The Bible does not say the way to Heaven is by following rules and going through rituals and motions, the Bible says the way to Heaven is to KNOW Jesus, to have a personal relationship with Him. Not making sure you’re following rules, but following Him.
Scholars say Homers "The Illiad" is considered to be 95% accurate to this day, and there have been 643 copies written, out of all the copies, only 3 falter from the original :: If you include fragments there are 25,000 copies of the New Testament written, and scholars say "The New Testament" is the most reliable ancient document in history, and is considered to be 99.95% accurate, meaning out of 25,000 copies, only .05% falter from the original.
Archaeological Discovery. Two historians, Nelson Glueck & William Ramsey, were determined to find out that they Bible was not reliable. At the end of their journey this is what they said: “let it be stated categorically that no archeological find has ever controverted a Biblical reference."
The Bible is the only book written over a 1500 year period, on 3 continents, with over 40 authors who addressed over 100 controversial subjects.. yet the story remains the same. Every time.
Billions of people claim that they have read the book and it has radically changed their life. They find meaning and purpose and joy and fulfillment and peace. People die proclaiming its contents.
So, Jesus lived, this we know. This is what historical accuracy tells us, but the main question, is Jesus the divine power? This is the atheist argument.. Lets state some facts.
Prophecies.
- 25% of the Bible is prophecy (there are about 2500). In the Old Testament 200 prophecies were made 500 years before Jesus was born. Jesus fulfilled all 200 prophecies during His lifetime.
- The chance of JUST fulfilling 48 of these prophecies is 1 X10 ^ 57th power, AND according to Barellies Law anything beyond 1X10 ^ 50th power is scientifically impossible.. yet Jesus fulfilled ALL 200. Please, question that.
- Just a few He fulfilled:1. He be born a virgin 2. He be a descendant of Abraham 3. The exact price he would be betrayed for 4. He would be beaten and spit upon 5. That people would gamble for his garments 6. That he be crucified with the transgressors.. just to name a few. ALL of this was prophesied over 500 years before He was even born! How would they know this? Crucifixions didn't even happen during the time this was prophesied....
Confirmation that God, NOT science, created us.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his evolutionary theory. In his book On the Origin of Species, he admitted, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
- The human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain. How could so many intricate components independently evolve to work together perfectly when, if a single component did not function perfectly, nothing could work at all? So for all of you who think we were created by atoms and cells, your telling me one day a single cell formed this one tiny little intricate part of the human species.. even Charles Darwin says that couldn’t be true.
- The theory of evolution cannot explain why we pursue intangibles like beauty and higher spiritual yearnings. Our minds are far too complex to have arisen passively or accidentally.
"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education"- Theodore Roosevelt
I could go on about this stuff all day.. all night.. all week.. but if your more genuinely interested, visit this site.....
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
1 comments:
Hi,
A couple of my friends are friends with you on Facebook and I found you absolutely drop dead attractive so I clicked over to your blog and have been reading.
Nice blog. I want to respond to this post about the unlikelihood of the human eye or, to respond to your claims more directly, the specialized cells which have to function in concert for the human eye to work. This argument is actually classified one of several "arguments from improbability".
You make the statement "your telling me one day a single cell formed this one tiny little intricate part of the human species". I want to point out to your readers and to you that this is NOT what biologists are suggesting, especially the "one day" part. The evolutionary processes that formed the human eye took place not over a period of days, but over whole epochs of geologic time - millions upon millions of years!
Your reaction to my statement is already contained in your post: "How could so many intricate components independently evolve to work together perfectly when, if a single component did not function perfectly, nothing could work at all?"
Here's the thing: if a single component did not function perfectly, the eye COULD STILL WORK, just not as well. Consider color-blind people; clearly, some of the components of the eyes of color-blind individuals don't "function perfectly" and yet their eyes still work and millions of color blind people function in our species quite well...
The point is, your argument is predicated on the assumption that the various parts of the eye one day just "popped" into being--and if that were indeed the case, I cannot imagine a scientific explanation that would account for it. Thankfully, that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS!
Richard Dawkins recently published a book called "The Greatest Show on Earth" where he actually addresses your human eye argument. You should read the book. I know you probably hate Richard Dawkins but there's no harm in listening to him for a while. According to you, he's also part of God's creation and at the very least his book offers the best summary of your opposition viewpoint.
All I ask is that if you're going to cite instances of the natural selection theory failing, you research what you're publishing on the Internet. If you had, you might have quietly replaced your example with a less easily explainable process in evolution.
Thank you,
Richard Brume
Post a Comment