by jimwalton » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:22 pm
> how you can believe in a 2000 year old book that was written in a cave
The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors, from all walks of life, on 3 different continents, over the course of about 1300 years. And yet it has internal consistency, historical accuracy, lacking in (legitimate) contradictions, consistency of theme, honest appraisals of the human condition, solutions to the human condition, and has been verified by archaeology and personal experiences millions of times over. It has majesty in the style of its writing and obviously embeds many truths for humanity. The Bible has been the foundation of the Western World's disciplines of law, philosophy, art, music, literature, economics, science, and education. These are a few of the reasons I value it so highly and believe in it.
> but why ignore scientific proven facts and chose to believe words from the bible instead?
I don't ignore any proven scientific facts. Nor do I ignore the teachings of the Bible. It's not an either/or situation, but a both/and. I love and honor science and I respect the reliability and authority of the Bible. I have never seen the two in competition.
> For example the earth is 4.5 billion years old yet I've seen countless christians argue against this? It's literally a FACT.
The Bible doesn't say the earth is young. I have no problems with a 4.54 billion years old. I never have to choose science over the Bible or the Bible over science.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:22 pm.