How the bible led me to.....

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Chessmaster, please fix your post, your quotes have things attributed to me that you wrote, not I.

chessmaster1989

Nah, the quotes are attributed correctly, just the format is off. Glitchspot messed it up, but if you take a closer look it's clear who said what.

Well then our discussion ends. I don't respond to posts that attribute things to me that I didn't write and I do not have the time to fix them for a response. I also do not respond to posts that comingle words with mine, even if different colors are used.

Enjoyed our discussion.

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]The chance of life forming randomly is unfathomably slim that there simply must have been an intelligent designer of the universe. The bible however was written by man, and I'm not sure it should still be relevant in any way.Vandalvideo

Can you prove that the chances of life forming randomly are very likely? To me, there are two ways to look at life in the universe.

One perspective is that the universe is so huge that it is almost impossible for life to only exist here on Earth.

The other approach is that the most simple building blocks of life are so complicated, and for all of it to appear in the same place at the same time, and to serve its purpose in unison with other simple pieces of life, the probability of that happening more than once is very slim.

Now neither of these perspectives imply there is a God behind it all, but personally I find that there has to be some sort of coordination from a higher entity for this thing we call life to take place.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Well, Noah's Ark hasn't been found, despite the excellent technology we have today. Surely you'd think something of it would have been found by now? Not saying that's a conclusive argument, but you must admit that there is a bit of a gap in evidence for that story. Jesus' tomb also hasn't been found, so any claims of an empty tomb are unverified. The only possible legitimate claim of the lost tomb so far is in the documentary The Lost Tomb, which actually would potentially contradict the Bible.

chessmaster1989

Well they actually do think they have found pieces of the ark....

Source? Because I've never heard nor seen anything about this.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Something tells me BR wont accept to respond to your green text chessmaster.

chessmaster1989

Maybe if I posted in blue we wouldn't argue as much? :P

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] [QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Well, it's your choice to interpret the Bible literally, and I doubt that you'll change it. So, I'll simply state that the literal interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily true, and that evolution can co-exist with non-literal interpretations, which is what I meant. If you choose to believe unconditionally that the Bible is the literal truth of God, that's your right. blackregiment

That having been said, it describes a lake as... "ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" Which means that (because C = 2(pi)r) that 30 = 2(pi)*5, which means pi = 3. This is patently false. Make of that what you will.chessmaster1989

You are referring to the large cauldron, the cast metal sea, in 1 Kings, not a "lake". That is easily explained, remember, the Bible is not a detailed science or math book and rounding was common in those times. By the way, perhaps you can tell me the exact value of Pi without rounding. I think not. :)

Regardless of if it's a cauldron, the detail is the same. The approximate value of pi is 3.1415926..., so rounding it to 3 is quite a big step (why not to 3.1, or 3.14, or 3.1415? any mathematician who rounded pi to 3 would be laughed at). In any case, as one who believes The Bible to be literally true in every respect, I'm surprised to see you interpreting this passage in any other manner than the literal truth. By the way, the literal interpretation of this passage is undeniably that pi = 3. So, I guess you don't support a completely literal translation?

Here is some information for you on that subject.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html

Why is it that skeptics seem to be always searching for what they can find to try and show the Bible is wrong and rarely seem to search for or even be concerned about what may be right in it. :)

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="SeanDog123"]The chance of life forming randomly is unfathomably slim that there simply must have been an intelligent designer of the universe. The bible however was written by man, and I'm not sure it should still be relevant in any way.MagicMan4597

Can you prove that the chances of life forming randomly are very likely? To me, there are two ways to look at life in the universe.

One perspective is that the universe is so huge that it is almost impossible for life to only exist here on Earth.

The other approach is that the most simple building blocks of life are so complicated, and for all of it to appear in the same place at the same time, and to serve its purpose in unison with other simple pieces of life, the probability of that happening more than once is very slim.

Now neither of these perspectives imply there is a God behind it all, but personally I find that there has to be some sort of coordination from a higher entity for this thing we call life to take place.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Chessmaster, please fix your post, your quotes have things attributed to me that you wrote, not I.

blackregiment

Nah, the quotes are attributed correctly, just the format is off. Glitchspot messed it up, but if you take a closer look it's clear who said what.

