You are most certainly correct about two things, TrickyNikki: A single book cannot sensibly be used to prove itself, and subsequently, the definition of a word cannot contain the word in question. With the word definition you are making a faulty assumption; if you look up the definition of a word, then look up the definition of the defining word(s), aka synonym, you will find that it is at some point circular.  In short, fast is quick but quick is fast.  

The writer of a dictionary assumes that in the childish capacity of wordless thoughts, the reader at some point associated the sound of the spoken form of the word "fast" with its definition, then later in life learned to associate that sound with the four letters F, A, S and T, whereby a definition outside of words had been established.

Now, if it were not for a second faulty misconception you made concerning the Bible, you could apply this elementary concept to the Bible. The Bible has to assume that the reader has already established a set of givens upon which the Bible then expounds, opening the doors to further learning. For example the existence or discovery of the existence of most of the people, cities, and even currecies alluded to in the Bible. Most of the Bible is written primarily as a history book, so confirmation of the main and marginally small allusions helps lay a foundation upon which the Bible further clarifies.

You probably consider this a stretch so let me go ahead and clear up the second apparent assumption of your post.  The English Bible since the 1530's, though a single batch of pages between only two covers did not originate from a single book written by a single author. Instead it is a collection of 66 different books and letters written in three different languages by at least 40 different people on three different continents spanning a time of roughly 2500 years.  The fact that the Book is even available to us with this kind of near-hopeless history is a feat in itself.  And, expunded upon later, the Bible's historical accounts are more textually credible than any other ancient text. So when a person briefly states that the Bible has a good reputation because it supports itself, it is not in fact a single book supporting just itself, but instead a myriad of books creating a complex mesh of "inter-support" among one another.  This is all cool, but besides archeological evidence and the intertwined inter-support, the Bible is strikingly accurate compared to secular historical texts, including those coming from historians of the ancient Roman empire and the famous Jewish historian Josephus. Furthermore, literally hundreds of myths and legends from around the world have stories paralleling the historical accounts found in the Bible.  Of course, since the Biblical texts were religiously copied by scribes, who took drastic measures so as to transcribe with utmost accuracy, and myths and legends are predominantly orally relayed, it is not surprising to reach a sensible conclusion based on the hypothesis that the legends would tend to drift from the Biblical account.

Additionally, for skeptics of the Torah (also called Pentateuch and Tetragrammation, the first five books of the Old Testement which include the creation account and God's law) a few astounding phenomena occur. Every fourty-ninth letter of the original Hebrew books of Genesis and Exodus result in the repetition of the word TORH, or the transliteral English word Torah. Conversely, the latter two books of Numbers and Deuteronomy Repeat the word TORH backwards at the same interval.  In the middle book of Leviticus, the word YHWH (Pronounced Yahweh, being the sacred name for God) is repeated by extracting every seventh letter.  Many Biblical scholars argue that this oddity, one simply too improbable to dismiss as mere coincidence, indicates that the Torah points to Yahweh, that is, TORH>YHWH<HROT, but in the other direction since Hebrew is written from right to left. A bit of research will take you into general Equidistant Letter Spacing (ELS) codes research which contains names, accounts and even dates and locations of predominant world leaders and their effects on history.  Some folks even try to tell the future with Bible codes.  While I have seen enough evidence to indicate that the Bible Codes contain exact information about relatively recently transpired events, I find it unwise to proclaim to be able to foretell future events based on them.

