This is not proof. This is just a guy quoting scripture and speculating on what it means. Again... I'm asking for
physical evidence. Scripture doesn't qualify.
In fact... this link basically admits there isn't any (the whole paragraph where he talks about "not finding God under a microscope")
Most of this is him talking about humans are not as smart as people seem to think. At least it's that way for the first 5 or 6 paragraphs. He then gives another 2 or 3 paragraphs or rhetoric about how God is not as benevolent as people think.
He then qualifies it with... you guessed it... scripture:
A quick look at Jeremiah 9:21-24 gives the answer to this intellectual dilemma.
Again... scripture is not physical evidence.
I won't even get into the topic about what actually causes tsunamis and earthquakes.
He then says this:
Tsunamis, terrible diseases, agonizing cancers, massive earthquakes, devastating tornados, killer hurricanes, awful suffering, and death itself are very real and violent storms that should be enough to convince any thinking person that our warning is true. |
Saying these things are all physical proof. But they're not. He doesn't understand what proof is. All of those things can be explained by any number of things. What makes your explanation different from mine is that my explanation is shown to be consistent and repeatable.
Moving on....
This article opens with "Let us examine the biblical message." So... more scripture.
The entire article just quotes passages from the Bible and explains them. Again... "I read it in a book" is not evidence.
Now this one. The title "Should we trust the Bible?" is very interesting to me. My instinctive answer is "no"... because, again, I live by the mantra "question everything". So I started out a little excited on this one.
Some critics doubt that we even have the original New Testament. - this is irrelevant. Even you have have the very first copy of the book ever made... the TRUE original.... it wouldn't matter. All that proves is that the Bible was written -- which we already know. It does not prove that what the Bible says is true.
He then asks the question of whether or not the original can be trusted, and responds with this:
So Jesus’ disciples would have been very capable of recording His statements accurately, and they give evidence of having done so honestly. For example, they admit certain facts which forgers probably would have left out
Yeah, or... the people just wrote a book. There are tons of books available in <insert library here> that document all sorts of fantastic tales. I could probably get my friend (who knows me personally) to write a book about me depicting me as the son of God. That doesn't make that book true.
Unless there is physical evidence to support the information contained in the book... the book itself is just that: a book. Again... "I read it in a book" is not proof.
Is there any archaeological confirmation for the Bible?
This got me excited once again.
we have many first-century non-Christian historians and writers who confirm the life and execution of Jesus:. - You know what? I'll give you this one. Without researching the writers he listed... I'll just say this point is valid.
So what does this prove? It proves that Jesus lived and was crucified. And
maybe that he claimed to be the son of God, and maybe even that he convinced the people he was with that he was the son of God. But it does not prove that he actually
was the son of God.
started investigating Luke’s gospel with the assumption that Luke was mistaken in many areas. But Ramsay discovered time and time again that Luke was absolutely precise about place names and the many varied titles of rulers.
So the Luke's writings in the Bible were historically accurate with regards to names of places and rulers. That's great.
So was the Great Gatsby. But of course... the Great Gatsby was fiction.
Just because some parts of the book are true does not mean all of it is true.
The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical myth, but their enormous ancient capital, Hattusa, was discovered at modern Boghazköy. Archaeology has also vindicated the war of four kings vs five in Gen. 14. and Belshazzar’s kingship in Daniel.
Yes there are lots of historical accuracies in the Bible. This is not proof of anything. I can point to just about any book of modern fiction and cherry-pick examples of how that particular book is historically accurate. That means absolutely nothing.
The rest of the page is just more scripture and irrelevant points. I'm going to stop there.
Still no compelling evidence.