Well then our discussion ends. I don't respond to posts that attribute things to me that I didn't write and I do not have the time to fix them for a response. I also do not respond to posts that comingle words with mine, even if different colors are used.

Enjoyed our discussion.

Err... did you read that? It's messed up because of an error with Gamespot. It's not my fault. :|

My use of colors is to distinguish what part of your text I'm responding to and not run into more Gamespot glitches. I don't have any idea why you'd have a problem with it. :?

But, hey, whatever. Your choice.

BlackRegiment, you have to understand that evolution and the particles that made the first life is not just down to chance. It was inevitable. All chemicals in the universe will act exactly in the same manner given the exact forces. Gravity, the weak force, the strong force and electromagnetism are just 4 of these fundamental forces. They shape the way matter reacts with other matter or energy.

BumFluff122

Tell that to the right-handed amino acids that were left out. If it were as simple as you claim, why has not science, with tons of intelligence and equipment not been able to create life in the lab? Take a single cell and put it into a fluid filled test tube, puncture it, and then sit around and wait for life to form. Go visit the Pasteur experiments that are the longest running scientific experiments in existence and see if life has formed spontaneously yet.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Well they actually do think they have found pieces of the ark....

LJS9502_basic

Source? Because I've never heard nor seen anything about this.

Hmm, looks like from Bumfluff's post that they found some rocks that look kind of like an ark. Not exactly overwhelming evidence... not to mention I'm guessing if you measured the dimensions they wouldn't work out to be the ones given in The Bible...

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Nah, the quotes are attributed correctly, just the format is off. Glitchspot messed it up, but if you take a closer look it's clear who said what.

chessmaster1989

Well then our discussion ends. I don't respond to posts that attribute things to me that I didn't write and I do not have the time to fix them for a response. I also do not respond to posts that comingle words with mine, even if different colors are used.

Enjoyed our discussion.

Err... did you read that? It's messed up because of an error with Gamespot. It's not my fault. :|

My use of colors is to distinguish what part of your text I'm responding to and not run into more Gamespot glitches. I don't have any idea why you'd have a problem with it. :?

But, hey, whatever. Your choice.

Limit quoting more than three people in a post to avoid the glitch.

Can you prove that the chances of life forming randomly are very likely? To me, there are two ways to look at life in the universe. One perspective is that the universe is so huge that it is almost impossible for life to only exist here on Earth. The other approach is that the most simple building blocks of life are so complicated, and for all of it to appear in the same place at the same time, and to serve its purpose in unison with other simple pieces of life, the probability of that happening more than once is very slim. Now neither of these perspectives imply there is a God behind it all, but personally I find that there has to be some sort of coordination from a higher entity for this thing we call life to take place.MagicMan4597

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

BlackRegiment, you have to understand that evolution and the particles that made the first life is not just down to chance. It was inevitable. All chemicals in the universe will act exactly in the same manner given the exact forces. Gravity, the weak force, the strong force and electromagnetism are just 4 of these fundamental forces. They shape the way matter reacts with other matter or energy.

blackregiment

Tell that to the right-handed amino acids that were left out. If it were as simple as you claim, why has not science, with tons of intelligence and equipment not been able to create life in the lab? Take a single cell and put it into a fluid filled test tube, puncture it, and then sit around and wait for life to form. Go visit the Pasteur experiments that are the longest running scientific experiments in existence and see if life has formed spontaneously yet.

You are correct and it also denies the virgin birth and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.blackregiment

That is incorrect. The Qur'an doesn't deny the virgin birth, nor the death of Jesus Christ (he was sent to heaven according to the book,which one could consider as "dying"). The ressurrection, however, is denied in the Qur'an as it also denies the crucifixtion.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Yes and also other pseudepigraphal and Gnostic books as well. Here is some information on it. "It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible."

http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html

blackregiment

It is also interesting to note that almost no scholars believe 2 Peter to have truly been written by Peter.