As only an ancient document, the Bible is in a league of it's own in the realm of textual criticism, a branch of Philology.  The closest contender of the New Testament is Homer's Iliad with almost 650 manuscripts (hand written copy) found, making it the second best preserved literary work of all antiquity. Other works have 20 or even less than 10 manuscripts of the original found. In contrast, there are approximately 24,000 partial and complete manuscripts of the entire New Testament in a variety of languages, and some 5600 fragments and copies in the original Greek; manuscripts which can be observed and studied presently.  From a standpoint of textual crticism, this is drastically superfluous as compared to the number of manuscripts normally considered adequate for comparison.  Upon comparison of the copies, some 200,000 discrepancies occur, the vast majority of which are spelling and word order reversal mistakes which can quickly be identified and corrected by comparison.  There are only 40 cases of marginally disputed lines of text in the entire New Testament whereas the Iliad has 764.  Of these forty cases, only eight are considered serious, and not a single one deals with subjects of major doctrine.  Aside from Biblical manuscripts, literary works from the early church fathers contained so many quotes of the new testament that shy eleven verses, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed.  As for the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to the first, second and third centuries BC confirm the accuracy of many Old Testament Books. These points essentially mandate that one would have to dismiss every other ancient document and many ancient archeological artifacts as a hoax or inaccurate before you could sensibly reject the Bible's accounts.

Aside from complicated codes from equidistant letter spacing as breifly discussed earlier, the literary Bible claims to have insight into future inevitabilities from phrophets who authored many books.  It is estimated that a third of the Bible's text is prophecy. The Bible has prophecies concerning Premessianic (BC), Messianic (Christ) and modern (AD-Now) time-spans.  Short of the Bible's own word, it is difficult to prove some Premessianic prophecies.  Concerning the Christ however, it is downright impossible to account for the fulfillment of hundreds of Old Testament prophecies by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, mostly because we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirm that the prophecies predated the Messiah. As for modern prophecies, I am sure you have heard of the rebirth of Isreal (1948) as having been prophecied in the books of Amos, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah thousands of years ago.  Additionally there is an overwhelming number of prophecies concerning the past several centuries, now, and still further into the future.  I will not expound here because it mostly harps on the actions and behaviors found in the actions and attitudes of members of this very website. I am not trying to step on toes with this post.

In conclusion, TrickyNikki, I admit that most Christians do not have a clue about the vast support for the Bible, as don't most non-Christians, but regardless they believe and preach with such unfailing faith.  Conversely, many doubting Christians who are not aware of the evidence for the Bible, could be easily persuaded that the Bible is just garbage not worth considering, which grieves me.

I close with the following: If anyone, including yourslef, chooses to ridicule the Bible in spite of vast evidence supporting it, that is, whimsicle and unsensible as it may be, his or her entitlement and decision.  If you have not blinded/defended yourself to these things however, I encourage you to get into the Bible and read and heed what it has to say. 

God created the world, he judged it 4400 years ago with a worldwide flood, and He will be back in the eminent future to judge it again once and for all.  Sin, the disobedience of God's laws, is punished by death (Romans 6:23). It's his world, he makes the rules.  He is just and will judge according to His rules.  But out of love for the world, He sent a savior, Jesus, to die in your place.  Since Jesus paid the price of God's wrath, it will be Jesus who judges the world in the end. Believing on Him and praying to Him, accepting his great act of mercy, you will be forgiven, making you as pure white as snow, giving you eternal life with God in heaven after this life. Rejection of Jesus is rejection of God, your creator and lover of your soul, and will be honored by God with eternal separation of God with the demons and with Satan. 

This is the message of the Bible, and the choice to accept and act on it lies solely on you.

Quote: "God created the world, he judged it 4400 years ago with a worldwide flood, and He will be back in the eminent future to judge it again once and for all."

Stick around here for awhile. You are so flat out wrong on the flood. How did people from this era (4400 years ago) neglect to see their own demise? We have their writings with zero interruption, no flood, nothing, but you people do not want to look at truth. Please, take head out of sand. That is all.

Stick around here for awhile. You are so flat out wrong on the flood.

2 Peter 3:3-6 prophecies that in the end there will be uniformitarianisms who willingly deny the Creation and the Flood...You are fulfilling prophecy, buddy.

How did people from this era (4400 years ago) neglect to see their own demise?

