btw, Splendour... the link you provided proves what I said earlier... you suffer from massive confirmation bias. You never seem to look critically at anything you post because you WANT to believe it.
This link "An excerpt from
http://everystudent.com/features/bib...ID=3466921512:
1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196292867&sr=1-1" is really poor.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The Bible is not a book of fables. Unlike other spiritual books, it does not demand blind faith. Multiple categories of evidence support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as its claim to divine authorship.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, many Christian Biblical Scholars contend that much of the Bible is in fact fables and not to be taken literally. So not even all Christians, I'm not sure even the MAJORITY of Christians believe much of it isn't fables.
Furthermore...
[ QUOTE ]
Ancient history supports the Bible's accuracy as a historical record.
[/ QUOTE ] Some of it does. But most of the 'magical parts' and nearly everything about Jesus is NOT supported. For instance, history directly contradicts in massive amounts of evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old... or that the entire earth was flooded... or that the jews had a mass exodus from Egypt, etc.
This is fallacious. Yet you link to it as proof.... because you want to believe it. Have you verified this with any critical research? I sincerely doubt it.
[ QUOTE ]
The Gospels provide multiple reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm... First off, Many Biblical Scholars believe that the 3 later gospels were BASED on the first Gospel. That is... they are not independent accounts, they are merely retellings. The later 3 relied on the first Gospel. Second... how are they reliable? Outside of the Bible, there is little to no corroborative evidence. Period.
Once again... you take it for granted that this is correct. Yet even within the Christian Academic community, Biblical scholars believe that the Gospels are NOT separate accounts. (see the book link I posted for you earlier)
[ QUOTE ]
Archaeology backs up the Biblical account.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again... it does not. It backs up things like... certain cities may have existed. But it does not back up much of it.
Because the Bible references real cities and such is not proof of anything. Anymore then the fact that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom had Nazis in it... who were real, therefore Indiana Jones was real and he really found the Ark of the Covenant.
[ QUOTE ]
Textual scholarship confirms that the books of the Bible have not changed since they were first written.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the worst of all. There are plenty of books documenting the changes in the Bible. I posted one for you.