Bible: Is it a Credible Source?

This doesn't actually say whether or not the events which occured in the bible are true or false.

Oh, and there are MANY problems with translations. Nearly every translation is inaccurate in some way or another. I've read the original Hebrew and the translations in English... ouch. x.x

*I'm going to step out of this one.*

Except to say... from what I can see, your sources are really inappropriate for a legitimate, logical, academic discussion. I mean, YouTube? And do you really think AllAboutTheBible.com is not going to be biased?

Do you read nothing I post?

*shakes head... runs into the next room to cry*

Careful that you don't sell out on one thing completely. Concerning translation, there are newer and more accurate translations, such as the NRSV. They are that way because the English language is actually in constant motion; it is always changing, even now. It is language evolution. Anyway, the truth of the Bible is not as important as the lessons that it teaches. As far as proving its truth as a whole, the Bible takes place over thousands and thousands of years, if we are to believe the accounts are all true. Like I said, it wasn't just written for historical records - it was written for a particular religion, for those followers, and those stories all have a meaning. Whether or not David actually danced naked in the streets doesn't matter. The point is, David the character danced naked in the streets, and so on and so forth - it is the story that matters, not the historical accuracy.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett

For right now, all I'm going to say is this...
I believe that the Bible is true.

-Amanda-

6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament

No, that's 6,000 FRAGMENTS of the New Testament. This site says that only 4,000 are known, of which a single one is 'complete', from what I read. Of course, it's late and I'm probably skipping over some stuff, but ah well.

Written down by eye witnesses (except for a few exceptions which can be proved by archeological evidence)

That's debatable. The Torah was passed down by oral tradition for a pretty long time. In fact, Hebrew didn't exist until, as far as we can tell, about 750 BCE (of course, if you can find something that says something else, I'll be glad to revise my opinion here). So, it's a little difficult for people living when we suppose Moses was living to write it down in Hebrew, since Hebrew didn't exist then.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

Anthony Flew converting to deism isn't proof of anything, especially the bible, other than the fact that Anthony Flew converted to deism.

"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft

Here' s something to think about...the infilling of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues).
I am a spirit-filled Christian, and therefore can recognize the Bible as being true.

Scripture references regarding the Holy Spirit/ tongues:
John 14:16-17
Luke 11:13
Acts 1:8 ; 2:4 ; 2:32-33, 39 ; 8:12-17 ; 10:44-46 ; 19:2,
5, 6
1 Corin. 14:2-15, 18, 27
Ephesians 6:18
Jude 1:20

-Amanda-

The biggest problem is that your question is poorly defined.

The Bible: True or False? ... True or false with respect to what? Without a better focus it is hard to analyze the validity of your evidence.

To me the important question concerning the bible is, "What is God's input to it?" Does it, as some people claim, have a message to us that originates from God? As I see it, there are 3 possible answers to this question:

(1) Yes, ALL of the bible is a message to us directly from God.
(2) Yes, SOME of the bible is a message to us directly from God.
(3) No, NONE of the blible is a message to us directly from God.

I will call answer 1 the COMPLETE WORD model; answer 2 the PARTIAL WORD model; and answer 3 the MAN'S WORD model. By clicking on your name and checking out other blogs you have done, I gather you are an adherent of the COMPLETE WORD model. That is a tough position to defend. Under the COMPLETE WORD model, one needs to defend total biblical inerrancy. That means the bible cannot contain a single:

(A) Internal contradiction
(B) Historical error
(C) Error of fact
(D) Morally inappropriate ethical standard

Unfortunately for you the bible is full of all those things. But that is my argument. Let's look at your argument on its own merit. I will evaluate it on the basis that you are advocating a COMPLETE WORD model of the bible.

I have decided that the Bible cannot be proven in sections. It is a whole and needs to be addressed as a whole. I recently took some notes on this subject from a speaker named Voddie Bauchman. His points were very valid, very logical and are easily proven and easy to believe. I have also done other research to add emphasis. I will use their points and my own commentary to talk about this topic. This post is by no means the full extent of my research but an overview. If there are any questions please comment and I will address them and give you the information you need to search it further. I do not have any intention of misleading anyone. Please if you have questions ask them I am more than willing to answer.

If one is going to be serious in questioning whether or not ALL the bible is a message directly to us from God (the COMPLETE WORD model), then every aspect of the bible is open to question. Therefore, one MUST examine all aspects. That would seem to necessitate, examining it in sections.

2nd Peter 1: 16-21
“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Here is your first problem: Virtually all critical scholars of the bible, (those whose initial premise concerning the bible that it is inerrant) consider 2 Peter to be a forgery.

