Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

Why the Bible Merits Your Consideration

In this little write up, am going to discuss not only prophesies but all other prove that makes the Bible worthy of a second look.
Most of the citation can be cross checked historically, so you may have to do your own digging with reference to what am going to show you.


1: The World's Most Widely Distributed Book
"The Bible is the most widely read book in history. . . . More copies have been distributed of the Bible than of any other book. The Bible has also been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other book."—"The World Book Encyclopedia."1
IN SOME respects, most books are like people. They appear on the scene, may grow in popularity, and—except for a handful of classics—become old and die. Libraries often serve as cemeteries for countless books that are obsolete, unread and, in effect, dead.
The Bible, however, is exceptional even among classical works. Although its written origins go back 3,500 years, it is still very much alive. It is by far the most widely circulated book on earth. Each year, some 60 million copies of the entire Bible or portions of it are distributed. The first edition printed from movable type came off the printing press of the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg about 1455. Since then an estimated four billion Bibles (the whole or in part) have been printed. No other book, religious or otherwise, even comes close.
The Bible is also the most widely translated book in history. The complete Bible or portions of it have been translated into more than 2,100 languages and dialects. Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of the Bible in their own language.2 This book has thus crossed national boundaries and transcended racial and ethnic barriers.
Statistics alone may not provide a compelling reason for you to examine the Bible. Nevertheless, the circulation and translation figures are impressive, testifying to the Bible's universal appeal. Surely the best-selling and most widely translated book in all human history is worthy of your consideration.

2: A Book That "Speaks" Living Languages
If the language in which a book is written dies, for all practical purposes the book dies too. Few people today can read the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. Yet it is alive. It has survived because it has "learned to speak" the living languages of mankind. The translators who "taught" it to speak other languages faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles at times.
TRANSLATING the Bible—with its more than 1,100 chapters and 31,000 verses—is an imposing task. However, over the centuries, devoted translators gladly took on the challenge. Many of them were willing to suffer hardships and even to die for their work. The history of how the Bible came to be translated into the languages of mankind is a remarkable account of perseverance and ingenuity. Consider just a small part of that compelling record.

The Challenges Facing the Translators
How do you translate a book into a language that has no written script? Numerous Bible translators faced just such a challenge. For example, Ulfilas, of the fourth century C.E., set out to translate the Bible into what was then a modern but not a written language—Gothic. Ulfilas overcame the challenge by inventing the Gothic alphabet of 27 characters, which he based primarily on the Greek and the Latin alphabets. His translation of nearly the entire Bible into Gothic was completed before 381 C.E.
In the ninth century, two Greek-speaking brothers, Cyril (originally named Constantine) and Methodius, both outstanding scholars and linguists, wanted to translate the Bible for Slavic-speaking people. But Slavonic—the forerunner of today's Slavic languages—had no written script. So the two brothers invented an alphabet in order to produce a translation of the Bible. Thus the Bible could now "speak" to many more people, those in the Slavic world.
In the 16th century, William Tyndale set out to translate the Bible from the original languages into English, but he encountered stiff opposition from both Church and State. Tyndale, who was educated at Oxford, wanted to produce a translation that even "a boy that driveth the plough" could understand.1 But to accomplish this, he had to flee to Germany, where his English "New Testament" was printed in 1526. When copies were smuggled into England, the authorities were so enraged that they began burning them publicly. Tyndale was later betrayed. Just before he was strangled and his body burned, he uttered these words with a loud voice: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!"
Bible translation continued; the translators would not be stopped. By 1800, at least portions of the Bible had "learned to speak" 68 languages. Then, with the formation of Bible Societies—in particular the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded in 1804—the Bible quickly "learned" even more new languages. Young men by the hundreds volunteered to go to foreign lands as missionaries, many with the prime purpose of translating the Bible.

Learning the Languages of Africa
In 1800, there were only about a dozen written languages in Africa. Hundreds of other spoken languages had to wait until someone invented a writing system. Missionaries came and learned the languages, without the aid of primers or dictionaries. Then they labored to develop a written form, and after that they taught the people how to read the script. This they did so that someday people could read the Bible in their own tongue.
One such missionary was a Scotsman named Robert Moffat. In 1821, at the age of 25, Moffat set up a mission among the Tswana-speaking people of southern Africa. To learn their unwritten language, he mixed with the people, at times journeying into the interior to live among them. "The people were kind," he later wrote, "and my blundering in the language gave rise to many bursts of laughter. Never, in one instance, would an individual correct a word or sentence, till he or she had mimicked the original so effectually, as to give great merriment to others." Moffat persevered and eventually mastered the language, developing a written form for it.
In 1829, after working among the Tswana for eight years, Moffat finished translating the Gospel of Luke. To get it printed, he traveled about 600 miles by ox wagon to the coast and then took a ship to Cape Town. There the governor gave him permission to use a government press, but Moffat had to set the type and do the printing himself, finally publishing the Gospel in 1830. For the first time, the Tswana could read a portion of the Bible in their own language. In 1857, Moffat completed a translation of the entire Bible into Tswana.
Moffat later described the reaction of the Tswana when the Gospel of Luke was first made available to them. He noted: "I have known individuals to come hundreds of miles to obtain copies of St. Luke. . . . I have seen them receive portions of St. Luke, and weep over them, and grasp them to their bosoms, and shed tears of thankfulness, till I have said to more than one, 'You will spoil your books with your tears.'"
Devoted translators like Moffat thus gave many Africans—some of whom initially saw no need for a written language—the first opportunity to communicate in writing. The translators, though, believed that they were giving the people of Africa an even more valuable gift—the Bible in their own tongue. Today the Bible, in whole or in part, "speaks" in over 600 African languages.

Learning the Languages of Asia
While translators in Africa struggled to develop written forms for spoken languages, on the other side of the world, other translators encountered a much different obstacle—translating into languages that already had complex written scripts. Such was the challenge facing those who translated the Bible into the languages of Asia.
At the beginning of the 19th century, William Carey and Joshua Marshman went to India and mastered many of its written languages. With the help of William Ward, a printer, they produced translations of at least portions of the Bible in nearly 40 languages. Regarding William Carey, author J. Herbert Kane explains: "He invented a beautiful, free-flowing colloquial style [of the Bengali language] that replaced the old classical form, thereby making it more intelligible and attractive to modern readers."
Adoniram Judson, born and raised in the United States, traveled to Burma, and in 1817 he began to translate the Bible into Burmese. Describing the difficulty of mastering an Oriental language to the degree necessary to translate the Bible, he wrote: 'When we take up a language spoken by a people on the other side of the earth, whose thoughts run in channels diverse from ours, and whose codes of expression are consequently all new, and the letters and words all totally destitute of the least resemblance to any language we have ever met with; when we have no dictionary or interpreter and must get something of the language before we can avail ourselves of the assistance of a native teacher—that means work!'
In Judson's case, it meant some 18 years of painstaking work. The final portion of the Burmese Bible was printed in 1835. His stay in Burma, however, cost him dearly. While he was working on the translation, he was accused of spying and hence spent nearly two years in a mosquito-infested jail. Not long after his release, his wife and young daughter died of fever.
When 25-year-old Robert Morrison arrived in China in 1807, he undertook the extremely difficult task of translating the Bible into Chinese, one of the most complex written languages. He had only a limited knowledge of Chinese, which he had started studying just two years earlier. Morrison also had to contend with Chinese law, which sought to maintain China's isolation. The Chinese people were prohibited, under penalty of death, to teach the language to foreigners. For a foreigner to translate the Bible into Chinese was a capital offense.
Undaunted but cautious, Morrison continued studying the language, learning it rapidly. Within two years he obtained a job as a translator for the East India Company. During the day, he worked for the company, but in secret and under constant threat of detection, he worked on translating the Bible. In 1814, seven years after he arrived in China, he had the Christian Greek Scriptures ready for printing. Five years later, with the help of William Milne, he completed the Hebrew Scriptures.
It was an enormous achievement—the Bible could now "speak" in the language used by more people than any other in the world. Thanks to capable translators, translations into other Asian languages followed. Today, portions of the Bible are available in over 500 of the languages of Asia.
Why did men such as Tyndale, Moffat, Judson, and Morrison labor for years—some even risking their lives—to translate a book for people they did not know and, in some cases, for people who did not have a written language? Certainly not for glory or financial gain. They believed that the Bible is God's Word and that it should "speak" to people—all people—in their own language.
Whether you feel that the Bible is the Word of God or not, perhaps you would agree that the kind of self-sacrificing spirit displayed by those devoted translators is all too rare in today's world. Is not a book that inspires such unselfishness worth investigating?

Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

3: Can This Book Be Trusted?
"I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history whatsoever."—Sir Isaac Newton, renowned English scientist.
CAN this book—the Bible—be trusted? Does it refer to people who really lived, places that actually existed, and events that truly happened? If so, there should be evidence that it was written by careful, honest writers. Proof does exist. Much of it has been found buried in the earth, and even more is contained within the book itself.