What' new? The "Yea hath God said?" crowd has been attacking the Word of God since that famous question was uttered in the Garden of Eden. Such will it be until the Lord returns. While the Lord is the author, Peter was His pen. There is much internal evidence that supports Peter's authorship.

"But as we study the Epistle, we find several internal evidences that Peter was indeed the author:
In 2Pe_1:3, the writer speaks of believers as having been called by the Lord's own glory and virtue. This takes us back to Luk_5:8 where the glory of the Lord so overpowered Peter that he cried, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"
When the writer gives a prescription whereby his readers may never stumble (2Pe_1:5-10), we think immediately of Peter's fall, and of the sorrow it brought him.
Chapter 1 verse 14 is especially significant. The writer had been told of his death by the Lord Jesus. This fits perfectly with Joh_21:18-19 where Jesus revealed to Peter that he would be killed in his old age.
In verses 13-15 of chapter 1, the words "tent" (tabernacle) and "decease" (exodus) are both words used by Luke in the account of the transfiguration (Luk_9:31-33).
One of the most convincing proofs that Peter wrote this Epistle is the reference in 2Pe_1:16-18 to the transfiguration. The writer was present on the holy mountain. This means that he was either Peter, James, or John (Mat_17:1). This second Letter claims to have been written by Peter (2Pe_1:1), not by James or John.
In 2Pe_2:14, 2Pe_2:18 we find the words "enticing" and "allure." They come from the word deleago—to catch with a lure. They are from the vocabulary of a fisherman, and are thus especially appropriate from Peter.
In 2Pe_3:1 the author refers to a previous Letter, which is probably 1 Peter. He also speaks in 2Pe_3:15 of Paul in very personal terms, which an apostle could certainly do.
A final word that harks back to Peter's experience is found in 2Pe_3:17. The word "steadfastness" comes from the same root as the word "strengthen" which Jesus used in Luk_22:32. "When you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." It is also found as "establish" in 1Pe_5:10 and 2Pe_1:12.
Finally, as in the Pastoral Epistles, we suspect that Peter's trenchant condemnation of apostates has drawn out much of the modern hostility to 2 Peter as a genuine product of the apostle's life and pen."

source" Bible Believers Commentary

And there are reams of evidence that rules it out for practically all scholarship.

Nonetheless, you miss the ultimate point of my pointing that out. On the topic of the Book of Enoch, you cite the opinion of scholars as your evidence against its authorship. Yet, scholarship also maintains that 2 Peter cannot possibly have been written by Peter. One cannot cite scholarly consensus on one topic and then discount it on another if one wants to maintain an air of consistency and credibility.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Source? Because I've never heard nor seen anything about this.

chessmaster1989

Hmm, looks like from Bumfluff's post that they found some rocks that look kind of like an ark. Not exactly overwhelming evidence... not to mention I'm guessing if you measured the dimensions they wouldn't work out to be the ones given in The Bible...

Well it was something about pieces. I'm not sure what bumfluff heard.LJS9502_basic

Merely because you find something to be complicated doesn't necessarily mean that it is truly complicated. When understanding this point, think of an otherworldly place somewhere in our solar system in which everyone has the IQ of your average 5 years old. The smartest of people on the planet, the Einsteins of this world, have the mental age of a 10 year old. The scientists on this world are absolutely baffled by something which would consider to be an extremely simple, natural function. For example, consider a civilization which is absolutely dumbfounded that water appears on the outside of a glass. They cannot understand how something like water could travel through a glass and end up on the outside. Clearly we recognize this as simple diffusion or condensation, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon. If it is conceivable that there is an otherworldly civilization that is entirely full of idiots, why is it reasonable to assume that we ourselves are not a planet full of universal idiots? It seems to me to be the height of hubris to assume that because something appears complicated to us that it is indeed complicated. Also, as per your original question, why on earth should I prove likelyhood? I have made no claims about likelyhood. Vandalvideo

At the same time, just because you may not see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In other words, just because you cannot pinpoint, calculate, estimate, or determine with scientific proof that there is a God does not mean there is no God. To use your own argument, maybe the human mind is so feeble and limited that it is impossible for us to comprehend the existence of a God.