Your second problem is that there is no convincing evidence that any actual prophecy of supernatural origin ever came true.

The Basics
• Written with historical documents

Are you referring to the author of Luke's (hereafter referred to as Luke with the stipulation that I do not grant the accuracy of the traditional attribution that the author was ACTUALLY the physician friend of the Apostle Paul) claim:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants fo the word, I too decided after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed?

If so this is only evidence that Luke CLAIMS to have used historical documents. But Luke makes some very serious historical errors. As an example I'll refer to Luke's birth narrative of Jesus.

According to Luke Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem to register for a census:

Luke 2:1-3 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Agustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered.

(1) There is no evidence that any census in which the whole of the Roman empire was surveyed ever took place.

(2) The author of Matthew (hereafter referred to as Matthew but with the same stipulation as that of Luke) says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE, 10 years after Herod's death. Quirinius did call a census then for tax purposes.

(3) Quirinius was governor of SYRIA, Galilee (where Nazareth is) was under Syrian authority, but Judea (where Bethlehem is) was not. To have Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem is tantamount to the state where I live (Texas) calling a special census, and making me go back to my home state (North Carolina) to register for it. I simply maes no sense.

• 66 books written in 3 languages: Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic

This is absolutely true. But it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the COMPLETE WORD model. I will only add for completeness is that only about 10 chapters of the entire bible was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus). Those 10 Chapters reside in Daniel and Ezra, both Old Testament books. There is very little Aramaic in the New Testament. That means that "the words of Jesus" are NOT the actual words of Jesus; they are at best a translation of the words of Jesus.

• Written on 3 Continents: Asia, Africa and Europe

Also absolutely true, and also absolutely irrelevant with respect to the validity of the COMPLETE WORD model.

• Written by over 40 authors who never as a group help plan the Bible

Again irrelevant.

• Over 23,000 archeological digs directly related to the Bible

Unfortunately many were done by people who were more interested in confirming the bible instead of determining the facts. More critical studies suggest that archaeology does NOT support biblical accuracy well. See Finkelstein and Silberman.

• Written down by eye witnesses (except for a few exceptions which can be proved by archeological evidence)

As possibly you have been able to pick out, I do not accept traditional attribution of the Gospel authorships. Traditional attribution says that Mark was written by Mark, secretary to Peter; Matthew was written by Matthew, the tax-collector disciple of Jesus, Luke was written by Luke, the physician friend of the Apostle Paul; and John was written by John, one of Jesus' most important original 12 disciples. However, no Gospel actually claims such authorship. So where do these traditional attributions come from? They come from early church fathers, most notably Papias and Ireneaus. But these people did not know Jesus, what makes us think they are reliable? In fact, other church fathers specifically question Papias' reliability.

So then question should boil down to how well does these traditional attributions hold up to scritiny. The answer is ... not very good.

The 4 canonical Gospels can be divided into 2 groups based on style. In one group are the SYNOPTIC gospels; ... Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and in the other is John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have the same general chronology and discuss the same general pericopes (a pericope is a biblical story). They often use the same words. Considering again that they were all written in Greek, and they all are translations from what would have transpired in Aramaic, the fact that they certain pericopes share such a similarity STRONGLY suggest that copying was done. In other words, one of the synoptic gospels served as source for the other two. So ... which one was the first one?

The answer is Mark. While there are similarities, there are also interesting differences. That means that some authors changed the wording a little bit. When we look at how that was done we see the general pattern that where there are differences we see agreement between Mark & Matthew against Luke in some, and agreement between Mark & Luke against Matthew in others. We seldom see agreement between Matthew & Luke against Mark. (In a few places there is agreement between Matthew & Luke against Mark; critical scholars explain this by the "Q" hypothesis; but for the purposes of this response it is not necessary to go into that)

Over 90% of Mark is contained in Matthew and Luke. Much less of Matthew and Luke are contained in the other synoptics.

Furthermore, Mark is written in the poorest Greek. If Mark was copying Matthew or Luke then it is difficult to explain why it is that he would "dumb down" the Greek.

Finally, Mark is the simplest of the Gospels with respect to its theology. This is most parsimoniously explained by Matthew and Luke having been written at a time when the theological implications of Jesus was more developed.

Thus, overwhelmingly critical scholars have concluded that Mark was written first. This is called "Markan Priority". If we accept Markan Priority, then the traditional attribution of authorship become problematic for both Mark and Matthew.