Digging Up the Evidence
The discovery of ancient artifacts buried in Bible lands has supported the historical and geographic accuracy of the Bible. Consider just some of the evidence that archaeologists have dug up.
David, the courageous young shepherd who became king of Israel, is well-known to readers of the Bible. His name appears 1,138 times in the Bible, and the expression "House of David"—often referring to his dynasty—occurs 25 times. (1 Samuel 16:13; 20:16) Until recently, though, there was no clear evidence outside the Bible that David existed. Was David merely a fictitious character?
In 1993 a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran, made an astounding discovery, which was reported in Israel Exploration Journal. At the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the northern part of Israel, they uncovered a basalt stone. Carved into the stone are the words "House of David" and "King of Israel." The inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., is said to be part of a victory monument erected by Aramaeans—enemies of Israel who lived to the east. Why is this ancient inscription so significant?
Based on a report by Professor Biran and his colleague, Professor Joseph Naveh, an article in Biblical Archaeology Review stated: "This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible." Something else is noteworthy about the inscription. The expression "House of David" is written as one word. Language expert Professor Anson Rainey explains: "A word divider . . . is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. 'The House of David' was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E."5 So King David and his dynasty evidently were well-known in the ancient world.
Did Nineveh—the great city of Assyria mentioned in the Bible—really exist? As recently as the early 19th century, some Bible critics refused to believe so. But in 1849, Sir Austen Henry Layard unearthed ruins of King Sennacherib's palace at Kuyunjik, a site that proved to be part of ancient Nineveh. The critics were thus silenced on that score. But these ruins had more to tell. On the walls of one well-preserved chamber was a display showing the capture of a well-fortified city, with captives being marched before the invading king. Above the king is this inscription: "Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nîmedu -throne and passed in review the booty (taken) from Lachish (La-ki-su)."
This display and inscription, which can be viewed in the British Museum, agree with the Bible's account of the capture of the Judean city of Lachish by Sennacherib, recorded at 2 Kings 18:13, 14. Commenting on the significance of the find, Layard wrote: "Who would have believed it probable or possible, before these discoveries were made, that beneath the heap of earth and rubbish which marked the site of Nineveh, there would be found the history of the wars between Hezekiah [king of Judah] and Sennacherib, written at the very time when they took place by Sennacherib himself, and confirming even in minute details the Biblical record?"
Archaeologists have dug up many other artifacts—pottery, ruins of buildings, clay tablets, coins, documents, monuments, and inscriptions—that confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham lived. (Genesis 11:27-31) The Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the 19th century, describes Babylon's fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E., an event narrated in Daniel chapter 5. An inscription (fragments of which are preserved in the British Museum) found on an archway in ancient Thessalonica contains the names of city rulers described as "politarchs," a word unknown in classical Greek literature but used by the Bible writer Luke. (Acts 17:6, footnote) Luke's accuracy was thus vindicated in this—as it had already been in other details.—Compare Luke 1:3.
Archaeologists, however, do not always agree with one another, let alone with the Bible. Even so, the Bible contains within itself strong evidence that it is a book that can be trusted.

Presented With Candor
Honest historians would record not just victories (like the inscription regarding Sennacherib's capture of Lachish) but also defeats, not just successes but also failures, not just strengths but also weaknesses. Few secular histories reflect such honesty.
Regarding Assyrian historians, Daniel D. Luckenbill explains: "Often it is clear that royal vanity demanded playing fast and loose with historical accuracy." Illustrating such "royal vanity," the annals of Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal boast: "I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am pre-eminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic!" Would you accept everything you read in such annals as accurate history?
In contrast, the Bible writers displayed refreshing candor. Moses, Israel's leader, frankly reported the shortcomings of his brother, Aaron, of his sister Miriam, of his nephews Nadab and Abihu, and of his people, as well as his own mistakes. (Exodus 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Leviticus 10:1, 2; Numbers 12:1-3; 20:9-12; 27:12-14) The serious mistakes of King David were not covered over but were committed to writing—and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.
Such frank, open reporting indicates a sincere concern for truth. Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people, and even themselves, is there not good reason to trust their writings?

Accurate in Details
In court trials the credibility of a witness' testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account—one in which every last detail is neatly arranged—may also betray a false testimony.
How does the "testimony" of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute details. However, the harmony is not carefully arranged, arousing suspicions of collusion. There is an obvious lack of design in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally. Consider some examples.
The Bible writer Matthew wrote: "And Jesus, on coming into Peter's house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever." (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: "Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and . . . Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5, The New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact—Peter's being married—is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew's account but is conveyed incidentally.
All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—record that on the night of Jesus' arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man's ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: "The name of the slave was Malchus." (John 18:10, 26) Why does John alone give the man's name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: John "was known to the high priest." He was also known to the high priest's household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man's name, whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.
At times, detailed explanations are omitted from one account but are provided elsewhere by statements made in passing. For instance, Matthew's account of the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin says that some people present "slapped him in the face, saying: 'Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?'" (Matthew 26:67, 68) Why would they ask Jesus to "prophesy" who had struck him, when the striker was standing there in front of him? Matthew does not explain. But two of the other Gospel writers supply the missing detail: Jesus' persecutors covered his face before he was slapped. (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64) Matthew presents his material without concern as to whether every last detail was supplied.
The Gospel of John tells of an occasion when a large crowd gathered to hear Jesus teach. According to the record, when Jesus observed the crowd, "he said to Philip: 'Where shall we buy loaves for these to eat?'" (John 6:5) Of all the disciples present, why did Jesus ask Philip where they could buy some bread? The writer does not say. In the parallel account, though, Luke reports that the incident took place near Bethsaida, a city on the north shores of the Sea of Galilee, and earlier in John's Gospel it says that "Philip was from Bethsaida." (John 1:44; Luke 9:10) So Jesus logically asked a person whose hometown was nearby. The agreement between the details is remarkable, yet clearly unwitting.
In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?
So can the Bible be trusted? Archaeologists have dug up enough artifacts to confirm that the Bible refers to real people, real places, and real events. Even more compelling, however, is the evidence found within the Bible itself. Candid writers spared no one—not even themselves—in recording the hard facts. The internal consistency of the writings, including the coincidences without design, gives the "testimony" the clear ring of truth. With such "sure marks of authenticity," the Bible is, indeed, a book you can trust.

Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

[b]4: Does This Book Agree With Science?
Religion has not always viewed science as its friend. In previous centuries some theologians resisted scientific discoveries when they felt that these endangered their interpretation of the Bible. But is science really the Bible's enemy?
IF THE Bible writers had endorsed the most widely held scientific views of their day, the result would be a book of glaring scientific inaccuracies. Yet the writers did not promote such unscientific misconceptions. On the contrary, they penned a number of statements that not only are scientifically sound but also directly contradicted the accepted opinions of the day.

What Is the Shape of the Earth?
That question has intrigued humans for thousands of years. The general view in ancient times was that the earth was flat. The Babylonians, for example, believed that the universe was a box or a chamber with the earth as its floor. Vedic priests of India imagined that the earth was flat and that only one side of it was inhabited. A primitive tribe in Asia pictured the earth as a huge tea tray.
As early as the sixth century B.C.E., Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that since the moon and the sun are spherical, the earth must also be a sphere. Aristotle (fourth century B.C.E.) later agreed, explaining that the sphericity of the earth is proved by lunar eclipses. The earth's shadow on the moon is curved.
However, the notion of a flat earth (with only its upper side inhabited) did not disappear completely. Some could not accept the logical implication of a round earth—the concept of antipodes. Lactantius, Christian apologist of the fourth century C.E., ridiculed the very idea. He reasoned: "Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? . . . that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards?"
The concept of antipodes posed a dilemma for a few theologians. Certain theories held that if there were antipodeans, they could have no possible connection with known humans either because the sea was too wide to navigate or because an impassable torrid zone surrounded the equator. So where could any antipodeans have come from? Perplexed, some theologians preferred to believe that there could be no antipodeans, or even, as Lactantius argued, that the earth could not be a sphere in the first place!
Nonetheless, the concept of a spherical earth prevailed, and eventually it was widely accepted. Only with the dawn of the space age in the 20th century, however, has it been possible for humans to travel far enough into space to verify by direct observation that the earth is a globe.
And where did the Bible stand on this issue? In the eighth century B.C.E., when the prevailing view was that the earth was flat, centuries before Greek philosophers theorized that the earth likely was spherical, and thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated "circle," may also be rendered "sphere." Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."—Moffatt.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.

What Holds Up the Earth?
In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars? They had no knowledge of the law of universal gravitation, formulated by Isaac Newton and published in 1687. The idea that heavenly bodies are, in effect, suspended in empty space upon nothing was unknown to them. Thus, their explanations often suggested that tangible objects or substances held the earth and other heavenly bodies aloft.
For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in these waters. The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, one on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century B.C.E., believed that the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies.
Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: "It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon." So, what does the earth "rest upon"? Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth—immobile—at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them—the sun, the moon, and the planets—moved across the sky.
Aristotle's explanation seemed logical. If the heavenly bodies were not firmly attached to something, how else could they stay aloft? The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years. According to The New Encyclopædia Britannica, in the 16th and 17th centuries his teachings "ascended to the status of religious dogma" in the eyes of the church.
With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle's theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force—gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton's colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance.
What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" (beli-mah') used here literally means "without anything." The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, "on empty space."
A planet hanging "on empty space" was not at all how most people in those days pictured the earth. Yet, far ahead of his time, the Bible writer recorded a statement that is scientifically sound.

The Bible and Medical Science—Do They Agree?
Modern medical science has taught us much about the spread and prevention of disease. Medical advances in the 19th century led to the introduction into medical practice of antisepsis—cleanliness to reduce infections. The result was dramatic. There was a significant reduction in infections and premature deaths.
Ancient physicians, however, did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor did they realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sickness. Little wonder that many of their medical practices would seem barbaric by modern standards.
One of the oldest medical texts available is the Ebers Papyrus, a compilation of Egyptian medical knowledge, dating from about 1550 B.C.E. This scroll contains some 700 remedies for various afflictions "ranging from crocodile bite to toenail pain." States The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: "The medical knowledge of these physicians was purely empirical, largely magical and wholly unscientific." Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture made of human excrement combined with other substances.
This text of Egyptian medical remedies was written at about the same time as the first books of the Bible, which included the Mosaic Law. Moses, who was born in 1593 B.C.E., grew up in Egypt. (Exodus 2:1-10) As a member of Pharaoh's household, he was "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." (Acts 7:22) He was familiar with "the physicians" of Egypt. (Genesis 50:1-3) Did their ineffective or dangerous medical practices influence his writings?
No. On the contrary, the Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that were far ahead of their time. For example, a law regarding military encampments required burying excrement away from the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:13) This was a profoundly advanced preventive measure. It helped keep water free from contamination and provided protection from fly-borne shigellosis and other diarrheal illnesses that still claim millions of lives each year in lands where sanitary conditions are deplorable.
The Mosaic Law contained other sanitary regulations that safeguarded Israel against the spread of infectious diseases. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. (Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Any person who touched a corpse was considered unclean and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included washing his garments and bathing. During the seven-day period of uncleanness, he was to avoid physical contact with others.—Numbers 19:1-13.
This sanitary code reveals wisdom not shared by the physicians of surrounding nations at the time. Thousands of years before medical science learned about the ways in which disease spreads, the Bible prescribed reasonable preventive measures as safeguards against disease. Not surprisingly, Moses could speak of Israelites in general in his day as living to 70 or 80 years of age.—Psalm 90:10.
You may acknowledge that the foregoing Biblical statements are scientifically accurate. But there are other statements in the Bible that cannot be proved scientifically. Does that necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?
Accepting the Unprovable
A statement that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue. Scientific proof is limited by man's ability to discover sufficient evidence and to interpret data correctly. But some truths are unprovable because no evidence has been preserved, the evidence is obscure or undiscovered, or scientific capabilities and expertise are insufficient to arrive at an uncontested conclusion. Might this be the case with certain Biblical statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking?
For example, the Bible's references to an invisible realm inhabited by spirit persons cannot be proved—or disproved—scientifically. The same can be said of miraculous events mentioned in the Bible. Not enough clear geologic evidence for the global Flood of Noah's day is available to satisfy some people. (Genesis, chapter 7) Must we conclude that it did not happen? Historical events can be obscured by time and change. So is it not possible that thousands of years of geologic activity has effaced much of the evidence for the Flood?
Granted, the Bible contains statements that cannot be proved or disproved by available physical evidence. But should that surprise us? The Bible is not a science textbook. It is, however, a book of truth. We have already considered strong evidence that its writers were men of integrity and honesty. And when they touch on matters related to science, their words are accurate and completely free from ancient "scientific" theories that turned out to be mere myths. Science is thus no enemy of the Bible. There is every reason to weigh what the Bible says with an open mind.[/b]

Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

[b]5: A Book of Prophecy
People are interested in the future. They search for reliable predictions concerning many subjects, from weather forecasts to economic indicators. When they act on such forecasts, however, they are often disappointed. The Bible contains many predictions, or prophecies. How accurate are such prophecies? Are they history written in advance? Or are they history masquerading as prophecy?
THE Roman statesman Cato (234-149 B.C.E.) reportedly said: "I wonder that a soothsayer doesn't laugh when he sees another soothsayer." Indeed, to this day many people are skeptical of fortune-tellers, astrologers, and other soothsayers. Often their predictions are couched in vague terms and are subject to a wide variety of interpretations.
What, though, about the Bible's prophecies? Is there reason for skepticism? Or is there a basis for confidence?

Not Just Educated Guesses
Knowledgeable people may try to use observable trends to make accurate speculations regarding the future, but they are never right all the time. The book Future Shock notes: "Every society faces not merely a succession of probable futures, but an array of possible futures, and a conflict over preferable futures." It adds: "Of course, no one can 'know' the future in any absolute sense. We can only systematize and deepen our assumptions and attempt to assign probabilities to them."
But the Bible writers did not simply "assign probabilities" to "assumptions" about the future. Nor can their predictions be dismissed as obscure statements open to a wide variety of interpretations. On the contrary, many of their prophecies were uttered with extraordinary clarity and were unusually specific, oftentimes predicting just the opposite of what might be expected. Take as an example what the Bible said in advance about the ancient city of Babylon.

To Be 'Swept With the Broom of Annihilation'
Ancient Babylon became "the jewel of kingdoms." (Isaiah 13:19, The New American Bible) This sprawling city was strategically located on the trade route from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, serving as a commercial depot for both land and sea trade between the East and the West.
By the seventh century B.C.E., Babylon was the seemingly impregnable capital of the Babylonian Empire. The city straddled the Euphrates River, and the river's waters were used to form a broad, deep moat and a network of canals. In addition, the city was protected by a massive system of double walls, buttressed by numerous defense towers. Little wonder that its inhabitants felt secure.
Nevertheless, in the eighth century B.C.E., before Babylon rose to the height of its glory, the prophet Isaiah foretold that Babylon would be 'swept with the broom of annihilation.' (Isaiah 13:19; 14:22, 23) Isaiah also described the very manner in which Babylon would fall. The invaders would 'dry up' its rivers—the source of its moatlike defense—making the city vulnerable. Isaiah even supplied the name of the conqueror—"Cyrus," a great Persian king, "before whom gates shall be opened and no doors be shut."—Isaiah 44:27-45:2, The New English Bible.
These were bold predictions. But did they come true? History answers.

'Without a Battle'
Two centuries after Isaiah recorded his prophecy, on the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E., the armies of Medo-Persia under the command of Cyrus the Great were encamped near Babylon. But the Babylonians were confident. According to the Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.), they had enough provisions stored up to last for years.3 They also had the Euphrates River and Babylon's mighty walls to protect them. Nonetheless, on that very night, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, "the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle." How was that possible?
Herodotus explains that inside the city, the people "were dancing and making merry at a festival." Outside, however, Cyrus had diverted the waters of the Euphrates. As the water level sank, his army sloshed along the riverbed, with water up to their thighs. They marched past the towering walls and entered through what Herodotus called "the gates that opened on the river," gates carelessly left open. (Compare Daniel 5:1-4; Jeremiah 50:24; 51:31, 32.) Other historians, including Xenophon (c. 431–c. 352 B.C.E.), as well as cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists, confirm the sudden fall of Babylon to Cyrus.
Isaiah's prophecy about Babylon was thus fulfilled. Or was it? Is it possible that this was not a prediction but was actually written after the fact? Really, the same could be asked about other Bible prophecies.

History Masquerading as Prophecy?
If the Bible prophets—including Isaiah—merely rewrote history to look like prophecy, then these men were nothing more than clever frauds. But what would be their motive for such trickery? True prophets readily made it known that they could not be bribed. (1 Samuel 12:3; Daniel 5:17) And we have already considered compelling evidence that the Bible writers (many of whom were prophets) were trustworthy men who were willing to reveal even their own embarrassing errors. It seems unlikely that men of this sort would be inclined to commit elaborate frauds, disguising history as prophecy.
There is something else to consider. Many Bible prophecies contained scathing denunciations of the prophets' own people, which included the priests and rulers. Isaiah, for example, decried the deplorable moral condition of the Israelites—both leaders and people—in his day. (Isaiah 1:2-10) Other prophets forcefully exposed the sins of the priests. (Zephaniah 3:4; Malachi 2:1-9) It is difficult to conceive why they would fabricate prophecies that contained the sharpest censures imaginable against their own people and why the priests would have cooperated in such a ruse.
In addition, how could the prophets—if they were nothing more than impostors—have pulled off such forgery? Literacy was encouraged in Israel. From an early age, children were taught how to read and write. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) Private reading of the Scriptures was urged. (Psalm 1:2) There was a public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues on the weekly Sabbath. (Acts 15:21) It seems improbable that an entire literate nation, well versed in the Scriptures, could have been deceived by such a hoax.
Besides, there is more to Isaiah's prophecy of Babylon's fall. Included in it is a detail that simply could not have been written after the fulfillment.

"She Will Never Be Inhabited"
What would become of Babylon after its fall? Isaiah foretold: "She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there." (Isaiah 13:20) It may have seemed odd, to say the least, to predict that such a favorably situated city would become permanently uninhabited. Could Isaiah's words have been written after he had observed a desolate Babylon?
Following the takeover by Cyrus, an inhabited Babylon—albeit an inferior one—continued for centuries. Recall that the Dead Sea Scrolls include a copy of the complete book of Isaiah that is dated to the second century B.C.E. About the time that that scroll was being copied, the Parthians took control of Babylon. In the first century C.E., there was a settlement of Jews in Babylon, and the Bible writer Peter visited there. (1 Peter 5:13) By that time, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah had been in existence for the better part of two centuries. So, as of the first century C.E., Babylon still was not completely desolate, yet Isaiah's book had been finished long before then.
As foretold, Babylon eventually became mere "piles of stones." (Jeremiah 51:37) According to the Hebrew scholar Jerome (fourth century C.E.), by his day Babylon was a hunting ground in which "beasts of every type" roamed. Babylon remains desolate to this day.
Isaiah never lived to see Babylon become uninhabited. But the ruins of that once powerful city, about 50 miles [80 km] south of Baghdad, in modern Iraq, bear silent testimony to the fulfillment of his words: "She will never be inhabited." Any restoration of Babylon as a tourist attraction might lure visitors, but Babylon's "progeny and posterity" are gone forever.—Isaiah 13:20; 14:22, 23.
The prophet Isaiah thus did not utter vague predictions that could be made to fit just any future happening. Neither did he rewrite history to make it appear as prophecy. Think about it: Why would an impostor risk "prophesying" something over which he would have absolutely no control—that mighty Babylon would never again be inhabited?
This prophecy about Babylon's downfall is but one example from the Bible. Many people see in the fulfillment of its prophecies an indication that the Bible must be from a source higher than man. Perhaps you would agree that, at the very least, this book of prophecy is worth examining. One thing is certain: There is a vast difference between the hazy or sensational predictions of modern-day soothsayers and the clear, sober, and specific prophecies of the Bible.[/b]

Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

[b]5b: Trustworthy Prophecy (Egypt)
Only Jehovah God, the Author of the Bible, can unfailingly predict the future. Note, for example, what he inspired Jeremiah to foretell concerning two Egyptian cities—Memphis and Thebes. Memphis, or Noph, was once a prominent commercial, political, and religious center. Yet, God said: “Noph itself will become a mere object of astonishment and will actually be set afire, so as to be without an inhabitant.” (Jeremiah 46:19) And so it turned out. The book In the Steps of Moses the Lawgiver says that “the titanic ruins of Memphis” were pillaged by Arab conquerors, who used them as a quarry. It adds that today “within the circuit of the ancient city not a stone protrudes above the black soil.”
Thebes, earlier called No-amon or just No, suffered a similar fate, along with its impotent gods. Concerning this onetime capital of Egypt and principal center of the worship of the god Amon, Jehovah said: “Here I am turning my attention upon Amon . . . and upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt and upon her gods . . . And I will give them into . . . the hand of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon.” (Jeremiah 46:25, 26) As prophesied, the Babylonian monarch conquered Egypt and its prominent city of No-amon. Then, after Persian ruler Cambyses II dealt another blow to the city in 525 B.C.E., it steadily declined, finally being completely ruined by the Romans. Yes, accurate prophecy puts the Bible in a class of its own, giving us confidence in what it says about our future.

5c: Trustworthy History (Assyria)
THE very mention of Assyria to people of the ancient Middle East may have made their blood run cold. According to the Bible book of Jonah, when that prophet received an assignment from God to preach a judgment message in the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, he fled in the opposite direction! (Jonah 1:1-3) Perhaps that was so because of the Assyrians’ fearsome reputation.