As for your main argument, there is no amount of scientific knowledge that can make something happen more or less often. Whether we see solar eclipses as a sign from a god or as the moon eclipsing the sun to create a shadow on Earth, it does not change the fact that solar eclipses occur 4 or 5 times a year. It will always happen. Same with the knowledge of life. Just because we may not know everything there is to know about life in the universe does not change its likelihood of its existence.

At the same time, just because you may not see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In other words, just because you cannot pinpoint, calculate, estimate, or determine with scientific proof that there is a God does not mean there is no God. To use your own argument, maybe the human mind is so feeble and limited that it is impossible for us to comprehend the existence of a God. MagicMan4597

As for your main argument, there is no amount of scientific knowledge that can make something happen more or less often. Whether we see solar eclipses as a sign from a god or as the moon eclipsing the sun to create a shadow on Earth, it does not change the fact that solar eclipses occur 4 or 5 times a year. It will always happen. Same with the knowledge of life. Just because we may not know everything there is to know about life in the universe does not change its likelihood of its existence.

Zeus ftw

Ah, you have erred in this argument. The mere fact that something happens over a long period of time consistantly does not necessarily mean that it will continue to happen at the same rate, or that it is even guaranteed to happen in the first place. This is called the maturation of chances fallacy (or commonly referred to as the gambler's fallacy). Merely because I flip a coin a thousand times and it reaches heads every single time, that does not mean that it will land heads again. The chances are the same that it could be tails. It is still a 50/50 chance. Merely because you observe every year that there are 4 or 5 eclipses does not mean that next year there must necessarily be 4 or 5 eclipses. For all you know, there could very well be an unseen mechanic which could drastically change this in an instance.Vandalvideo

But (I'm not even sure if I'm even talking about God anymore) just because something may temporarily disturb the cycle of an event occurring, does not change the continuous pattern. I'll use solar eclipses again; humans observed and tracked solar eclipses for thousands of years. Maybe one year there were only 2 eclipses due to some random event in space. Other than that one year that may accidentally break the cycle, there will still always be 4 to 5 eclipses a year.

Same thing goes with life. The components necessary to produce and sustain life would have to be in the same place at the same time and also be operating under specific conditions that it would be nearly impossible for life to occur. Of course maybe now and then it could get lucky (our existence). Now I guess I'm arguing that if there is no God, we are likely to be the one of the few sources of life in the universe. If there is a God, and He is coordinating this somehow, then there may be more life present in the universe.

Not even mentioning how the laws of the universe came into being, there is a significant argument to make for the existence of a higher being.

But (I'm not even sure if I'm even talking about God anymore) just because something may temporarily disturb the cycle of an event occurring, does not change the continuous pattern. I'll use solar eclipses again; humans observed and tracked solar eclipses for thousands of years. Maybe one year there were only 2 eclipses due to some random event in space. Other than that one year that may accidentally break the cycle, there will still always be 4 to 5 eclipses a year. Same thing goes with life. The components necessary to produce and sustain life would have to be in the same place at the same time and also be operating under specific conditions that it would be nearly impossible for life to occur. Of course maybe now and then it could get lucky (our existence). Now I guess I'm arguing that if there is no God, we are likely to be the one of the few sources of life in the universe. If there is a God, and He is coordinating this somehow, then there may be more life present in the universe. Not even mentioning how the laws of the universe came into being, there is a significant argument to make for the existence of a higher being.MagicMan4597

Once again, you are being presumptuous. You are committing the maturation of chances fallacy writ large. I am not denying that there has been a pattern of X happening in the past, but that is entirely insufficient to claim that it will necessarily be so tomorrow or a year from now. You are completely ignoring the possibility that future things may happen which would drastically alter this balance. The mere potentiality of this occurrence is sufficient to undermine your claim that it must necessarily be the case that because it happened consistently in the past, it will continue to do so. And as far as life goes, you are building off your own definitions of what constitutes life on the planet Earth. For all you know, there could be silicon based life forms in our universe which are quite common. The mere fact that our conditions may be rare is insufficient to say that life itself would be rare. You have failed to prove that life REQUIRES the elements which we take as carbon based life forms. Prove to me carbon based life forms are the only kind.Vandalvideo

Well we all have to be presumptuous. If I have seen that the grass is green and the sky is blue my entire life, I must presume this will continue and it is just the way the world works. In order to predict, we have to look at what has happened before and what kind of conditions have brought about certain reactions. Otherwise I could claim that humans will grow a third eye and clouds will become marshmallows tomorrow.