Mark iis supposed to have been secretary for Peter. It was his job to translate Peter's words to a Greek-speaking world. Yet Mark's Greek is not very good. Also Mark is supposedly telling us Peter's recollections with respect to Jesus. However, Peter does not come across very well in Mark.

Matthew would have been a direct eye-witness to Jesus, so why would he use Mark, a person who is getting the information second-hand at best as a source?

Traditional authorship for Luke is problematic as well. Luke admits to have gathered his information from written sources, but Luke was supposed to have been a confidant of Paul. Wouldn't much of his source material then have been from discussions he would have had with Paul? Why no mention of that? Furthermore, whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts. There are disagreements between Acts and the unquestioned epistles of Paul.

Finally, traditional authorship of John is problematic too. John's chronology cannot be adequately reconciled with that of the synoptics. Furthermore, there is little overlap in the pericopes of John with those in the synoptics. The character of Jesus is different in John than it is in the synoptics. The theology of John is very developed suggesting that it was written quite late.

This is a very well argued point and the above is by no means comprehensive with respect to the objections to traditional authorship. It is merely the things I can remember without taking the time to go back to original sources.

Thus, there is no convincing evidence that ANY of the gospels were written from first hand eyewitness accounts, nor even from second hand accounts. The bulk of the evidence suggests that they are further away from the original than that.

Manuscript Evidence
• 6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament

There are millions of New Testament manuscripts. If you include my computer copies of various translations, I, an atheist, own about 20. The important question is how many are important with respect to the COMPLETE WORD model. The answer there is VERY FEW. (more on this in a moment).

• Earliest manuscript of the New Testament was written in 120 AD and overwhelmingly agrees with our modern Bibles. Manuscrips we laregly believe to have historical credibility

Er ... that would be this one:

That's it. That's the whole thing. It is approximately 2.5 X 3.5 inches. It contains some lines from John 18:31-33 on the front and John 18:37-38 on the back. I don't think that qualifies as "overwhelmingly agree[ing] with our modern Bibles".

The earliest manuscripts that contain a reasonably complete collection of the New Testament are the Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus. They date from the 4th Century CE, 300 years post Jesus. They also show us that the bible as we know it HAS been changed. For instance, included in one of them (I forget which) is the non-canonical book, The Shepherd of Hermas. Some of the Epistles of Paul are NOT included. Some very interesting pericopes are omitted in these early manuscripts ... Mark ends after verse 8, the pericope in John about the adulterous woman (Chapter 8) is not there.

• Julius Caesar’s Gallic wars has 10 remaining manuscripts, earliest manuscript we have is 900 years old

• Aristotle’s Poetics has 5 remaining manuscripts, earliest manuscript we have was written 14-1500 years ago

• Homer’s Iliad has 10 remaining manuscripts left, its earliest manuscript known today was written 2,100 years after the original

So is this supposed to imply that the bible is more likely to be true than is Caesar's Gallic Wars? The problem here is that numbers do not determine credibility. Suppose you had 400 people who witnessed a magician levitate a woman claim that the magician performed actual magic. Suppose also we have another person, who wasn't even there explain exactly how such a trick could be performed without invoking any supernatural abilities. Are we then obligated to believe the 400 eyewitnesses or do we believe the non-eyewitness. I fall to the non-eyewitness because it is simply much more credible to believe that the magician tricked the 400 than that he suspended natural law and performed a miracle.

Unless Caesar's Gallic Wars claims to have accomplished something supernatural, or events are contradicted by some other author we are well within our rights to grant Caesar provisional credibility. There are certainly things in the bible that I am more than willing to grant provisional credibility to. For instance, Jesus refers to the Siloam Tower as having fallen down and killing 16 people. Even though such an event is not documented ANYWHERE else, I can easily believe that happened. I grant that provisional acceptance.

BUT the bible also claims that immediately after Jesus died dead people came out of their graves (Matthew 27:52). I am well within my rights to doubt that.

How Is It Translated?

• According to Zondervan’s New International Version, “The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.” The preface to the NIV is continued for another 3 pages and gives a detailed description of how this version of the Bible was put together and why.

• New translations are not copied from older translations but from copies of the best Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic texts that we can get our hands on.

• The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures dedicated their lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. These scribes went to phenomenal lengths to insure manuscript reliability. They were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text (www.allabouttruth.org/is-the-bible-true-c.htm).

Two points, (1) Even with the best scribes mistakes were made. We KNOW that by comparing manuscripts. Here is a list of unintentional mistakes that have occurred:

(A) letters have been unintentionally left out.
(B) whole lines have unintentionally left out.
(c) marginalia (comments written in the margins of manuscripts) have been incorporated into the text.