The Bible prophet Nahum described Nineveh as “the lair of lions” and “the city of bloodshed.” He added: “Prey does not depart! There is the sound of the whip and the sound of the rattling of the wheel, and the dashing horse and the leaping chariot. The mounted horseman, and the flame of the sword, and the lightning of the spear, and the multitude of slain ones, and the heavy mass of carcasses; and there is no end to the dead bodies. They keep stumbling among their dead bodies.” (Nahum 2:11; 3:1-3) Does secular history corroborate the Bible’s description of ancient Assyria?
The book Light From the Ancient Past calls Assyria “the ruthless fighting machine whose calculated frightfulness was the terror of its enemies.” The following is the way one Assyrian king, Ashurnasirpal II, boasted of his treatment of those who opposed him:
“I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, . . . and I cut off the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled. . . . Many captives from among them I burned with fire, and many I took as living captives.” When archaeologists excavated Assyrian royal palaces, they found the walls decorated with depictions of horrendous treatment being meted out to captives.
In the year 740 B.C.E., Assyria conquered Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, and took its people into exile. Eight years later, Assyria invaded Judah.* (2 Kings 18:13) The Assyrian King Sennacherib demanded of Judean King Hezekiah a tribute of 30 talents of gold and 300 talents of silver. The Bible record states that this tribute was paid. Even so, Sennacherib insisted that the capital of Judah, Jerusalem, also surrender unconditionally to him.—2 Kings 18:9-17, 28-31.
At Nineveh archaeologists have found an account of the same events in the annals of Sennacherib. In the text, which is inscribed on a hexagonal clay prism, the Assyrian king boasted: “As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) . . . Himself [Hezekiah] I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage.” Sennacherib then claims that Hezekiah sent him “30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, . . . (and) all kinds of valuable treasures,” inflating the number of silver talents that he actually received.
Note, though, that Sennacherib does not claim to have conquered Jerusalem. In fact, he says nothing about the crushing defeat his army suffered through divine intervention. According to the Bible, God’s angel took the lives of 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Says scholar Jack Finegan: “In view of the general note of boasting which pervades the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, however, it is hardly to be expected that Sennacherib would record such a defeat.”

Trustworthy Prophecy
About a hundred years before the fall of the Assyrian Empire, Isaiah declared that Jehovah God would call those proud conquerors to account for their insolence toward his people. “I shall make an accounting for the fruitage of the insolence of the heart of the king of Assyria and for the self-importance of his loftiness of eyes,” Jehovah said. (Isaiah 10:12) Furthermore, God’s prophet Nahum foretold that Nineveh would be plundered, its gates would be opened to its enemies, and its guards would flee. (Nahum 2:8, 9; 3:7, 13, 17, 19) The Bible prophet Zephaniah wrote that the city would become “a desolate waste.”—Zephaniah 2:13-15.
Those prophecies of destruction were fulfilled in 632 B.C.E. That is when Nineveh fell to the combined forces of the Babylonians and the Medes, bringing the Assyrian Empire to an inglorious end. A Babylonian chronicle of that event states that the conquerors “carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple” and turned Nineveh “into a ruin heap.” Today the desolate waste that was once Nineveh is marked by mounds of ruins on the east bank of the Tigris River, opposite the city of Mosul, in Iraq.
Assyria’s destruction also contributed to the fulfillment of yet another Bible prophecy. Earlier, in 740 B.C.E., Assyria took the ten-tribe kingdom into exile. About the same time that Assyria did this, God’s prophet Isaiah foretold that Jehovah would “break the Assyrian,” “tread him down,” and bring Israel back to its homeland. Isaiah wrote: “The remnant of his people who will remain over from Assyria . . . , he [God] will collect together.” That is exactly what occurred—about two hundred years later!—Isaiah 11:11, 12; 14:25.[/b]

Weah96:


I have read the bible. I did not notice any bombshell revelation made therein to suggest that the writers spoke to an omniscient non human. Maybe you care to point them out. What did you read in it that made you realize that it was commissioned by the creator of the universe?
Was there anything mentioned in it that no human being could have revealed?

[b]5d: Trustworthy Prophecy (Rome)
The Bible also contains remarkable prophecies that were written and fulfilled in Roman times. For example, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, he wept and foretold how the Roman armies would destroy the city. “Days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes,” Jesus said. “They will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”—Luke 19:41-44.
Jesus’ followers, however, would have opportunity to escape. How so? Jesus gave them specific instructions ahead of time. “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies,” he warned, “then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her [Jerusalem] withdraw.” (Luke 21:20, 21) Jesus’ followers may well have wondered, ‘How will we escape from a city under siege?’
Josephus recorded what happened. In 66 C.E., when a Roman governor seized from the temple treasury taxes that were in arrears, incensed Jewish rebels slaughtered Roman forces and, in effect, declared themselves independent. Later that year, Cestius Gallus, the Roman governor of Syria, marched south with 30,000 troops, arriving at Jerusalem during a religious festival. Gallus penetrated the suburbs and even began undermining the wall of the temple, where the rebels had taken refuge. Then, for no apparent reason, Gallus withdrew! Excited Jews attacked his retreating army.
Faithful Christians were not deceived by this turn of events. They realized that they had seen Jesus’ amazing prophecy come true: The city had been surrounded by encamped armies! And now, because these armies had retreated, faithful Christians took advantage of this window of opportunity to flee. Many went to Pella, a politically neutral Gentile city located in the mountains across the Jordan.
What happened to Jerusalem? The Roman armies returned, led by Vespasian and his son Titus—this time numbering 60,000 soldiers. They advanced on the city prior to the Passover of 70 C.E., trapping both residents and pilgrims who had flocked there for the celebration. Roman troops denuded the district of trees and built a wall of pointed stakes, just as Jesus had foretold. After about five months, the city fell.
Titus ordered that the temple be preserved; but a soldier torched it, and the place was torn down stone by stone—precisely as Jesus had predicted. According to Josephus, some 1,100,000 Jews and proselytes died, the majority from starvation and pestilence, and another 97,000 were taken prisoner. Many were sent to Rome as slaves. If you visit Rome today, you can tour the famous Colosseum, which was finished by Titus after the campaign in Judea. You can also see the Arch of Titus, which commemorates the conquest of Jerusalem. Yes, Bible prophecy is trustworthy in every detail. How important, then, that we take to heart what it says about the future![/b]

These are just but a few proof I have that The Bible is more than just a mere book to be tossed aside, though there are what we call "False Friends" of the Bible, that doesn't make the message itself polluted.
1 Peter 1:21 concludes this matter by saying:For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

All citation in part or in full were culled from the book "A Book for all People" ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BySEC_zeD1mjcTZfMXRlYTVGdWs )
You can also get more info from the Book; "The Bible God's Word or Man's?

jahstech:

Why the Bible Merits Your Consideration

In this little write up, am going to discuss not only prophesies but all other prove that makes the Bible worthy of a second look.
Most of the citation can be cross checked historically, so you may have to do your own digging with reference to what am going to show you.


1: The World's Most Widely Distributed Book
"The Bible is the most widely read book in history. . . . More copies have been distributed of the Bible than of any other book. The Bible has also been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other book."—"The World Book Encyclopedia."1
IN SOME respects, most books are like people. They appear on the scene, may grow in popularity, and—except for a handful of classics—become old and die. Libraries often serve as cemeteries for countless books that are obsolete, unread and, in effect, dead.
The Bible, however, is exceptional even among classical works. Although its written origins go back 3,500 years, it is still very much alive. It is by far the most widely circulated book on earth. Each year, some 60 million copies of the entire Bible or portions of it are distributed. The first edition printed from movable type came off the printing press of the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg about 1455. Since then an estimated four billion Bibles (the whole or in part) have been printed. No other book, religious or otherwise, even comes close.
The Bible is also the most widely translated book in history. The complete Bible or portions of it have been translated into more than 2,100 languages and dialects. Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of the Bible in their own language.2 This book has thus crossed national boundaries and transcended racial and ethnic barriers.
Statistics alone may not provide a compelling reason for you to examine the Bible. Nevertheless, the circulation and translation figures are impressive, testifying to the Bible's universal appeal. Surely the best-selling and most widely translated book in all human history is worthy of your consideration.

2: A Book That "Speaks" Living Languages
If the language in which a book is written dies, for all practical purposes the book dies too. Few people today can read the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. Yet it is alive. It has survived because it has "learned to speak" the living languages of mankind. The translators who "taught" it to speak other languages faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles at times.
TRANSLATING the Bible—with its more than 1,100 chapters and 31,000 verses—is an imposing task. However, over the centuries, devoted translators gladly took on the challenge. Many of them were willing to suffer hardships and even to die for their work. The history of how the Bible came to be translated into the languages of mankind is a remarkable account of perseverance and ingenuity. Consider just a small part of that compelling record.

The Challenges Facing the Translators
How do you translate a book into a language that has no written script? Numerous Bible translators faced just such a challenge. For example, Ulfilas, of the fourth century C.E., set out to translate the Bible into what was then a modern but not a written language—Gothic. Ulfilas overcame the challenge by inventing the Gothic alphabet of 27 characters, which he based primarily on the Greek and the Latin alphabets. His translation of nearly the entire Bible into Gothic was completed before 381 C.E.
In the ninth century, two Greek-speaking brothers, Cyril (originally named Constantine) and Methodius, both outstanding scholars and linguists, wanted to translate the Bible for Slavic-speaking people. But Slavonic—the forerunner of today's Slavic languages—had no written script. So the two brothers invented an alphabet in order to produce a translation of the Bible. Thus the Bible could now "speak" to many more people, those in the Slavic world.
In the 16th century, William Tyndale set out to translate the Bible from the original languages into English, but he encountered stiff opposition from both Church and State. Tyndale, who was educated at Oxford, wanted to produce a translation that even "a boy that driveth the plough" could understand.1 But to accomplish this, he had to flee to Germany, where his English "New Testament" was printed in 1526. When copies were smuggled into England, the authorities were so enraged that they began burning them publicly. Tyndale was later betrayed. Just before he was strangled and his body burned, he uttered these words with a loud voice: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!"
Bible translation continued; the translators would not be stopped. By 1800, at least portions of the Bible had "learned to speak" 68 languages. Then, with the formation of Bible Societies—in particular the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded in 1804—the Bible quickly "learned" even more new languages. Young men by the hundreds volunteered to go to foreign lands as missionaries, many with the prime purpose of translating the Bible.