I imagine much the same way you are neglecting to see your own. 

We have their writings with zero interruption, no flood, nothing, but you people do not want to look at truth.

We have the Bible, actually, which clearly recounts a Flood in Genesis 6-8, and almost 250 myths from around the world which tells the story of a Flood, and you have coal, oil, billions of fossils and boneyards around the world and the sedimentary layers  probably found in your own backyard; among other things.

The only non-existence of a Flood that you are certain of is from your own willpower to deny it.

This is simply not true. It is not necessary to use the word "fast" or any of its synonyms in its definition. For example, one definition could be "to move a large distance in a short amount of time." None of those words is synonymous with "fast," and yet they completely define one usage of the word. (yes, words like "large" and "short" are subjective, but so is the word "fast" so that is not a failing).

Further, despite whatever historical accuracy the Bible may have, you still fail to address the fact that it relies on itself to assert its own "divinity." The only support that the Bible is the word of God is the text itself. Being historically accurate in some parts does not mean it is historically accurate in all parts, and does not support the claim that the book was authored by a "higher power"

It would be interesting to hear more of these prophecies that you claim are made and fulfilled. I suspect that they are vague and do not indicate a specific timeframe. These kinds of prophecies are easy to make. Also, how many prophecies were made that haven't come about? How much longer do we need to wait for them to happen?

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

"The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)"

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)

28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Mr. Freak:

While we're on the subject of your accurate Bible, read this.

Nice link from a theist against the existence of Hell:

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm

(ed. for sp.)

This is simply not true. It is not necessary to use the word "fast" or any of its synonyms in its definition. For example, one definition could be "to move a large distance in a short amount of time." None of those words is synonymous with "fast," and yet they completely define one usage of the word.

I sense you are reading only what you want to. Let me reiterate a section: it is at some point circular.  In short, fast is quick but quick is fast.  Without going into unnecessary detail I am saying that if you look up the definition of the words that define a particular word you will get more words which need be further defined.  Since there are a finite number of words, this will be "at some point circular" just like I said. So therefore in order for a dictionary to be of any use, one has to learn the definitions of many words without worded definitions, just as I explained.

Further, despite whatever historical accuracy the Bible may have, you still fail to address the fact that it relies on itself to assert its own "divinity."

You are absolutely correct about that.  The writers of most if not all of the Bible witnessed miraculous acts of divinity,however, that removed all doubt of needing to prove divinity. You have not seen the same things as they, but that is not their fault that they needed not prove it...they knew for sure.

Being historically accurate in some parts does not mean it is historically accurate in all parts, and does not support the claim that the book was authored by a "higher power"

Right again, except that no observable evidence, archeological or otherwise has ever fell in contradiction with the Bible.  Retrospectively, incorrect interpretations of more difficult parts of the Bible (based usually on only a single verse or two) have not been in agreement with evidence, but that lies solely on the interpretation.  Any work of literature has varying interpretations, but not all can be true.

It would be interesting to hear more of these prophecies that you claim are made and fulfilled.

I am not writing to interest you.  I am writing to inform you. if you want to scoff at Bible prophesies, you can find hundreds of places all over the internet. You want to see signs and wonders just like the people in the days of Christ. (Matthew 27:42) Sadly many, maybe even you, will be deceived by the coming antichrist that will do exactly that. (Mark 13:22) 

I suspect that they are vague and do not indicate a specific timeframe. These kinds of prophecies are easy to make.