There have also been INTENTIONAL mistakes:

(A) The ending of Mark has been added
(B) The pericope of the Adulterous Woman in John has been added.
(C) Matthew, and Luke have intentionally changed some of Mark.
(D) Critical scholars believe that 6 of the 13 Pauline epistles, 1 & 2 Peter, James, & Jude are forgeries.

(2) Concerning NT manuscripts.

When the early Christian church was developing it is unlikely that professional scribes were used ... since there were NO professional Christian scribes at that time. So how good were they?

I doubt if they were any better than scribes that towns used. And we have evidence that they weren't particularly good. Bart Ehrman talks about a piece of late 1st century/early 2nd century writing we have. I don't have time to go through my Ehrman books and find the original reference so I apologize in advance for giving you my rememberance of the gist of the example.

It is a set of eight or nine lines in which the person writes something like:

From the desk of Billy Bob, scribe of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scribe of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scribe of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scrib of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scrib of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scrib of Alexandria.
From the desk of Billy Bob, scrib of Alexandria.

It looks as though the scribe was practicing his salutations, but he made a grammatical error about midway through, AND THEN HE COPIED IT IN THE SUCCEEDING LINES. This certainly suggests he wasn't very competent, and he was a paid scribe for a fair sized town. If early Christian manuscripts were copied by scribes of this competence then all sorts of errors could have been incorporated into the manuscripts before Christianity could develop competent scribes increasing the likelihood of fidelity in copying.

• Modern translations vary only by how an interpreter chooses to translate a word or sentence into the language of choosing. For example:
o Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. KJV
o Philippians 4:8
Finally, Brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things. NIV
• Same message different choice of words to make it easier for different people to understand.

For the most part this is true, but there are sincere disagreements with respect to some important points.

Archeology
• Dr. Nelson Glueck one of the top researchers of Israeli archeology is quoted as saying:
“No archeological discovery has ever challenged a single Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

I know of no other area of study that is infused with such poor scholarship as that concerning the bible. The field was founded by people who were out to prove the bible, instead of critically examining the evidence. I don't whethere Glueck was one of those or not. I know he was an early pioneer in biblical archaeology and at that time most were. However, I have not been able to confirm your quote. When I google the first sentence of your quote, you are the only reference google returns.

But no matter, if as you imply archaeology is so supportive of the bible, then where are all the campsites of the Israelites in the Sinai. According to the bible 605,000 male Israelites of fighting age along with the women, elderly and the young spent 40 years there as nomads. Yet not one campsite can be found after digging the entire place up? We can find campsites of small camel caravans but NOTHING from 40 years of 2 to 3 million people??

• Examples of archeological fraud are:

• Mt. Ararat as the site where Noah's Ark was found. "This one happens every five or 10 years," yet nothing has been found to verify the claim.

• The tomb of Jesus' family. Among the most recent "discoveries," the tomb has been the subject of several documentary films and books, but Maeir said what isn't discussed is the commonality of the names found in the tomb. "There's nothing exceptional about having a Jesus and a Miriam and a Jacob" in the same tomb, he said.

• The ossuary of Jesus' brother, James. "It turns out the box was found only with the 'James' part on it. Someone else added the words, 'brother of Jesus."'

Strictly speaking the 1st and the 3rd are fraud, the second is just poor scholarship. But you DO realize that the fraud concerns things that would have (if genuine) supported the bible. There is a very big tendency on the part of some people to find things that support the bible even if it has to be made up. That is further reason to NOT give the bible the benefit of the doubt, don't you think?

o This information I found at http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230112,00.html The Shroud of Turin is a largely disputed find. Also Jesus and James were very common names of the time as was Mary, be cautious of shows and articles that claim they have found Jesus’ tomb because it probably is a different Jesus.

I am an atheist. If Jesus' ossuary would have been found it would have been devastating to the "empty tomb" argument for Jesus' resurrection. I would welcome such a find. However, I wrote a blog ... I am spending way too much time on this response; you can look it up if you wish ... in which after looking at the evidence the show presented I rejected it out of hand. The evidence simply did not support the conclusion. I would caution you to be skeptical of things that you find too supportive of what it is you want to believe.

• There have been over 23,000 archeological digs directly related to the Bible. Need examples, ask me for them. There are to many to post.

While the archaeology has supported the existence of sites mentioned in the bible, it has not been so good at supporting the biblical details pertaining to those places. For instance, the best evidence suggest that Jericho, Ai and several other towns had been abandoned for a century or so at the supposed time that Joshua would have been destroying them in the Conquest of the Holy Lands.

