[snip]
>TILL
>Roger, when are you going to tell us exactly how I can use a
>"fine-comb" test to determine that the Bible is "true and credible"?
>I would like for you to present one that cannot also be used to prove
>the truth and credibility of the Koran, B of M, and other holy books.
>Why can't you just show us what test you have that has enabled you to
>determine the truth and credibility of the Bible?
>RH
>Not sure that I know. Inerrancy would be one test. Consistentcy
>with archeological evidence would be another. Historical
>consistency. Reliability of the authors. One problem we have is that,
>in the case of the Bible, we have a book that is inherently difficult
>to understand even if it were shown to be inerrant, historically
>accurate, and written by credible authors. It also describes things
>for which there is no test for accuracy other than the Bible itself.
>Science purports to know what happened at the point of creation and
>after, but it cannot tell us what happened immediately before creation
>that led to the creation. Science can neither prove nor disprove God.
There is ample information available to demonstrate that the Bible fails the test on every point you mentioned. The Bible is NOT inerrant, it is sometimes INCONSISTENT with the archaeological evidence, it is NOT always historically consistent, and many of the authors are UNKNOWN and demonstrably unreliable.
In addition, The Bible itself says that God sometimes deceived his own prophets, that he purposely gave out bad laws, and that the scribes falsified the Word. (Anyone wanting the references can e-mail me with the following SUBJECT line: send Flaws file)
Have you ever looked into any of the following? If not, are you willing to?
With regard to the inerrancy issue, here are some sources for evidence of errancy: 1.) "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine 2.) "The Christ" by John F. Remsburg 3.) "is That in the Bible?" Charles Francis Potter
For information on the Bible and its inconsistency (in some case) with the archaeological evidence, I suggest: 1.) a subscription to "Biblical Archaeology Review" 2.) "Archaeology in the Holy Land" by Kathleen M. Kenyon 3.) "Archaeology of the Bible" by Magnus Magnusson. 4.) "The Noah's Ark Nonsense" by Howard Teeple 5.) "Where is Noah's Ark?" by Lloyd R. Bailey (BTW, I did subscribe to BAR for a number of years, and the magazine together with the books proved to me that the idea that the Bible and archaeology are always consistent is nothing but hogwash.)
For inconsistencies with historical data, the above plus the following offer ample evidence: 1.) "The Historical Approach to the Bible" by Howard Teeple 2.) "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" by Robert M. Grant 3.) "Jesus, an Historian's Review of the Gospels" by Michael Grant 4.) "Hebrew Myths -- the Book of Genesis" by Robert Graves & Raphael Patai 5.) "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth" by S.G.F. Brandon 6.) "The Death of Jesus" by Joel Carmichael
For information about the authors (and their untrustworthiness, in some cases), the following: 1.) "How Did Christianity Really Begin?" by Howard Teeple 2.) "The Birth of the Gospel" by William Benjamin Smith 3.) "The Christ" by Charles Guignebert
Don
"If one is willing to make adjustments in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological evidence if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological evidence." - J. Maxwell Miller
Biblical archaeologist