Counter
You need Java to see this applet.
Hosting by Yahoo Web Hosting

They disparage today, at the very thought of intellectual engagement with a Christian who wants to argue the merits of his faith,
but, who has done little to prepare himself beyond what he feels, or, believes—as if no one has a greater privilege therefore than
he…On the other hand, how shall a saint disparage less, when confronted with the overbearing, self-righteous, slapdash Bible
scoffer and critic, seeing that he as a fervent, Bible-ripping skeptic has no knowledge of the Book of his disdain? Why should
the Christian not be moved equally, to the brink of angst even, when clearly that scoffer has done no research relative to the
crutch upon which he has chosen to lean, launching his ill-fated diatribe against a God who has never been wrong?  

Introduction

Fascination grips the minds of many when they think of the Bible—even when they do not understand or believe its “tales”.  It
is to some a “superlative” as literature, among books of literature.  Contempt, however, clouds the minds and shades the hearts
with loathing among those who disbelieve the Book of books—in light of its historical and scientific implications.  Science, they
say, in all of its denominations has quite dispelled the Bible as myth.  Others contend that ‘men’ wrote it, regardless of ‘who’
inspired it, so, it is all myth!  Stories like Noah’s Flood never happened, they declare—some, with no rationale basis at all.  Oh,
really?  

In light of the foregoing statements by major periodical, secular publications, are they qualified to attack the Bible, or to speak
on behalf of science, of any genre, as it relates to the Bible?  Or, have they, in fact, merely succeeded only in relegation of
themselves to the realm of mythologists, to say the least, proving only that they are liars, at best—having no knowledge of
either the Bible, or, the science on which they rely for its refutation.  How rational, then, can their petty objections be?  

The Cast of Bible Critics

The primary inspiration behind this treatise rests in a “war of words” had with a cast of fellow writers—all self-made, self-
affirming doubters, skeptics and lay-critics—on a site known The Writer’s Box.

Tony Walker is a veteran writer, fellow and senior participant at thewritersbox.ning.com.  There, it seems my friend has a
peculiar passion that sparks verbal shootouts and cyber-wars.  I was privileged to stumble upon someone’s recent response to
an old thread (proposed in 08/2008) that, according to Tony (the thread was his), just will not die—and well it should not, given
that evidently all sides of the argument failed to proffer any kind of a truly reasoned reaction to Tony’s otherwise “serious”
challenge.  My response in turn drew “rational” commentary (as far as that goes!) from other fellows at thewriter’sbox.com
which further set the stage for this impending, long over-due show-down. It was originally intended to be nothing more than a
simple emailed delivery.

To further establish the backdrop for this latest round of cyber-fire, the cast of participants (and their contributions) to date are
as follows:

·        
Tony Walker:  leader, instigator, provocater—his thread:  “The Bible:  Fiction or Fact?…I’m trying to start a serious
discussion here, so please don’t splatter me with your favorite quotes from your Bibles”, the chagrined old grouch retorted.  
From the tenor and tone of Tony’s query it appears that perhaps he was serious, in his own, inimitable way—more so than I
had originally imagined.  He continues, “…should the Bible be treated as a collection of folk myths, a handy pocket guide to
getting along with each other, a genealogical history of the Israelites, or should it be recognized as the actual, written down in
His own hand, word of God.  Just to set the record straight, I tend to go with the first explanation, with a few useful tips to be
taken from the second.”  No explanation appears to have surfaced as to why this was such a pressing issue to Tony.
·       
 Rianna:  “The Bible is collection of a myths, just as all the stories of Greek, Roman, Norse, and other mythologies…I
also believe that it was written by the inspiration of God…” but, she says, “…it was still man’s hand who wrote the Bible.  
Making it just as fallible as any other story.”  All of which prompts the question, what do you, or should we, call this:  circular
reasoning or, what?  What kind of thinking is this?  In her self-contradictory logic, Rianna professes some kind of a belief in
God (she would have to, if in fact she believes He moved men to write!), although she proceeds to call Him a liar, in that she
says (infers), He knowingly chose men to do His writing (which is precisely what the Bible teaches of itself), when on the other
hand He knew full well those same men could never relay His words, exactly as they were received from Him (in that all men
writers are fallible, or liars, and, everything they write is a lie!)!  She later fires another shot, “Each book from Genesis

A “jackleg” preacher rebuts debate from “jackleg”-
skeptics and Bible critics!