Fabricated prophecies? Yes they are easy to make...They are called Horoscopes. But when one prophesies that John preceed the Christ, and that the Christ will be from the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, the time of his birth (Dan.9:25), He will be born in Bethlehem from a virgin and that there would be no place for Him to stay, all the babies would be killed, the kings of the world would bring Him gifts, he fled to Egypt, He be raised in Nazareth, he would triumphantly enter Jeruselem on a Donkey, He would enter through the Golden Gate, He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, He would be crucified with criminals, His bones would not be broken, his side would be pierced, He would be offered a drink on the cross because he was thirsty, soldiers would tear his garment into four and cast lots for his tunic, He would be deserted by God and burried with the rich, He would raise from the dead with others, ascension into heaven, and many more, and all were fulfilled, then it becomes very hard to sensibly reject the Bible's account. In all, there are an estimated 300 prophecies about Jesus alone, and you can find many at http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm

Also, how many prophecies were made that haven't come about? How much longer do we need to wait for them to happen?

Well there are many and most deal with the endtimes and God's judgement.  There is a pretty good film http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-236603451790404943 that explains the endtimes that i would recommend if you prefer watching videos over reading.

Holy Spirit, if you were Catholic, I'd swear you were StMichael coming back to torment us. I realize you probably don't know what I mean. It's ok. Don't worry about it. It made me feel better to say it.

Your posts are difficult to get through, primarily because you use hundreds, or thousands of words to make the same mistakes other theists make in one or two sentences. It's almost not worth the time to read through everything.

Anyway...

The letters F-A-S-T are not the concept "fast." Everything you're about to say to prove that the definition proves itself is fallacious because you're equating a symbol with an abstract concept. I could probably stop here, but you'd accuse me of flippantly dismissing your argument, so I'll go on.

Yeah, yeah. The cognitive process starts with mimicking behavior and moves to comprehension. Doesn't change the fact that you're conflating abstracts and realities.

Horse hockey.

You're trying to dance around the fact that the bible has to assume its own inerrance to be proved inerrant, but it won't work. Every historical document is subject to outside corroboration. Nobody will dispute that the bible mentions historic figures and places. That lends it as much historical veracity as Homer or Shakespeare.

So?

How do you justify this statement? Have you ever been to an antiquities library and seen how many texts have survived from all over the world?

Forgive my french, holyspirit... Bullshit.

Again. Bullshit.

You've seen all the evidence against this, and you keep saying it. Saying it with more words doesn't make it any more true.

But you know what, since you like writing so much, I assume you also like reading, so I'll give you a few snipets of errancies in the bible:

From http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#ref131

Biblical "Science"--The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:

• (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
• (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
• (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
• (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
• (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
• (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
• (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
• (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
• (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
• (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
• (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
• (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
• (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
• (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
• (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
• (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
• (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
• (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

Some statements are so vague that apologists can often evade dilemmas by creative rationalizations. As Ingersoll said: "If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 37). For instance, Gen. 1:7-8 says: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;... And god called the firmament Heaven." Realizing the scientific implausibility inherent in this narration, some apologists attempt to portray the firmament as nothing more than the atmosphere separating the moist clouds above from the oceans below. Some biblical allegations are not only erroneous but have been fatal to their adherents. For instance, Mark16:17-18 says: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils;.... They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." Not many believing Christians are willing to drink poisons or handle rattlesnakes to prove the Bible's accuracy, although some have tried. Many individuals have died because they put their trust in the Biblical injunction to pray ("And the prayer of faith shall save the sick," James 5:13-15) and, not wanting to make Asa's mistake (2 Chron. 16:12), shunned physicians.

The unscientific aspect of biblical teachings is also shown in the fact that many mythological creatures are spoken of as if they were, in fact, real. The manner in which they are described and the context within which this occurs show biblical writers felt they actually existed. Some of the prominent examples are:

Prophecy--Biblicists place great reliance upon the alleged accuracy of biblical prophecy to justify their position, and for this reason, several issues of BE will be dovoted to this topic. In continuing the discussion begun in March, 1983 additional prophecies such as the following are worthy of note:

