The bible is historically accurate and factual

Yes there IS secular sources to verify the work of Christ "How do we know something existed in the past?" If there was not any other historical evidence to prove of Jesus"s works to the world when He was here, then it would be possible to say that He did not. But since there are, in fact, sources that are reliable than it is proven from a secular stance that Jesus did perform many works as the Bible also records. Here is an example: Exhibit A: Cornelius Tacitus Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) has been called the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome. Two of his most lauded works are The Annuals and The Histories. When he wrote of the reign of Nero he alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome, he said: But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the boundaries that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, (Annals XV, 44). This is evidential that a secular source was established to prove of Jesus"s works and not just the Biblical history as my opponent suggests. Age of the Earth Oddly enough, just because the world seems to be an amount of extended years or so does not indicate for certain that it justifies the evolutional eruption. Creationism is and can be a valid source in itself. Evolution had to have had a beginning too, right? So how can anyone resolve this issue, "IF" evolution is the accurate truth to rely on based of history. carbon dating Through dating and other forms of measurement we can see that some of the rocks on earth are shown to be nearly 3 billion years old [4]. In addition to this we can use half life and other various methods to tell the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. If the earth is older than 6,500 years the bible is false unless you are taking a epoc stance on the days in which God created the earth but when reading this literally and not subjectively it is 6,500 years old. Even in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible almost all text points to this being a literally seven days no matter how you play semantics with it. dendrochronology Tree"s rings are an interesting idea, but not reliable because who is to say that the calculations were not misprinted or misread or mismeasured? The Flood Pro, how can you say there is no evidence to Jesus being here on the earth as the Bible records, if you just used a source of Mesopotamia, but yet deny what was recorded because it does not add up to you? If it was recorded of the flood, than that should be enough to acknowledge that there must have been a global flood and must be proof of Jesus being on the earth, right? Fossils and the flood My opponent is going as far as using the "idea" of the fossils from the flood was not a global incident simply because it apparently did not reveal any signs of the animals swimming up? But could you explain to me, how exactly does this add up? If the animals did swim up, that does not mean that there was not a global flood. Conclusion Despite of my opponent"s ideas and suggestions, the Bible is very accurate and reliable to use because if it was not then why do we have it to begin with? It is obvious that the Bible has been around longer than any other source of information-- thus making it reliable. http://caffeinatedthoughts.com... http://www.thetrumpet.com...