Learning the Languages of Africa
In 1800, there were only about a dozen written languages in Africa. Hundreds of other spoken languages had to wait until someone invented a writing system. Missionaries came and learned the languages, without the aid of primers or dictionaries. Then they labored to develop a written form, and after that they taught the people how to read the script. This they did so that someday people could read the Bible in their own tongue.
One such missionary was a Scotsman named Robert Moffat. In 1821, at the age of 25, Moffat set up a mission among the Tswana-speaking people of southern Africa. To learn their unwritten language, he mixed with the people, at times journeying into the interior to live among them. "The people were kind," he later wrote, "and my blundering in the language gave rise to many bursts of laughter. Never, in one instance, would an individual correct a word or sentence, till he or she had mimicked the original so effectually, as to give great merriment to others." Moffat persevered and eventually mastered the language, developing a written form for it.
In 1829, after working among the Tswana for eight years, Moffat finished translating the Gospel of Luke. To get it printed, he traveled about 600 miles by ox wagon to the coast and then took a ship to Cape Town. There the governor gave him permission to use a government press, but Moffat had to set the type and do the printing himself, finally publishing the Gospel in 1830. For the first time, the Tswana could read a portion of the Bible in their own language. In 1857, Moffat completed a translation of the entire Bible into Tswana.
Moffat later described the reaction of the Tswana when the Gospel of Luke was first made available to them. He noted: "I have known individuals to come hundreds of miles to obtain copies of St. Luke. . . . I have seen them receive portions of St. Luke, and weep over them, and grasp them to their bosoms, and shed tears of thankfulness, till I have said to more than one, 'You will spoil your books with your tears.'"
Devoted translators like Moffat thus gave many Africans—some of whom initially saw no need for a written language—the first opportunity to communicate in writing. The translators, though, believed that they were giving the people of Africa an even more valuable gift—the Bible in their own tongue. Today the Bible, in whole or in part, "speaks" in over 600 African languages.

Learning the Languages of Asia
While translators in Africa struggled to develop written forms for spoken languages, on the other side of the world, other translators encountered a much different obstacle—translating into languages that already had complex written scripts. Such was the challenge facing those who translated the Bible into the languages of Asia.
At the beginning of the 19th century, William Carey and Joshua Marshman went to India and mastered many of its written languages. With the help of William Ward, a printer, they produced translations of at least portions of the Bible in nearly 40 languages. Regarding William Carey, author J. Herbert Kane explains: "He invented a beautiful, free-flowing colloquial style [of the Bengali language] that replaced the old classical form, thereby making it more intelligible and attractive to modern readers."
Adoniram Judson, born and raised in the United States, traveled to Burma, and in 1817 he began to translate the Bible into Burmese. Describing the difficulty of mastering an Oriental language to the degree necessary to translate the Bible, he wrote: 'When we take up a language spoken by a people on the other side of the earth, whose thoughts run in channels diverse from ours, and whose codes of expression are consequently all new, and the letters and words all totally destitute of the least resemblance to any language we have ever met with; when we have no dictionary or interpreter and must get something of the language before we can avail ourselves of the assistance of a native teacher—that means work!'
In Judson's case, it meant some 18 years of painstaking work. The final portion of the Burmese Bible was printed in 1835. His stay in Burma, however, cost him dearly. While he was working on the translation, he was accused of spying and hence spent nearly two years in a mosquito-infested jail. Not long after his release, his wife and young daughter died of fever.
When 25-year-old Robert Morrison arrived in China in 1807, he undertook the extremely difficult task of translating the Bible into Chinese, one of the most complex written languages. He had only a limited knowledge of Chinese, which he had started studying just two years earlier. Morrison also had to contend with Chinese law, which sought to maintain China's isolation. The Chinese people were prohibited, under penalty of death, to teach the language to foreigners. For a foreigner to translate the Bible into Chinese was a capital offense.
Undaunted but cautious, Morrison continued studying the language, learning it rapidly. Within two years he obtained a job as a translator for the East India Company. During the day, he worked for the company, but in secret and under constant threat of detection, he worked on translating the Bible. In 1814, seven years after he arrived in China, he had the Christian Greek Scriptures ready for printing. Five years later, with the help of William Milne, he completed the Hebrew Scriptures.
It was an enormous achievement—the Bible could now "speak" in the language used by more people than any other in the world. Thanks to capable translators, translations into other Asian languages followed. Today, portions of the Bible are available in over 500 of the languages of Asia.
Why did men such as Tyndale, Moffat, Judson, and Morrison labor for years—some even risking their lives—to translate a book for people they did not know and, in some cases, for people who did not have a written language? Certainly not for glory or financial gain. They believed that the Bible is God's Word and that it should "speak" to people—all people—in their own language.
Whether you feel that the Bible is the Word of God or not, perhaps you would agree that the kind of self-sacrificing spirit displayed by those devoted translators is all too rare in today's world. Is not a book that inspires such unselfishness worth investigating?

Investigating yes. I have investigated it which brings us here. I didn't see any non human revelation.

Muslims labored to arrange their quran. Have you read the it? Laboring to translate the book does not imply divine authorship of it.

@Jahstech: Translation of Chugh

Isaiah 40:22a--When is a Circle a Sphere?

Here is how Isa. 40:22 is rendered in the NRSV:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers:

who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

and spreads them like a tent to live in ...

The critical line in Hebrew reads (transliterated and omitting vowels): hyshb 'l hwg h'rtz, which my colleague Dr. Robert Suder translates: "the one dwelling on the circle/horizon of the land."14 A survey of Hebrew lexica and theological wordbooks15 yields much information about the key word hwg (chûgh).16 According to K. Seybold, its root appears six times in biblical Hebrew, and it is clear from its usage in context that it has a specifically geometrical meaning, that is, "a circle, as drawn with compasses." In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, meaning "to inscribe a circle."17 This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, where it denotes "the circle of the heavens" (shamayim), and in Isa. 40:22a, where it denotes "the circle of the earth" (haarets). Sir. 43:1218 uses chûgh in describing the rainbow. Finally, in Isa. 44:13, mechûghah, a hapax legomena (a form used only once), means "a compass," i.e., that simple instrument people my age used to draw circles in high school geometry class.19

All but one of these contexts are cosmological, and in fact four of the five uses of chûgh occur in creation hymns. Isa. 40:22a describes God as sitting/ dwelling above "the circle of the earth" which God laid out--with a compass, as Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27 suggest, for the latter verses describe the act of inscribing the circle that fixes the boundary between the earth and the deep, the circle that also marks the boundary between light and darkness.20 The context also suggests that in Isa. 40:22a, the earth ('erets) which is encircled refers not to the earth as that part of the creation distinct from the heavens (Gen. 1:1)--as the creationists cited above seem to interpret it--but to other meanings of earth: as "the dry land" (Gen. 1:9-10), and at the same time, it appears, as "the ground on which people and things stand," for "its inhabitants are like grasshoppers."21

A circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry.

Looking at these usages together, I am hard put to see how anyone could justify rendering chûgh in Isa. 40:22a as "sphericity."22 The earliest translations of these Scriptures bear this out. In the Septuagint (LXX), the translators render the nominal and verbal forms of chûgh in every case with the Greek gýros (noun), "circle" or "ring," which they use in Isa. 40:22a, or gyróo (verb), "to make or inscribe a circle."23 Gýros does not mean "sphere,"24 and in fact nowhere in any Greek recension of the Hebrew Scriptures will one find the proper word sphaíra used in this context at all.25 The history of the formation of the LXX is largely lost, and we do not know if the Prophets were translated in Alexandria as the Torah was in the third century BC.26 But if they were and if the translators were familiar with the concept of a spherical earth taught at the Museon of Alexandria, then the center of Greek science, they give no hint of it in their translation of chûgh.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

@Jahstech: Job 26:7

What, then, can we make of Job 26:7? While its sense is hardly plain, one notion it certainly does not convey, I would tell my students, is that of a spherical earth held by the force of gravity in space (Morris). The earth that hangs on nothing is also the earth that rests on "pillars," which tremble when God shakes the earth (Job 9:6), or upon a "foundation" with bases and a cornerstone (Job 38:6). It is also the dry land that God separated from the waters of the encircling deep (Gen. 1:9-10; Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27), that the psalmists describe as "founded ... upon the ocean, set ... upon the nether-streams" (24:1-2, JPSV; cf. Exod. 20:4), the earth which God "stretched out ... above the waters" (136:6 KJV). I see no value in trying to reconcile these many and varied metaphorical images with our own image of a spherical, rotating planet--aside from the fact that these ancients did not think of the earth as a planet.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

Weah96:
@Jahstech: Job 26:7


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

A Book That Is Misrepresented
"The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture." So stated the Congregation of the Index of the Roman Catholic Church in a decree in 1616.1 Does the Bible really disagree with scientific facts? Or has it been misrepresented?
IN THE winter of 1609/10, Galileo Galilei turned his newly developed telescope toward the heavens and discovered four moons circling the planet Jupiter. What he saw shattered the prevailing notion that all heavenly bodies must orbit the earth. Earlier, in 1543, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had theorized that the planets revolve around the sun. Galileo verified that this was scientific truth.
To Catholic theologians, however, this was heresy. The church had long held that the earth was the center of the universe. This view was based on a literal interpretation of scriptures that pictured the earth as being fixed "on its foundations, unshakable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) Summoned to Rome, Galileo appeared before the Inquisition. Subjected to rigorous examination, he was forced to recant his findings, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
In 1992, some 350 years after Galileo's death, the Catholic Church finally acknowledged that he was right after all. But if Galileo was right, then was the Bible wrong?