• In Jonah 3:4 (RSV) Jonah cried, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" But Jonah 3:10 shows that the prophecy materialized in a manner precisely opposite to that which was predicted. It states: When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he said he would do them, and he did not do it." It is no defense to say that they turned from their evil ways and, therefore, God was justified in changing his mind, i.e., the conditions under which Jonah had made his prophecy had changed. If he had been a true prophet, he would have seen this change coming. Even more important, the prophecy was not conditional. He flatly stated Nineveh would be overthrown in 40 days, which didn't occur.
• Isaiah says: "...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." Yet, the uncircumcised have never stopped traveling through Jerusalem.
• In John 14:12 Jesus says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." But what believer has ever done a miracle greater than those preformed by Jesus?
• In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.
• In 2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like." This prophecy has also proved to be erroneous. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many, and is small by today's standards.
• In 1 Thess. 4:16-17 Paul stated: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord." Paul shared the delusion, taught by Jesus, in that he expected to be snatched up bodily into heaven with other saints then living, who would, thus, never taste death. The use of "we" clearly proves as much. It is difficult to deny that Paul was certain that the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of his contemporaries.
• First Samuel 27:1 says: "And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Sual:..." Whether stated in or out of his heart David erred decisively. He did not die by the hand of Saul as he predicted, but appears to have died of old age, according to 1 Kings 2:10, which says: "So David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." Having died before David, Saul couldn't have been responsible.
• Gen. 15:16 predicted that: "In the fourth generation they (Abraham's descendants-ed) shall come hither again..." God told Abraham that his descendants would return in the fourth generation. Yet, if Abraham is excluded, it actually occurred during the sixth generation. The generations were
  • (1) Abraham,
  • (2) Issac,
  • (3) Levi-Ex. 1:3,
  • (4) Kohath-Ex. 6:16,
  • (5) Amram-Ex. 6:18, and
  • (6) Moses-Ex. 6:20.
• Jer. 34:4-5 predicted that Zedekiah would experience a peaceful death: "Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: But thou shall die in peace...." Yet Jer. 52:10-11 shows that he died in something less than a peaceful manner: "And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekaih before his eyes: he slew also the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death."
• John 7:52 says: "They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." The inaccuracy of this prophecy lies in the fact that several of the most distinguished Jewish prophets--Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah--were from Galilee.
• The final prophecy that will be noted in this month's commentary is found in Gen. 49:13, which predicted that "Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon." Two aspects of this prophecy clearly failed. The borders of Zebulun never extended to the sea, and they never encompassed Sidon. In the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer attempted on page 104 to remedy this problem:

  Gen. 49:1 foretells the location of this tribe (Zebulun-ed) near the shore, affording a convenient passage for the cargoes of ships unloading at the docks of the Mediterranean coast for transport to the Sea of Galilee and transshipment up to Damascus and beyond. While Zebulun was located on neither coast, the Valley of Jezreel afforded an excellent highway for imported goods to be conveyed to the most important inland markets. Its northern border would point in the direction of the great commercial cities of Phoenicia, of which Sidon was then the leading emporium.

  In effect, Archer admits that Zebulun was on neither coast and never encompassed Sidon. The connecting link afforded by the Valley of Jezreel is irrelevant. The fact remains, Zebulun did not touch either sea. The fact that Zebulun's northern border "pointed" in the direction of Sidon is also immaterial. The prophecy clearly states Zebulun's border shall be at Sidon on the sea.