Life could certainly take other forms that are different from our carbon-based life forms. Still, the probability of complicated nitrogen-based life forms are still slim. Even if its a different element, it would need specific and careful conditions in which to produce life. Just because its not carbon-based doesn't mean it may not have different limitations. From what we have seen here on Earth, and it is the only basis in which we can determine at the moment, life is a very complex process of development.

I'm really just playing Devil's advocate. I'm not really sure if there is an abundance or scarcity of life in the universe. I'd like to think we're not the only ones out here.

Well we all have to be presumptuous. If I have seen that the grass is green and the sky is blue my entire life, I must presume this will continue and it is just the way the world works. In order to predict, we have to look at what has happened before and what kind of conditions have brought about certain reactions. Otherwise I could claim that humans will grow a third eye and clouds will become marshmallows tomorrow.MagicMan4597

Life could certainly take other forms that are different from our carbon-based life forms. Still, the probability of complicated nitrogen-based life forms are still slim. Even if its a different element, it would need specific and careful conditions in which to produce life. Just because its not carbon-based doesn't mean it may not have different limitations. From what we have seen here on Earth, and it is the only basis in which we can determine at the moment, life is a very complex process of development.

And you would be flouting your intellect in the process. You're really misusing your rationality by believing in such trite things. A reasonably prudent person would take the time to realize that even their most well established beliefs are open to the most robust of objections. I could cast doubt on even the assumption that the world is flat if I wanted to. (It is a far easier argument to make than you people think.) Humans could grow a third eye and clouds could become marshmellows tomorrow. Until we entirely rule out the possibility, it is a possibility remained. Once again, I refer you to my Stanford-Binet argument. Merely because you find something complicated doesn't make it so. You could be the five year old of the universe in terms of intelligence, just like me. We simply don't know. Not only that, but what on earth is it the case that the probability of nitrogen based life forms is slim? Or better yet, how do you know that Carbon and Nitrogen based life forms are even a plurality in the multitude of biologies out there? Do you have some knowledge I don't about all possible Biology?Vandalvideo

As for the universe argument, you're right, we don't know. We don't know if life can easily be produced or if it is nearly an impossible task, which brings me to my first point where I said there are two different perspectives; one being that the universe is so large that it is impossible to not have other life and the other being that the simple life is so complex that it would be nearly impossible to replicate it.

Yes you could completely argue that the world is flat or that tomorrow when I walk I will fall through the ground like a ghost and fall towards the center of the earth where snakes and demons wait for me. But in order to try to make intelligent predictions, we need to make logical assumptions that give us a base to which we can understand things. If we can't do that, then there is no need for science.

As for the universe argument, you're right, we don't know. We don't know if life can easily be produced or if it is nearly an impossible task, which brings me to my first point where I said there are two different perspectives; one being that the universe is so large that it is impossible to not have other life and the other being that the simple life is so complex that it would be nearly impossible to replicate it. Yes you could completely argue that the world is flat or that tomorrow when I walk I will fall through the ground like a ghost and fall towards the center of the earth where snakes and demons wait for me. But in order to try to make intelligent predictions, we need to make logical assumptions that give us a base to which we can understand things. If we can't do that, then there is no need for science.MagicMan4597

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It is also interesting to note that almost no scholars believe 2 Peter to have truly been written by Peter.

GabuEx

What' new? The "Yea hath God said?" crowd has been attacking the Word of God since that famous question was uttered in the Garden of Eden. Such will it be until the Lord returns. While the Lord is the author, Peter was His pen. There is much internal evidence that supports Peter's authorship.