Finding the True Sense of Biblical Passages
Galileo believed the Bible to be true. When his scientific discoveries contradicted the prevailing interpretation of certain Bible verses, he reasoned that theologians were missing the true sense of the passages. After all, "two truths can never contradict one another," he wrote. He suggested that the precise terms of science do not contradict the everyday words of the Bible. But theologians would not let themselves be persuaded. They insisted that all Biblical statements about the earth are to be taken literally. As a result, not only did they reject Galileo's discoveries but they also missed the true sense of such Scriptural expressions.
Really, common sense should tell us that when the Bible refers to "the four corners of the earth," it does not mean that the Bible writers understood the earth to be literally square. (Revelation 7:1) The Bible is written in the language of ordinary people, often using vivid figures of speech. So when it speaks of the earth as having "four corners," a durable "foundation," "pedestals," and a "cornerstone," the Bible is not offering a scientific description of the earth; obviously it is speaking metaphorically, as we often do in daily speech.—Isaiah 51:13; Job 38:6.
In his book Galileo Galilei, biographer L. Geymonat noted: "Narrow-minded theologians who wanted to limit science on the basis of biblical reasoning would do nothing but cast discredit upon the Bible itself." That they did. Actually, it was the theologians' interpretation of the Bible—not the Bible itself—that put unreasonable constraints on science.
Similarly, religious fundamentalists today distort the Bible when they insist that the earth was created in six 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:3-31) Such a view agrees neither with science nor with the Bible. In the Bible, as in everyday speech, the word "day" is a flexible term, expressing units of time of varying lengths. At Genesis 2:4, all six creative days are referred to as one all-embracing "day." The Hebrew word translated "day" in the Bible can simply mean "a long time." So, there is no Biblical reason to insist that the days of creation were 24 hours each. By teaching otherwise, fundamentalists misrepresent the Bible.—See also 2 Peter 3:8.
Throughout history, theologians have often distorted the Bible. Consider some other ways in which the religions of Christendom have misrepresented what the Bible says.

Misrepresented by Religion
The actions of those who say they follow the Bible often besmear the reputation of the book they claim to revere. So-called Christians have shed one another's blood in the name of God. Yet, the Bible admonishes followers of Christ to "love one another."—John 13:34, 35; Matthew 26:52.
Some clergymen fleece their flocks, wheedling hard-earned money from them—a far cry from the Scriptural instruction: "You received free, give free."—Matthew 10:8; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.
Clearly, the Bible cannot be judged according to the words and actions of those who simply quote it or claim to live by it. An open-minded person may therefore want to discover for himself what the Bible is all about and why it is such a remarkable book.

Weah96:


Investigating yes. I have investigated it which brings us here. I didn't see any non human revelation.

Muslims labored to arrange their quran. Have you read the it? Laboring to translate the book does not imply divine authorship of it.

[b]A Book for You?
"To the making of many books there is no end," stated Solomon some 3,000 years ago. (Ecclesiastes 12:12) That observation is as appropriate today as ever. In addition to the standard classics, thousands of new books are printed every year. With so many books to choose from, why should you read the Bible?
MANY people read books either to be entertained or to be informed, or perhaps for both reasons. The same can be true of reading the Bible. It can make for uplifting, even entertaining reading. But the Bible is more than that. It is a unique source of knowledge.—Ecclesiastes 12:9, 10.
The Bible answers questions that humans have long pondered—questions about our past, our present, and our future. Many wonder: Where did we come from? What is the purpose of life? How can we find happiness in life? Will there always be life on earth? What does the future hold for us?
The collective force of all the evidence presented here establishes clearly that the Bible is accurate and authentic. We have already considered how its practical counsel can help us to live meaningful and happy lives today. Since its answers about the present are satisfying, surely its answers about the past and its prophecies about the future are deserving of careful attention.
How to Get the Most Benefit
Many people have started to read the Bible only to stop when they found parts of it difficult to understand. If that has been your experience, there are some things that may be of help.
Select a reliable translation in modern-day language, such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Some people start by reading the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, whose wise teachings, such as those found in the Sermon on the Mount, reflect a keen awareness of human nature and outline how to improve our lot in life.—See Matthew chapters 5 to 7.
[/b]

You won't appreciate what you read from the Bible unless you are;

1: Hungry for truth
2: Humble
3: Honest

Even statistics alone tells you you can't compare the Bible to Koran if your are truly Honest with yourself. Why would a book gain such ground if it were not divinely inspired, even if it was just a fluke it would die off after some time.

After all said and done, I would love to hear your opinion on the most important question in life the Bible gave answers to, question like:questions about our past, our present, and our future, Where did we come from? What is the purpose of life? How can we find happiness in life? Will there always be life on earth? What does the future hold for us?

Over to You.

Cc Weah96

jahstech:
You won't appreciate what you read from the Bible unless you are;

1: Hungry for truth
2: Humble
3: Honest

Even statistics alone tells you you can't compare the Bible to Koran if your are truly Honest with yourself. Why would a book gain such ground if it were not divinely inspired, even if it was just a fluke it would die off after some time.

After all said and done, I would love to hear your opinion on the most important question in life the Bible gave answers to, question like:questions about our past, our present, and our future, Where did we come from? What is the purpose of life? How can we find happiness in life? Will there always be life on earth? What does the future hold for us?

Over to You.

Cc Weah96

There are as many Muslims as there are Christians. Why has the quran not died out yet despite years of Christian dominance? Is the quran a fluke even though it's experiencing an increase in popularity?

When I ask for proof that the creator gave someone a message, I mean just that. Inscriptions on a wall are not proof of that claim.

Think of it this way: Olumba Olumba gives you a book and states that he created the universe before you were born.

What must you read in that book for you to believe that he created the universe? The location of old villages or kings who ruled his tribes and their corresponding locations today?

Weah96:


There are as many Muslims as there are Christians. Why has the quran not died out yet despite years of Christian dominance? Is the quran a fluke even though it's experiencing an increase in popularity?

When I ask for proof that the creator gave someone a message, I mean just that. Inscriptions on a wall are not proof of that claim.

Think of it this way: Olumba Olumba gives you a book and states that he created the universe before you were born.

What must you read in that book for you to believe that he created the universe? The location of old villages or kings who ruled his tribes and their corresponding locations today?

The writers of the bible there in stated that there is someone who gave them what they wrote than.
The places and corresponding dates are proof that the God in question dealt with humans here on earth.
I quoted 2Peter 1:21 above, hope you didn't miss that part?

Don't know the angle you read the proofs I give to you from, but I guess you consider the prophesies of destruction of various nations as myths as well! If mere humans are that powerful I guess we won't be living in the chambles we call world today where everyone is walking on their toes.

My point is, for the bible to have the characteristics I mentioned above there has to be intervention from a source other than mere humans whose knowledge is limited.

You read the bible with a great deal of expectations and when this is not met you have no choice but to condemn it as baseless.

I don't have to force you to accept the bible as having divine origin, but when you come up with a better answer to those questions I asked you earlier then I would start taking your opinion seriously. I know for a certainty those question bothers every single human on earth unless the person isn't human.

Weah96:



Faith itself is the evidence, according to that verse.

U just dont get it, do u?

jahstech:


The writers of the bible there in stated that there is someone who gave them what they wrote than.
The places and corresponding dates are proof that the God in question dealt with humans here on earth.
I quoted 2Peter 1:21 above, hope you didn't miss that part?

Don't know the angle you read the proofs I give to you from, but I guess you consider the prophesies of destruction of various nations as myths as well! If mere humans are that powerful I guess we won't be living in the chambles we call world today where everyone is walking on their toes.

My point is, for the bible to have the characteristics I mentioned above there has to be intervention from a source other than mere humans whose knowledge is limited.

You read the bible with a great deal of expectations and when this is not met you have no choice but to condemn it as baseless.

I don't have to force you to accept the bible as having divine origin, but when you come up with a better answer to those questions I asked you earlier then I would start taking your opinion seriously. I know for a certainty those question bothers every single human on earth unless the person isn't human.

I answered two of your proofs you presented, the ones that came closest to the type of proof I am seeking. Go and read my comments on Job 26 and that Isaiah verse again.

The rest of the evidences are too weak, too weak to be the walking stick of a so called creator person.
Someone found a David inscription in Israel so the whole bible is true. Two countries fought a war mentioned in the bible, and the ruins show that as well, therefore by extension, the authors spoke to a non human universal creator entity. That's not the proof you bring pesin while telling them that you communicated with the creator of the universe.
No. You give them proof that matches the weight of your claim. If you tell people that you secretly wed Oprah last week, you cannot continue to present a new laptop as evidence of your nuptials. No, you need Better assets to show.

What is the 4 billionth digit of the number Pi? Nobody knows. But the creator should, if he designed brains and minds. Humans from any generation can appreciate the awe of seeing that value because it can only be calculated by an engine.

That's the kind of proof I need. Or have more creative ways to show everyone that the messenger you sent is not telling lies.

Weah96:


I answered two of your proofs you presented, the ones that came closest to the type of proof I am seeking. Go and read my comments on Job 26 and that Isaiah verse again.

The rest of the evidences are too weak, too weak to be the walking stick of a so called creator person.
Someone found a David inscription in Israel so the whole bible is true. Two countries fought a war mentioned in the bible, and the ruins show that as well, therefore by extension, the authors spoke to a non human universal creator entity. That's not the proof you bring pesin while telling them that you communicated with the creator of the universe.
No. You give them proof that matches the weight of your claim. If you tell people that you secretly wed Oprah last week, you cannot continue to present a new laptop as evidence of your nuptials. No, you need Better assets to show.

What is the 4 billionth digit of the number Pi? Nobody knows. But the creator should, if he designed brains and minds. Humans from any generation can appreciate the awe of seeing that value because it can only be calculated by an engine.

That's the kind of proof I need. Or have more creative ways to show everyone that the messenger you sent is not telling lies.

Ecclesiastes 3:11: He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

1 Corinthians 1:18-23:For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is God’s power. For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not get to know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.
For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; but we preach Christ executed on the stake, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness. However, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men.

You are still ignoring my Questions.

To me otherwise you prove me wrong, all so called intellectual views leads man no where in life, being an atheist doesn't solve life problems, I never will. I could as well just die off than live a life that is baseless and meaningless, that's what your view tells me; we are from nowhere, we are going nowhere and we shall all end up blowing ourselves up in this world. News flash; I just heard Russia, or some country just created an atomic bomb called Satan 2 that is capable of taking out the whole of France, humans which way?

