Is the Bible really authentic?

I'd reply at length but there is so much nonsense in this post that it is difficult to know where to start. I am glad you think education is so worthless, this is the usual refrain from the fundamentalists (I agree, you will never be an academic). I'd give you the work of several noted scientists but why bother? They are academics too after all and have spent years working on the field. But let's face it, what do they know compared to some true believer who "don't need all that dang book learning". Hopeyou seea plumber the next time you need medical help, after all, doctors are silly academics too. Yeeesh, I;ve said it before, myLot, the trailer park of forums.

If one examines the Bible and apply the standard historiographical method to test the authenticity of the texts then one must come to the conclusion that it is authentic. I urge each one to test the manuscripts and see it for oneself. By the way, I don't come across inherent inconsistencies in the Bible. Tell me one if there is any. Again I would urge all to apply the correct hermeneutical principle and examine for oneself. For example one should not apply poetic hermeneutical principle to read narrative or vice versa. I agree with the second point, but one may have to define the terms. Myth can be understood in different ways... and depending upon the term I will concede the point.

Resolve the simple questions on the biblical account of a world wide flood. 1. Why was there no geological evidence of a worldwide flood? 2. How does all current animal life come from the few that could be put on a boat? 3. Why was no culture wiped out by the flood. other great civilizations have flood myth but lack the destruction demanded by the biblical account. 4. Why does the science of genetics so throughly debunk the idea of an initiating gene pool of a dozen related people? It's ok, I don't expect a reasonable answer to these question. Part of your heurmentutics includes... Inerrancy - Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth. This is a denial of fundamental scientific principles, essentially a "deny reality" stance. I should point out that my original reply seems to be strongly enforced by these two. Clearly fundamentalists, and biblical literalists. Most of the Christian sects (for example Catholicism) are no so strident.

Just want to apologize I was not able to respond to any of the comments posted a year ago. It was just now that I was able to access my lot again, my apologies for those who have posted. Yes, I also believe in the BIBLE but I also respect the belief of others, we have our own choices and it's up to us what to believe as long as we are contributing for the good of everyone. Happy posting!

Hi kate, Welcome back to myLot, hope everything is going well. Blessings.

Yes, thanks, just doing well. After a year of absence, I'm back.

I don't think so. Living in 21st century we may ask such question, but when the texts were written over a thousand years back there would be no idea of such kind. One may question the correctness of the teaching, but I think questioning the reason for the writings like the way you do is to misread history. Is 2+2=4 a sum invented to control people?