Secular Affirmation of the Bible Record

Even on the critics’ own terms—historical fact—the
Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when
the rationalists began the attack
.”
                                                      Time Magazine,
12/30/74

A wave of archaeological discoveries is altering old
ideas about the roots of Christianity and Judaism—and
affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate
than many scholars thought
.”
                                                      U. S. News &
World Report

…the face of the globe was also affected by changes in
sea level…at times in the early Cretaceous…comparable
to the present, but subsequently the continents were
flooded with relatively shallow seas…In America, seas
flooded the southeastern flank of the Appalachian
Mountain.s, …the Mississippi Valley…and advanced…at
times to link the Gulf of Mexico with the Arctic
Ocean…Large seas extended over parts of Asia, Africa,
South America and Australia
.”
                                                                                                         
Geological Report @    
                                                                                                         http://www.
answers.com/topic/cretaceous
THE BIBLE,
THE BONE YARDS
AND THE
GENESIS FLOOD
through Revelation is a myth…may have basis in fact…nothing in history is complete fact, the Bible or my World History book
from college, she declares, dogmatically (one can only wonder what college she attended, and, whether it would own her as
one of its alumni!)”.  How can a thing written by men possibly have basis in fact, when in truth, there is no such thing as fact,
where his writings are concerned—per Riannaean logic?  Was she drunk, stoned, or both, when she wrote this thing, having
obviously not thought it through?  If the thinking of men, merely on the basis that they are men, prone only to fallacy, is (by her
own admission!) completely untrustworthy, what then can her own declarations be, if not completely “untrustworthy”?!
·       
 Michelle James: (one of the original respondents, though she did not contribute here) “The Bible is fact…it is
historical…” unfortunately, as good ol’ Tony anticipated, she could provide no convincing, supporting argument, in which case
he shot back, “…Ok, prove it!…”
·        
Stephan Loy:  “…the Bible is not fact…Genesis never happened…the flood never happened…There are serious self-
contradictions to resolve”.  Mr. Loy makes fervent appeal to “…the geological and archaeological records…”, neither of which
he, evidently, has studied with any measurable intensity, or, to any rational degree!  He shows a near wanton ignorance of
history by his reference to the ancient Sumerian culture, which he did not research before bearing his soul!  Contradictions, he
alleges:  
a) Judas dies twice;
b) Genesis 6 and 7, relative to the number of animals coming to Noah.  
“The Bible cannot (therefore) be a perfect record.”

208 or so comments later:

·        Jasen Ward:  Gen. 1-3 cannot be “…an accurate account of God’s creation of the universe…given known physics…not
historically accurate because if fails to provide a coherent time table (according to whose authoritative reckoning, one wonders
(!)?) and tries to represent the order of processes which are not accurate according to what is known about the early times on
earth (specifically what he had in mind here, has been left to chance!)…cannot be verified by science and runs counter to
known laws of physics and physical process…(somebody should tell Mr. Ward that the entire world of quantum physics, first
proposed by German physicist Max Planck in the late 19th century, supplemented by Einstein’s math wizardry, backbone of
our modern existence—and, totally unheard of prior to Mr. Planck—ran counter to then known laws of physics!  So, knowing
this, how was then, and/or, how now is our modern existence, therefore utterly untenable, in light of man’s previously
prevailing ignorance of the laws of quantum physics (once more, consider that everything proposed by John Dalton, Planck,
Einstein, etc., etc., ran counter to then known Laws of physics!  Mr. Ward, furthermore, demonstrated no specific knowledge
of the Bible’s scientific voice, against which he argues relentlessly, beyond that which is most commonly known—namely
Noah’s flood and time.)?  This type of rationale is yet hopelessly irrational insofar as it stipulates or presupposes that precursory
“ignorance” in any form, on any level, automatically precludes any possibility for reality—where that reality is not already,
visibly, in full bloom!  In addition, ardent, well rehearsed students of scripture are thoroughly acquainted with the fact that the
Bible was in fact scientific in a number of diverse ways, including the area of raw physics—specifically, quantum physics
here—when in fact there was neither the discipline of any of the general sciences, natural or physical, nor was there physics—
classical, or, quantum.  Consider:
a.        Heb. 11:3—the foundation to everything visible, rests or is anchored in its atomic sub-structure
(Dalton/Planck/Einstein);
b.        Zechariah 14:12-15—finale and aftermath of an end-times military campaign in which the death-nail is driven by a war-
time killing mechanism hopelessly unimaginable then, frightfully real now, namely thermonuclear breakdown
(Nagasaki/Hiroshima);
c.        Malachi 4:1; II Pe. 3:5-12—the last-days’ thermo-nucleic impetus for the death-dealing thermonuclear outbreak in
Zechariah 14 (also consider Revelation 18; Manhattan Project/Japan in WWII);
d.        Gen. 1:1-5; Exodus 10:21-23; II Pe. 2:4; Jude :6; Rev. 16:10-11—darkness:  not merely an absence of light, as it
contains a power that is uniquely its own (astrophysics—black-holes:  apparent areas of nothingness in outer space that can
gobble up anything, and, destroy stars hundreds of times the size of our own sun, at 870,000 miles in diameter!))”.  
A six-day creation is impossible, Mr. Ward continues in his assertion.  “…the first life forms…bacterial, then worms, then land
based plants, not the other way around with animals…(no basis or justification cited!  Just infallible “Ward” reasoning!  The
order of creation per the Bible, Genesis 1:11-12, 20-25; 2:4-7—plant kingdom; kingdom of water-borne creatures; kingdom of
fowls; animal kingdom; humanity.)”  Genesis is “…not history, but allegory”, thus, Genesis time is allegorical, non-
comformable to “the rigorous demands of science…” Moses as author of Genesis was wrong simply because he was “human”,
per Mr. Ward—in affirmation of already demonstrably wrong Riannan logic.  
An Exercise in Applied Bible Apologetics