[b]Preaching about the cross sounds foolish to those who are dying in sin. But it is the power of God to those of us who are being saved from the punishment of sin. 19 The Holy Writings say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise people. I will put aside the learning of those who think they know a lot.” 20 Where is the man who is wise? Where is the man who thinks he knows a lot? Where is the man who thinks he has all the answers? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21 In His wisdom, He did not allow man to come to know Him through the wisdom of this world. It pleased God to save men from the punishment of their sins through preaching the Good News. This preaching sounds foolish. 22 The Jews are looking for something special to see. The Greek people are looking for the answer in wisdom. 23 But we preach that Christ died on a cross to save them from their sins. These words are hard for the Jews to listen to. The Greek people think it is foolish. 24 Christ is the power and wisdom of God to those who are chosen to be saved from the punishment of sin for both Jews and Greeks. 25 God’s plan looked foolish to men, but it is wiser than the best plans of men. God’s plan which may look weak is stronger than the strongest plans of men.

God’s Wisdom—Human Wisdom
26 Christian brothers, think who you were when the Lord called you. Not many of you were wise or powerful or born into the family of leaders of a country. 27 But God has chosen what the world calls foolish to shame the wise. He has chosen what the world calls weak to shame what is strong. 28 God has chosen what is weak and foolish of the world, what is hated and not known, to destroy the things the world trusts in. 29 In that way, no man can be proud as he stands before God. 30 God Himself made the way so you can have new life through Christ Jesus. God gave us Christ to be our wisdom. Christ made us right with God and set us apart for God and made us holy. Christ bought us with His blood and made us free from our sins. 31 It is as the Holy Writings say, “If anyone is going to be proud of anything, he should be proud of the Lord.”[/b] NEW LIFE VERSION

While the above scripture was not meant to cause any harm, it goes to show how human reason and how the almighty God we keep proclaiming reason. Though the thought of a God in control of everything may sound foolish to the intelligent ones, to those who believe it means life. The bible goes further to show that humans are not far from animals if the reasoning of all intellectuals who fault the bible are to be taken seriously; Ecclesiastes 3:18-20: I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19 for there is an outcome* for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome.+ As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit.+ So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust,+ and they all are returning to the dust. But why do genuine Christians differ from aminals?, the bible answers; Romans 8:38,39:For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord., we loose nothing at all trying to worship the creator whoever he is, but rather it is to our biggest advantage for even if we die, we do not die in vain. In the world we live in today we all live in fear, fear of the unknown, but the bible provides reliable guidance, it tells us what the future holds for those who acknowledge the creator and for those who refuse to do so.
True false religion has caused more harm than good, but in the long run consider what this scripture says when some started preaching what was false; 2Timothy 2:18,19:These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. Despite that, the solid foundation of God remains standing, having this seal, “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” So despite all there problems caused by religion, the creator is aware and he has set a time when proposes to judge the entire earth; Acts 17:24-29:[b]The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’
“Therefore, since we are the children of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and design of humans. True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance; but now he is declaring to all people everywhere that they should repent. Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.”[/b]. This is where the issue of free will now comes in, we can either choose to ignore the loving creator who has your best interest at heart or choose to worship him. There are no aspect of human life that the bible doesn't address, that's why am forced to acknowledge it, becoming too wise when it comes to issues regarding the creator has its own disadvantage; 1Corinthians 3:18-21:Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you.

Cheers.

timidapsin:
I had a female friend bearing Faith and she was Good

ur point being?!

jojosweet:
ur point being?!

not all faith are bad

Seun:

I believe in being realistic. Sometimes optimism is warranted. Sometimes caution is more appropriate.

It may make you feel better, I guess, but I don't think it has any material effect. There are better things to do.

this is coming a bit late I suppose, but I have seen ur opinion on faith and the lack of it,I want to here your thoughts on afterlife and the spirit.

jojosweet:
this is coming a bit late I suppose, but I have seen ur opinion on faith and the lack of it,I want to here your thoughts on afterlife and the spirit.

My friend don't bother yourself, they have no thought about that, being realistic according to the atheists means we are just higher animals, I see nothing that makes us stand apart from animals if not for the inclusion of a God in the whole life equation.
Like animals, we are given birth to, grow up, go to school or learn any skill just to look for food in the long run, get married, give birth to children and then die off, animals have same routine, no more no less. This biblical statement then holds true: If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephʹe·sus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”
I recalled the signature of a nairalander I saw recently: "Better to die in peace today than to live the rest of your life with the fear of dying tomorrow"
The idea of becoming totally free is the main reason humans seek to eliminate the possibility of a creator, they do not want to give reverence to anyone, but on the contrary, giving reverence to a creator doesn't make you tied to something, neither does it limit the things you can do, is same thing as driving with a seat belt, it doesn't stop you from driving, but for your own very good.
Humans keep repeating what humans did over the course of history, the views you have now has also been raised by someone else in the past, it doesn't make a difference.

Am overwhelmed by the sheer number of truth and honesty the bible gives, even if it is wrong in telling me there is a creator, it certainly isn't wrong in telling me the best way to live, how do I mean?
--The bible tells me the best way of life is not the accumulation of wealth: "Hear this, all you peoples. Pay attention, all you inhabitants of the world, Both small and great, Rich and poor alike. My own mouth will speak wisdom, And the meditation of my heart will show understanding. I will pay attention to a proverb; I will expound my riddle with the harp. Why should I fear during times of trouble,When I am surrounded by the evil of those trying to overthrow me? Those who are trusting in their wealthAnd who boast about their great riches, None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach) That he should live forever and not see the pit. He sees that even wise people die; The stupid and the unreasoning perish together, And they must leave their wealth to others. Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever, Their tents to generation after generation. They have named their estates after themselves. But man, although honored, will not remain; He is no better than the beasts that perish. This is the way of the stupid ones And of those who follow them, who take pleasure in their empty words. They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. Death will shepherd them; The upright will rule over them in the morning. Every trace of them will fade away; The Grave rather than a palace will be their home. But God will redeem me from the power of the Grave, For he will take hold of me. Do not be afraid because a man becomes rich, Because the splendor of his house increases, For when he dies he can take nothing with him; His splendor will not go down with him. For during his lifetime he congratulates himself. (People praise you when you prosper.) But he finally joins the generation of his forefathers. They will never again see the light. A man who does not understand this, although honored, Is no better than the beasts that perish".
--The bible tells me the disadvantage of chasing after wealth: "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains"
--The bible tells me how to manage anxiousness: "Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?, So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles.
The list goes on and on, so even if you convince me there is no creator, I find the content of the bible of remarkable and striking importance to life now...

jahstech:

My friend don't bother yourself, they have no thought about that, being realistic according to the atheists means we are just higher animals, I see nothing that makes us stand apart from animals if not for the inclusion of a God in the whole life equation.
Like animals, we are given birth to, grow up, go to school or learn any skill just to look for food in the long run, get married, give birth to children and then die off, animals have same routine, no more no less. This biblical statement then holds true: If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephʹe·sus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”
I recalled the signature of a nairalander I saw recently: "Better to die in peace today than to live the rest of your life with the fear of dying tomorrow"
The idea of becoming totally free is the main reason humans seek to eliminate the possibility of a creator, they do not want to give reverence to anyone, but on the contrary, giving reverence to a creator doesn't make you tied to something, neither does it limit the things you can do, is same thing as driving with a seat belt, it doesn't stop you from driving, but for your own very good.
Humans keep repeating what humans did over the course of history, the views you have now has also been raised by someone else in the past, it doesn't make a difference.

Am overwhelmed by the sheer number of truth and honesty the bible gives, even if it is wrong in telling me there is a creator, it certainly isn't wrong in telling me the best way to live, how do I mean?
--The bible tells me the best way of life is not the accumulation of wealth: "Hear this, all you peoples. Pay attention, all you inhabitants of the world, Both small and great, Rich and poor alike. My own mouth will speak wisdom, And the meditation of my heart will show understanding. I will pay attention to a proverb; I will expound my riddle with the harp. Why should I fear during times of trouble,When I am surrounded by the evil of those trying to overthrow me? Those who are trusting in their wealthAnd who boast about their great riches, None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach) That he should live forever and not see the pit. He sees that even wise people die; The stupid and the unreasoning perish together, And they must leave their wealth to others. Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever, Their tents to generation after generation. They have named their estates after themselves. But man, although honored, will not remain; He is no better than the beasts that perish. This is the way of the stupid ones And of those who follow them, who take pleasure in their empty words. They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. Death will shepherd them; The upright will rule over them in the morning. Every trace of them will fade away; The Grave rather than a palace will be their home. But God will redeem me from the power of the Grave, For he will take hold of me. Do not be afraid because a man becomes rich, Because the splendor of his house increases, For when he dies he can take nothing with him; His splendor will not go down with him. For during his lifetime he congratulates himself. (People praise you when you prosper.) But he finally joins the generation of his forefathers. They will never again see the light. A man who does not understand this, although honored, Is no better than the beasts that perish".
--The bible tells me the disadvantage of chasing after wealth: "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains"
--The bible tells me how to manage anxiousness: "Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?, So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles.
The list goes on and on, so even if you convince me there is no creator, I find the content of the bible of remarkable and striking importance to life now...

phew!

SHALOM!

Seun:
One if the issues with religion is that it promotes the idea of believing something not because you have been convinced by rational arguments and objective evidence that it is true, but because you want to believe it and choose to believe it.

As a Born Again Full Gospel Pentecostal Christian of 35 years' standing, I challenge anyone to present anything about my Religion that is irrational."

You can't, but only use innuendo to pretend that you know such things about Religion.

The other major Religion in this part of the World is Islam, which is based on the Belief that the god Allah created the Universe, and chose the Prophet Muhammad to be his Messenger, and dictate his Commandments as to how Humans who believe in him should live their lives.

What is irrational about that?

You cannot say, but you try to pretend that you can.

If you are going to condemn Religion in this country as "irrational," you will have to condemn Christianity and Islam first.

It will not be rational to criticize Religions that do not have significant following in Nigeria.

To not give specific examples of this irrationality is not a sign of intellectual depth, nor sincerity.

When beliefs are based on reason and evidence, they are very likely to be true or at least close to the truth.

Can you cite examples of Beliefs based on Reason and Evidence that are not true?