• (a) Gen. 6:16 says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finisn it above;...." How could so many creatures breathe with only one small opening which was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plus an additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)?
• (b) Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits(450 feet-ed), the breadth of it 50 cubits (75 feet-ed.), and the height of it 30 cubits (45 feet-ed.)." How could two of every animal survive for approximately 10 months on a boat encompassing1,518,750 cubic feet? The food alone would absorb tremendous space.
• (c) Gen. 6:17 says, "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Gen. 7:4 reinforces this point, "...and every substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals, such as whales, porpoises, sea snakes, dolphins, amphibians, and all animals entirely underwater?
• (d) Gen. 7:8-9 says, "Of clean beasts, and of beast that are not clean, and fowls of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah." The problems associated with this account of the creatures entering the Ark are particularly interesting. How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? Penguins, kangaroos, polar bears, koala bears, and many others would have to have crossed vast oceans. How animals from other continents managed to cross the seas can only be surmised. How did many of the animals withstand climatic changes? Many of those from polar regions could not have withstood the heat of the Middle East. How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey? Slow animals from other continents--snails, sloths, turtles, and so forth--must have started their journey to the Ark before the earth was created! How did only 8 people feed and water the world's greatest zoo for many months? How was the Ark kept sanitary, since there was only one window and one door? How did the animals know where to go when the time arrived to enter the Ark? After being released, how did they return to their respective regions of the world? The vegetation which many animals eat only grows in certain parts of the world. How was it brought to the Ark for storage? Are we to believe that two of every species--two dogs, two cats, two elephants, two snakes, and so forth--entered the Ark? If so, then are we to also believe, for example, that the tremendous variety of dogs in the world today, from the great dane to the chihuahua, descended from two of the species? This would mark a tremendous evolutionary change in only a few thousand years. Yet, biblicists are the ones who denounce the theory of evolution. And how did the animals know when to seek the Ark? The text implies they just came voluntarily.
• (e) Gen. 7:15 says, "And they went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." How did water creatures such as whales, porpises, sea snakes, dolphins, and so forth enter the Ark? Moreover, since millions of species of animal exist throughout the world, how could a pair have been taken from each? There are over 500,000 separate species of insects alone.
• (f) Gen. 8:4 states, "And the ark rested in the 7th month on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." How could the Ark have rested upon several mountains at once?
• (g) "Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground (Gen. 8:." Why did Noah send a bird to learn what was clearly evident?
• (h) Gen. 8:11 says, "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." It's difficult to believe a dove could have found an olive leaf to freshly pluck in a world that had been submerged for nearly a year.
• (i) Gen. 8:20 states, "And Noah builded an alter unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter." Killing animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd.
• (j) Gen. 7:13 states, "In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Sham, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark." If the human race began anew from Noah and his sons, are we supposed to believe the wide variations among the earth's people developed in short period since the Flood? Are we supposed to believe that the fair-haired Swede, the brown-skinned, dark-haired Indian, and the black-skinned native came from the same ancestors?
• (k) Gen. 7:4 says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth." But what had the beast and the creeping things done to excite God's anger? They had committed no sin; they had eaten no forbidden fruit, and they had not tried to reach the tree of life.
• (l) Gen. 8:5 and 8:13 state the Flood covered the earth and its mountains. If so, where did all the water go?
• (m) Lastly, the questions raised by Gen. 8:19 must be answered. The verse says, "Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark." How were the animals preserved after leaving the Ark? There was no grass except such as had been submerged for a year. How were the herbivores taken care of until the earth was again clothed with vegetation? There were no animals to be devoured by the carnivores, except those which were on the Ark. From whence came their food? Apologists will be asked in next month's issue to address an equally large number of contradictions between the verses themselves.