"But as we study the Epistle, we find several internal evidences that Peter was indeed the author:
In 2Pe_1:3, the writer speaks of believers as having been called by the Lord's own glory and virtue. This takes us back to Luk_5:8 where the glory of the Lord so overpowered Peter that he cried, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"
When the writer gives a prescription whereby his readers may never stumble (2Pe_1:5-10), we think immediately of Peter's fall, and of the sorrow it brought him.
Chapter 1 verse 14 is especially significant. The writer had been told of his death by the Lord Jesus. This fits perfectly with Joh_21:18-19 where Jesus revealed to Peter that he would be killed in his old age.
In verses 13-15 of chapter 1, the words "tent" (tabernacle) and "decease" (exodus) are both words used by Luke in the account of the transfiguration (Luk_9:31-33).
One of the most convincing proofs that Peter wrote this Epistle is the reference in 2Pe_1:16-18 to the transfiguration. The writer was present on the holy mountain. This means that he was either Peter, James, or John (Mat_17:1). This second Letter claims to have been written by Peter (2Pe_1:1), not by James or John.
In 2Pe_2:14, 2Pe_2:18 we find the words "enticing" and "allure." They come from the word deleago—to catch with a lure. They are from the vocabulary of a fisherman, and are thus especially appropriate from Peter.
In 2Pe_3:1 the author refers to a previous Letter, which is probably 1 Peter. He also speaks in 2Pe_3:15 of Paul in very personal terms, which an apostle could certainly do.
A final word that harks back to Peter's experience is found in 2Pe_3:17. The word "steadfastness" comes from the same root as the word "strengthen" which Jesus used in Luk_22:32. "When you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." It is also found as "establish" in 1Pe_5:10 and 2Pe_1:12.
Finally, as in the Pastoral Epistles, we suspect that Peter's trenchant condemnation of apostates has drawn out much of the modern hostility to 2 Peter as a genuine product of the apostle's life and pen."

source" Bible Believers Commentary

And there are reams of evidence that rules it out for practically all scholarship.

Nonetheless, you miss the ultimate point of my pointing that out. On the topic of the Book of Enoch, you cite the opinion of scholars as your evidence against its authorship. Yet, scholarship also maintains that 2 Peter cannot possibly have been written by Peter. One cannot cite scholarly consensus on one topic and then discount it on another if one wants to maintain an air of consistency and credibility.

Personally, I consider the issue irrelevant to what true followers of Christ are called to do, spread the Good News of the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. I believe that God is the ultimate author of all Scripture and it really matters not whose name a certain book is attributed to. All of the authors of Scripture worked under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were merely God's pen.

That being said, my "internal evidence" comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and that's good enough for me. That's where I get my spiritual guidance. Others turn to the "Yea hath God said" textual critics, like Hort and Wescott, for their spiritual guidance, and of course, that is their choice. To each his own. It is well known that it's very fashionable and world pleasing today, for the textual critics, many of whom do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or that Jesus is God, to question God's Word. One can find tons of books and articles from these textual critics that question God's Word. Bart Ehrman is a good example.

Joh 12:43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

"Here are the books of the Bible along with the name of who is most assumed by biblical scholars to be the author, along with the approximate date of authorship:"

1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

"In the New Testament, books are generally dated by the concerns being addressed, e.g., the growing Gnostic heresy, and how much they quote from other New Testament writings and a cross-referencing of events such as the collection for the needy in Jerusalem discussed in Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. We also have historical, extra-biblical accounts such as that by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus to corroborate events described in the Bible.

The Gospels are often dated by something that is not mentioned: Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:1-2, and we know from historians such as Josephus that the city fell in A.D. 70. It seems logical that if such a prominent prophecy had been fulfilled before the writing of the Gospels that it would have been mentioned, as is the fulfilled prophecy of Christ's resurrection as found in John 2:19, 22

http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Bible-written.html

Of course those, often found among textual critics, that have expressed that they are not even certain that Jesus is God, or they are not even 100% certain that God exists, or that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, questions like these are great sources of doubt. I don't number myself among that group, I trust in the Word of God.

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

im 12 and wuts this?

TheAlivePixel