Science
• Voddie Bauchman made a very good point in his speech when he addressed science and the Bible. He pointed out the scientific method: Ask a question, do background research, construct a hypothesis, test your hypotheses by doing an experiment, analyze your data and draw a conclusion, communication your results.

That is very good advice ... How does it pertain to your contention concerning the COMPLETE WORD model?

o There are certain things that can be proven by the scientific method for example: did Ur exist? Did David exist? Was there a Babylonian empire?

o There are also things that cannot be proven in the Bible by science because the Bible does not offer sufficient information or the information to test is to old to exist. There are also things that cannot be proven simply because you must believe and faith to understand them, for example God. You cannot prove God exists through the scientific method but you can have faith that he exists.

Ah! I see. Things that cannot be proven wrong ... the existence of towns and persons mentioned in the bible ... are open to scientific method, but other things aren't. Well that is not exactly how things work.

(1) It is certainly theoretically possible to prove God's existence. Theoretically we could do it if only he would actually show himself. We have no problems proving the existence of George Bush, if God wanted we should have no problems proving his existence either. But God doesn't show himself and there is no good reason why that should be. That alone is enough to instill doubt.

(2) Virtually everything in science is provisional. Everything we think we know is subject to reevaluation with acquisition of new knowledge. But that is no reason for us to not believe with EXTREME confidence the evidence we know. I am convinced that if I walk over the edge of the Grand Canyon that I would fall to my death. I have no doubt about the efficacy of gravity. So while it is conceivable that new data will eventually prove gravity to be an erroneous concept and I could have stepped over the edge of the Grand Canyon without injury ... I'm not going to test it out.

The point of that is that ABSOLUTE proof is not now, nor has it ever been the standard of science. When placed in the proper context we can evaluate and come to conclusions strong enough to give provisional proof to propositions that Bauchman thinks are forbidden to the realm of science. I did that above by establishing the COMPLETE WORD, PARTIAL WORD, and MAN'S WORD models of the bible. Inherent within those models of the prediction of the way things should be. Does the real world match those predictions? It is my thesis that the real word does NOT match what we would expect from the COMPLETE WORD model, and is in fact, so far away from it that we can rule that out as a viable possibility.

• Another way to look at the Bible is it is a book. Do we always hold books up to a scientific standard of belief? America is always buying books on diet and fitness those are scientific books and many believe them but do they always work?

One must judge a book by the claims made about it. If a diet books claims that one can eat anything one wants in any amount one wants and will lose weight by just visualizing weight loss, then we are well within our rights to suspect it. If we test it and it doesn't work then we are well within our rights to reject it. Whether or not other people still believe it, is irrelevant as to whether or not it is correct.

If you are going to claim that everything in the bible is a message to us from God then we are well within our right to evaluate it with regard to that. We can legitimately ask questions such as "Is it more likely that the bible is wrong when it says that the universe was created in 6 days, or is it more likely that God (knowing that it is literally untrue) would use the term "day" to mean an "unspecified lenght of time that could easily be billions of years" when other phraseology was available that would have led to a more accurate picture?" When one does that enough times the evidence begins to pile up ... the bible is a highly flawed book.

•When the Bible states in Genesis to “let there be light” on the first day and then later created the sun. Now we know that the inflationary expansion of the universe and the big bang cosmology theories are probable cause of how the first creation was in fact light.

In fact, it wasn't. Light is not emitted until atoms form and electrons change energy levels. The early universe was too hot for atoms to form. It was several hundred thousand years before the universe cooled to allow that (IIRC).

•An atheist, Antony Flew, announced in 2004 that he believed there was a deity due to modern DNA research of the genetic structure of Biological life. He says that these structures are to complex to have evolved on its own. So at 81 years old one of the world’s leading philosophers of atheism has announced he believes in a deity.

Antony Flew is indeed 81 years old. He is also apparently in early stages of Alzheimer's. A recent book detailing his conversion and claiming to be written by him was actually not. Instead it was written by a couple of evangelical Christians who were more than happy to take advantage of man of failing intellect and lie for Jesus. If you have to lie for your beliefs then perhaps your beliefs are not worth defending in the first place.

Cheers,

DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France

engkatiemarie, i would just like to say that you are so ignorant. if you honesly think that any site is not going to be at least so what biased, you need a seriously reality check. sites that show evidence against the crediblilty of the bible are just as bias as those that are for it. Also, there have been so many atheist who had done there own research trying to prove the bible and God to be false. and through their research, actually found more evidence proving it to be true, and now are Christians.