• (a) Gen. 6:19 says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark,...." (Also note Gen. 7:8-9, 14-15). Yet, Gen. 7:2 says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by twos, the male and his female." Are clean beasts to enter by 2's or by 7's?
• (b) Gen. 6:20 says, "Of fowls after their kind...two of every sort shall come unto thee,...." Yet, Gen. 7:3 says, "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;...."
• (c) Gen. 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, male and his female;...." Yet, clean and unclean animals were not delineated until the eleventh chapter of Leviticus. The Mosic law arose 600 years after the Flood. There were no Jews, Israelites, or clean vs. unclean animals in Noah's time.
• (d) Gen. 7:7 says, "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the Flood...." Later, Gen. 7:13 says, "In the same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark...." In other words, Gen. 7:13-17 recapitulates Gen 7:7-12. Apparently they entered two times for the "take-off."
• (e) Gen. 6:17 says, "all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Yet, Gen. 7:21-22 says, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." Did every living thing die or just those that creepeth on the land?
• (f) Gen. 8:3 says, "And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." Yet, two verses later the text says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month." According to the third verse the waters had already disappeared after 150 days (5 months-ed.).
• (g) Gen. 8:9 says, "...for the waters were on the face of the whole earth:...." Yet, 8:3 already said, "And the waters returned off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." According to the third verse the waters had already vanished. (It should be noted that if "abated" means lessened rather than vanished, then why would the text say, "after the end of 150 days the waters were abated"? In reality, this interpretation would mean the waters were abated the momen tthey began to recede. They would have been abated at the beginning of the 150 days, not at the end.)
• (h) Gen 8:5 says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." Yet, verse 4 just finished saying, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Why would the tops of the mountains not be visible until the tenth month when the ark had already come to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month?
• (i) Gen. 8:13 says, "And it came to pass in the 601st year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth... and behold, the face of the ground was dry." Yet the next verse says, "And in the second month, on the 27th day of the month, was the earth dried." Was the earth dried on Jan.1st or Feb. 27th? If it was dry on Jan 1st, then they stayed in the ark 58 days longer than needed. (j) The Lord promised Noah in Gen. 8:20, "While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This promise is contradicted by three subsequent verses: "and the seven years of dearth began to come,... and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread (Gen. 41:54)." "And the famine was over all the face of the earth...(Gen. 41:56)." "For these two years hath the famine been in the land..."
• (k) Gen. 9:3 says, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you (Noah-ed.)." Yet Deut. 14:7-19 lists many animals that are not to be eaten. Either God changed his mind (contra. Mal. 3:6), a new code of morality was instituted, or the verses are contradictory.
• (l) In Gen. 9:6 God told Noah, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man." Yet, God broke his own rule by releasing Cain and providing him protection after he killed Abel. As Gen. 4:15 says, "And the Lord said unto him (Cain-ed.). Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
• (m) Gen. 6:7-9 says, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;.... But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God." But according to Gen. 7:7, others joined Noah on the Ark. "And Noah went in, and his sons and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark,...." Noah was the only perfect person, yet other people were also spared. If seven imperfect people received special treatment, then why didn't thousands of others?
• (n) And lastly, God made a decidedly inconsistent statement in Gen. 8:21. "...and the Lord said in his heart, 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." God said he would not any more curse the ground for man's sake. His reason is not that man is, or will be good, but because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. God destroyed man because of his wickedness. Now he promises not to destroy him again for the same reason, his wickedness.

You've been watching the X-Files again, haven't you.

Argument from popularity: Logical Fallacy.

You still can't escape the errancy of the bible.

So, you're trying to prove that because scholars have lots of copies of a manuscript, and it's been copied imperfectly, but not too imperfectly, that it's perfect?

Brilliant.

Have you ever read the Dead Sea Scrolls? They confirm that OT books existed, true. They even confirm that there were messiah figures (PLURAL!!) around the turn of the millenium. As to the accuracy, not so. Even reading the official, Catholic-approved publication of the partial translation of the scrolls, even a novice can find disagreement. I've read them. Have you?

I'm not even going to deal with your rant on prophecies. It rings of paranoia and gullibility, and I'm not going to get into that. Your veiled insult, however, has been noted, and is, in large part, the reason for my condescending tone in this post. You're a looney, and a pompous looney at that.

You're mad. I honestly don't know what else to say. You've ignored absolutely everything everyone has said to you in threads regarding biblical errancy, and still you come back and say the same things, over and over, with more words every time.

I close with the following. If anyone including yourself, chooses to insist that the bible is inerrant, or that it is historically valid based on its own merits, it is his or her entitlement and decision. If you have blinded yourself to reason, and don't understand historical validity, then it is your perfect right to live under a delusion. I, however, will point out your delusion and ridicule it so that others might not make the same mistakes.

