I'm not saying the Bible isn't true or reliable. I'm saying that if you put the same restrictions on determination of the truth of the Bible that you do on the determination of radioactive decay curves, then you must conclude that you don't know that any of the Bible is true, beyond what you can verify with your own two eyes.
There are ways to reasonably determine truth without witnessing it.
We all have to make a decision about who we believe is more reliable: Mankind or God.
Based on the corruption that I've witnessed come from mankind's world, I'm very cautious about blindly trusting what people say.
On the other hand, I have come to know Christ, and have found that He is reliable.
If you do, then you will too.
Nice bunch of facts and pretty convincing to me. However, since you can't show that the Bible wasn't changed before the earliest manuscripts that have been unearthed, you are required by your own strictures regarding truth to admit that you don't know that the Bible is true.
No.
Again, there are ways to reasonably determine who to believe.
I say, without evidence but with a potential cause (Levites wanting power), that the Bible may have been changed in the past, therefore, you should follow your own methodology and declare the truth of the Bible to be unknown to you.
Because multiple manuscripts from multiple times and places are nearly identical (almost not variation), this is evidence for reliability.
The numerology is so deep and profound, that it could not have been conjured by men. The language itself would have had to be invented with the numerology of the Bible in mind.
Simply had to be God.
Russ declares the decay curves invalid.
My position is that we don't know for sure and that science should be honest about that.
This way, they won't end up with the type of situation they have when the claim that the Earth has aged from 300 million to 6 billion in 20+ years.
The other factor when dating bones is the corrupt/bribe factor. People have witnessed others being dishonest about dates.
Assumption for the Bible: No manuscript changes before the earliest known copies. Russ should declare the Bible invalid.
From my point of view the facts that you provided concerning the Bible are enough for me to accept the truths that are contained in it. However, you have a narrower view of when you declare truth.
You seem to have a very black-and-white view.
It's up to every person to make a judgement call as to whether or not they are going to believe that God is who the Bible claims He is or not.
The Bible conflicts with evolution. I believe the Bible has more reliability than those who claim evolution is true.
It's a judgement call, but it's not hard to make when you have all of the facts.
You haven't shown any evidence that you were actually taught the 300 million years nor that anyone teaches 6 billion years today. So there is no discrepancy outside of your own mind.
You don't have to believe me if you don't want too, but I certainly hope you believe Christ is who He said He was.
Yet you expect that same intelligent person to not be skeptical of a Bible that you assume, but cannot prove, has never been changed. Seems a bit contradictory, to me.
Several misstatements that need to be sorted out.
I expect every intelligent person to be skeptical of the Bible. For me, when I studied it out, I found it to be reliable, but I don't expect anyone to not be skeptical.
There is strong evidence that the Bible has not changed, but then again, every person will have to make that decision for themselves.
Different ages of the Earth are actually based on different methods of determining that age.
Sometimes, but all methods rely on the honesty of men.
The numerology and prophecy in the Bible is beyond mankind's ability, so how could mankind fake it?
Maybe I am not understanding your point. Do you have any examples of what exactly is communicated from the geologist/paleontologist to the lab? Maybe a filled out sample analysis request?
Again, I may eventually provide a video for you, but in the mean time, I'm busy so you'll have to wait.
And again, you get to decide if you want to believe the archeologist or not. It's up to you.
You have never shown evidence that the purpose of those scientists who believe in evolution is to discredit the Bible.
It's not the scientists, for the most part. It's the educators at the highest levels, that is, those who finance the textbooks. Check out who finances the textbooks and you'll find large corporations making enormous donations to huge foundations.
This is how dentists were convinced that amalgam fillings are harmless: Schooling.
This is how the world really works.
Scientists are taught many things in school that they assume to be true. It is when they begin thinking for themselves that they begin to question and to be truly skeptical.
It's truly astounding the number of assumptions people live by. When you take the assumptions away, you begin to realize how fragile and controllable society really is.
You can't claim this to be accurate information because you have assumed that the Bible has not been changed since its original writing.
No. Again, there is strong evidence for the accuracy of the Bible: Numerology and prophecy.
Also, Satan could not have done it because the Bible exposes Satan's plan: A house divided cannot stand.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
