faith first can pay dividends. But if you don't see those dividends, you have to row back.

But is it not worth stepping out to find the true meaning to life? Why are you alive? Where does life come from? Is this one, physical life all there is? The dividend you seek is the purpose of life itself. I think this is a quest all men and women share (or should share). All we are trying to do here is tell people that the answer to that quest can be found within the pages of the bible. There is a God and there is a purpose for your life. But that purpose (just like God Himself) has to be sought; it is not going to just drop into your lap (at least not usually).

[nimrod]

If you go to their site, they have a blue pulldown menu bar with a number of sections. I would start by clicking on "Get Answers". You would now have a blue menu bar going down the left side of the page. All these topics are good, but for the sake of looking into the flood, click the "Flood, geology & fossils" button. You should now see a sublist of choices: click "The Flood" and you will now have on the right hand side a long listing of articles. There is so much to read even in this one section, but perhaps you might want to start near the top with the Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one

There is a whole lot to read concerning the flood. You won't be able to read it all in one sitting.

Thanks for the links. As you say it's a lot to read - but I have looked at a large number of the links there.

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.

[nimrod]

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).

That is pretty much the kind of thing I have done, with a number of parts of the bible. It's just not let me to a belief in the truth of the Christian message... yet.

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.

If I start by believing, then that's just 'pretending'. My belief must be based on evidence that I find. The best I can do is look for that evidence.

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 is it not worth stepping out to find the true meaning to life? Why are you alive? Where does life come from? Is this one, physical life all there is? The dividend you seek is the purpose of life itself. I think this is a quest all men and women share (or should share).

Broadly speaking, I think most people do share that quest.
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.

All we are trying to do here is tell people that the answer to that quest can be found within the pages of the bible. There is a God and there is a purpose for your life. But that purpose (just like God Himself) has to be sought; it is not going to just drop into your lap (at least not usually).

I've done some seeking. I don't feel like I'm on the path anywhere.
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.

His move.