Uh, yeah. What hamby said. That's what I was try'n to say!

Thanks Hamby!!!!!!

I understand your point about language and the fact that it is used as a tool to convey meaning, and by it's fundamental nature some meanings (mostly basic ones) can only be learned through example.  A dictionary uses words to define words because words have no meaning other than those we give them.

However, this isn't related to the circular reasoning used in the bible.  

It appears that your argument is that the miraculous events are proof outside the bible of the bible's divinity.  In that case, it would be necessary to provide proof, or even evidence, of these miraculous events, however, none exists. 

 The rest of your claims Hambydammit has answered much better and with more completness than I could ever hope to.

I have started reading your post, and I'm having to force myself not to reply right now...see, it is very late where I am, and I have to work tomorrow morning.  This weekend will be a three day weekend because of Memorial day, and I had already planned to drive down to see my girl after work and visit her family. Actually I still haven't packed yet.

You have also provided a lot of text, so I cannot even guarantee a reply by Tuesday evening, my time, so I ask simply to be patient with me.  But thanks for your interest.

Talk to ya'll later. God loves you.

Why didn't you just post this line and forget the rest? In order to believe the Bible, you first have to believe that God wrote it, through faith. If you approach it any other way, no sane person can believe it's the truth. 

Because I had just had a cup of coffee, and my fingers were twitchy.

Well, I think I'm going to reply to your comment in a literary way, since I have a degree in English and see the Bible as nothing more than literature. 
To start off, you cite the fact that the Bible has multiple authors as making it somehow valid. But varied authorship is entirely a moot point. I right now could go write a sequel to Hamlet in which Horatio tells the tale from HIS perspective. I'm sure that has been done, though. Tom Stoppard famously reexamined Hamlet in the brilliant Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. There is a humorous play about performing Hamlet called I Hate Hamlet. EVERYONE knows SOMETHING about Hamlet, whether they know it or not: "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio..." everyone knows at least a bastardized version of that line and knows that a skull is involved. People use the name Ophelia all the time to discuss teenage girls. The list goes on. Literature is very powerful and has a remarkable way of distilling into popular culture. But that does not give any divine inspiration to Tom Stoppard or anyone who accidently quotes Hamlet. Literature references past literature CONSTANTLY. And so many of the classics have had novels written to explore minor characters (for example, Jean Rhys exploring Bertha from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre in her novel Wide Sargasso Sea). Besides, the Bible is more of an anthology of collected stories than chapters of a coherent novel. I have tons of anthologies on my bookshelf. They handy, but not divine. 
I also see glaring problems in your argument about the Bible Code thing. Any book that is long enough will always include some sort of pattern or code. I've seen "codes" found in Moby Dick that seem to predict the Kennedy assasination, and nobody calls Melville a prophet or divine man. There are finite amounts of letters, after all, and you can find what you want to find. That is evidence of nothing. 
And...well, honestly, I don't really know how to put this. You seem to be saying that it means something that the bible is a well-preserved bit of antiquity compared the the second most well-preserved, the Illiad. Well, the Illiad is older, and also, who cares? We all recognize that the Illiad is fiction! It's an epic poem that may or may not have been written by Homer (there is not proof, so nobody can say for sure it was written by Homer). Why don't you worship the gods in the Illiad? After all, they've been around longer! 
You say you have vast evidence supporting the bible but you only provide literary phenomena that can be seen in countless other works of literature. Plus, as someone else has already noted, where in the world is the outside evidence about the whole divinity thing? 
I stand by my position: work of fiction, with as much historical truth as any other work of fiction can have, and nothing more.  

Luke 9:5

Proverbs 29:9

Proverbs 1:7

Everything I meant to say in this post I have already said. I will say no more.  

If there were something I could do to get you all to receive its message, I would.  But there is nothing. You must accept it yourself. Please, Get right with God through his son Jesus Christ before it is too late.