Atheism vs. Christianity

Some Christians have argued for the reality of Scripture on the idea of various lines of external proof. For instance, archeological discoveries have confirmed several events of the Bible. The excavation of Jericho reveals that the walls of this town did so fall as described within the book of Joshua. Indeed, some passages of the Bible, that critics once claimed were simply myth, have currently been confirmed archeologically. for example, the five cities of the plain represented in Genesis 14:2 were once thought by secular students to be legendary, however ancient documents have been found that list these cities as a part of ancient trade routes. Such consistency is to be expected. Yet, using archaeology in an effort to prove the Bible appears inappropriate. After all, archaeology is an unsure science; its findings are inevitably subject to the interpretation and bias of the observer and are generally turned by newer proof. Archaeology is beneficial, however fallible. Is it acceptable to use a fallible procedure to judge what claims to be the foolproof Word of God? Using the less certain to judge the more certain appears logically blemished. A number of passages within the Bible predict future events in nice detail"events that were future to the writers however are currently in our past. As an example, in Daniel two a prophecy foretold the next three world empires (up to and as well as the Roman Empire) and their falls. If the Bible weren't inspired by God, how could its mere human writers possibly have known concerning events within the distant future? The Bible conjointly touches on matters of science in ways in which appear to travel on the far side what was better-known to man at the time. In Isaiah 40:22 we tend to examine the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). Nonetheless secular scientists didn't discover such enlargement till the 1920's. The spherical nature of the world and therefore the undeniable fact that the world hangs in space are steered in Scriptures like Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is believed to have been written around 2000 BC"long before the nature of our planet was generally known. Such proof is actually consistent with the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And a few individuals notice such proof convincing. Yet, persons who tenaciously resist the thought that the Bible is the Word of God have offered their counterarguments to the above examples. They have steered that the predictive prophetical passages were written after the actual fact, much later than the text itself would indicate. Samples of apparent scientific insight within the Bible are chalked up to coincidence. Moreover, there's one thing inappropriate about using secular science to gauge the claims of the Bible. As with archaeological claims, what constitutes an observation is usually subject to the bias of the interpreter. Some individuals would claim that particles-to-people evolution may be a scientific fact. Though creationists would disagree, we must concede that what some individuals suppose is nice science doesn't always coincide with the Bible. The Bible will show agreement with a number of what's normally accepted as scientific fact. However what's thought of scientific fact these days may not be tomorrow. We are once again within the embarrassing position of trying to gauge what claims to be foolproof revelation from God by the questionable standards of men. Again, how will we choose what claims to be unerring revelation by a standard that's itself unsure and ever-changing? This would be like using one thing we simply suspect to be about three feet long to check whether or not a yardstick is correct. Using the less-certain to gauge the more-certain simply doesn"t make sense. At best, such things simply show consistency.