This is how Atheists reserve the right to reject the concept of the Existence of God, after they have lost arguments to the contrary, and even when they have been presented with Evidence of His Existence

That is not rational. Nonetheless, that is exactly what Atheists do.

When they are not, they are very likely to be false and far from the truth.

What Religious Beliefs are not based on Reason and Evidence?

If there are such Beliefs, what is stopping up you from mentioning any of them?

Is it not so that you can pretend that they apply to every Religion?

False beliefs cause people to make bad decisions which lead to worse outcomes for them and for society.

I wonder how much brain-racking it took you to arrive at that stunning conclusion.

When most people in society base their beliefs on objective evidence and reason, their beliefs tend to converge towards a single consistent view of reality.

You mean that there are some people in society who base their Beliefs on Objective Evidence and Reason- but end up with different Views of Reality?

Again, this is his Atheists lay groundwork to excuse themselves from Believing Objective Evidence and Reason.

This enables them to cooperate massively and achieve great things for all to enjoy e.g. in science.

I found it distressing to wake up one day, and discover that SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY Students are taught their subjects in complete ignorance of WHO made the great discoveries and inventions of Science and Technology, and HOW they achieved them.

Therefore, you would be blissfully unaware of the vast number of said discoveries and inventions that came through people who were completely alone in their innovations- the MAJORITY of SOCIETY and ACADEMIA telling them that there was no such thing as whatever they were trying to do- that it was "impossible" and "foolishness."

For instance, the aeroplane, the iron boat, gas street lights, alternating current....

Any great idea goes through three phases:

1. "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

2. "I always thought it was a good idea..."

3. "I thought of it first!"

. - Arthur C. Clarke.

In faith based societies and institutions, differences of opinion are hard to resolve, because people dogmatically hold on to their conflicting beliefs, leading to chronic conflicts that often erupt into violence.

This is always a fault of Religious People- according to Atheists- but not of the Atheists themselves.

When Atheists controlled nations, people were "liquidated" by the millions, by their own governments.

oaroloye:
As a Born Again Full Gospel Pentecostal Christian of 35 years' standing, I challenge anyone to present anything about my Religion that is irrational."

This is an extremely easy challenge. Pentecostal Christianity is almost entirely irrational. Speaking in tongues, for example; the view that the ability to blab unintelligible, repetitive words is somehow miraculous. The belief that mental illnesses, dreams, sleep paralysis, and insect bites at night are often caused by demons. The belief that women you don't like could be mermaids if they are very pretty, or witches if they are not.

This is how Atheists reserve the right to reject the concept of the Existence of God, after they have lost arguments to the contrary, and even when they have been presented with Evidence of His Existence. That is not rational. Nonetheless, that is exactly what Atheists do.

Atheists have found that there is no trustworthy evidence for the existence of God. The "evidence" provided falls apart once you scrutinize it.

What Religious Beliefs are not based on Reason and Evidence? If there are such Beliefs, what is stopping up you from mentioning any of them?

I mentioned them here: https://www.nairaland.com/3286068/every-nigerian-atheist-should-outspoken

When Atheists controlled nations, people were "liquidated" by the millions, by their own governments.

That's primarily about communism and dictatorship, not atheism. They tried to force people to stop believing in God so that the state would take God's place as an authority that must not be questioned. Most modern atheists don't believe in having any authority that cannot be questioned. We also believe that government should be secular but not anti-religious. They should neither support nor oppose religion. People should be free to embrace religion if they feel convinced that God exists, or to reject religion if they find the "evidence" to be very poor, as many people do.

Seun:

This is an extremely easy challenge. Pentecostal Christianity is almost entirely irrational. Speaking in tongues, for example; the view that the ability to blab unintelligible, repetitive words is somehow miraculous.

Your inability to perceive the Kingdom of God is due to your own Self-Important arrogance.

If you cannot think how such a thing could be miraculous and a Blessing is your own mental incompetence.

. LUKE 14:25-34.

25. And there went great multitudes with him:
and he turned, and said unto them,
26. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my Disciple.
27. "And whosoever doth not bear his cross,
and come after me, cannot be my Disciple.
28. "For which of you, intending to build a tower,
sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost,
whether he have sufficient to finish it?
29. "Lest haply, after he hath laid the Foundation,
and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
30. "Saying,

'THIS MAN BEGAN TO BUILD,
AND WAS NOT ABLE TO FINISH.'

31. "Or what king, going to make war against another king,
sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able
with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him
with twenty thousand?
32. "Or else, while the other is yet a great way off,
he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
33. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you
that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my Disciple.
34. "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour,
wherewith shall it be seasoned?
35. "It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill;
but men cast it out.
He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear."

MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE FAILURES- THEY BEGAN ON A PATH, BUT HAVING TAKEN THE FIRST STEP, THEY COULD NOT REASON WHERE TO GO NEXT, NOR HOW TO GET THERE.

. JOHN 3:1-21.

THERE was a man of the Pharisees,
named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2. The same came to Jesus by night,
and said unto him,
"Rabbi, we know that thou
art a teacher come from God:
for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest,
except God be with him."
3. Jesus answered and said unto him,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

'EXCEPT A MAN
BE BORN AGAIN,
HE CANNOT SEE
THE KINGDOM OF GOD.' "

4. Nicodemus saith unto him,
"How can a man be born when he is old?
can he enter the second time
into his mother's womb, and be born?"
5. Jesus answered,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

'EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN
OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT,
HE CANNOT ENTER INTO
THE KINGDOM OF GOD.'

6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7. "Marvel not that I said unto thee,

'YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN.'

8. "The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is Born of the Spirit."
9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him,
"How can these things be?"
10. Jesus answered and said unto him,
"Art thou a Master of Israel,
knowest not these things?
11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

'WE SPEAK THAT WE DO KNOW,
AND TESTIFY THAT WE HAVE SEEN;
AND YE RECEIVE NOT OUR WITNESS.'

12. "If I have told you Earthly Things,
and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe,
if I tell you of Heavenly things?
13. “And no man hath Ascended up to Heaven,
but he that came down from Heaven,
even the Son of Man which is in Heaven.
14. "And as Moses lifted up
the Serpent in the wilderness,
even so must
the Son of man be lifted up:
15. "That whosoever believeth in him
should not perish,
but have Eternal Life.
16. "For God so loved the World,
that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish,
but have Everlasting Life.
17. "For God sent not
His Son into the World
to condemn the World;
but that the World
through him might be Saved.
18. "He that believeth on him
is not condemned:
but he that believeth not
is condemned already,
because he hath not believed
in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. "And this is The Condemnation,

'THAT LIGHT IS COME
INTO THE WORLD,
AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS
RATHER THAN LIGHT,
BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS
WERE EVIL.'

20. "For every one that doeth Evil
hateth the Light,
neither cometh to The Light,
lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. "But he that doeth Truth cometh to The Light,
that his deeds may be made manifest,
that they are wrought in God."

THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE THE COURSE BECAUSE THEY NO MORE BELIEVED IN IT THAN YOU YOURSELF DO.

Most people are stuck with just the languages that they learned rationally, step-by-step their whole life- which may be just the one.

For them to utter syllables that they never did before is miraculous in itself.

For them to be able to disconnect their vocal system from their reason and memory is very important indeed.

It is the prerequisite to The "Gift" of Prophecy.

The belief that mental illnesses, dreams, sleep paralysis, and insect bites at night are often caused by demons.

There are natural causes for these phenomena, and there are supernatural causes for the same phenomena.

The inability to differentiate between the two is incompetence.

The belief that women you don't like could be mermaids if they are very pretty, or witches if they are not.

There are people walking around on Earth at this time, who are not Human beings.

If street crowds were analyzed with, say, infra-red and ultraviolet photography, people who are not what they appear to be should be manifest.

It is a part of NAGUALISM Training to be able to identify such entities with one's own ESP Senses.

[See: A SEPARATE REALITY, by Carlos Castaneda.]

Atheists have found that there is no trustworthy evidence for the existence of God. The "evidence" provided falls apart once you scrutinize it.

ONCE PEOPLE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD TO OYINBO SPIES, THEIR LIVES ARE FORFEIT.

CARLOS CASTANEDA tried to collect the names and addresses of all the Nagual Seers associated with Don JUAN MATUS.

He was a very wicked man, who pretended not to know what has happened when his race managed to verify the existence of gods on the Earth: namely, they exterminated everyone who had such contacts.

"The New Seers went through that bit of "identification and verification;" half of them left their bones in the "verification room." " - Don Juan Matus: THE FIRE FROM WITHIN, by Carlos Castaneda.

I mentioned them here: https://www.nairaland.com/3286068/every-nigerian-atheist-should-outspoken

That's primarily about communism and dictatorship, not atheism. They tried to force people to stop believing in God so that the state would take God's place as an authority that must not be questioned.

COMMUNISM WAS FOUNDED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND JUDAISM.

(The White Jews are descendants of White Coverts to the Hebrew religion, and were not the descendants of the Children of Abraham who went through THE EXODUS.)

When they assassinated the CZAR of RUSSIA, who was an obstacle to their plans, they next turned to the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, who dropped such a stupefying amount of GOLD, SILVER, and PRECIOUS STONES, that they had to spare his life, because they now had enough to start their own Government independent of their religious Handlers.

Therefore, they hated anything to do with religion, seeing Christians as potential, if not actual, "FIFTH COLUMNISTS."

Therefore, anyone still professing Christianity had to die.

It was not until the defection of the Jesuit Bishop ALBERTO RIVERA that we could learn what the real truth of those bloodbaths was.

Most modern atheists don't believe in having any authority that cannot be questioned.

Those people are just stooges, being used.

When Atheism takes Power, they always "liquidate" everyone who thought they were fighting for a "Democracy."

They haven't even come to power yet, yet look at the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of those who find their authority questioned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPJARo-5VXE&t=34s

"We will be the gods." - THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY, by Bertrand Russell.

We also believe that government should be secular but not anti-religious.

That is a total lie.

Look at what is going on already, in America.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS are removed from Courthouse Premises.

One can be arrested and jailed for praying in a Government Building, or in a School!

If Atheists come to Power, Christians are screwed.

They should neither support nor oppose religion. People should be free to embrace religion if they feel convinced that God exists, or to reject religion if they find the "evidence" to be very poor, as many people do.

When Atheists get control of a nation, it is a very different story.