"No long talk.No beating about the bush.Straight to the point.Same thing applies here. You say you worship a god and you believe he's the creator of the universe and if you worship him well enough, he will grant you blessings here on earth and you might probably get a ticket into heaven (lovely Smiley)"

that is your own undersanding. Not all christians believe that they "will probably get a ticket into heaven if they worship thier god well"

so don't make sweeping generalisations, it is not the hallmark of great minds.

"You know. . .i really dislike being misquoted.I never hindered the bible or Christians from "proving" itself or themselves."

"All i need are straight answers not quotations from a book that has been influenced on several intervals over the centuries by the ruling class and the catholic papacy. How can you be quoting scriptures when you weren't even there when it was written? All you know is that you were taught Christianity was the way to go from childhood and if you go against the bible, you will go to hell! Apart from that, what other proof?"

Now you are contradicting your self. First you say you have not hindered the bible from proving itself, then you now say that the bible has been influenced. Clearly then, while you claim not to be hindering the bible from proving itself, your later comment clearly shows that you will not give it a chance because you feel it has been influenced. And once again you impute motives. You say that all i know is that i was taught Christianity as the way to go from childhood. If i may ask, what proof of that do you have? Please and please, don't say things you are not sure of. I have other proof!

"If he is all these, then he should have known that Eve would be tempted by the serpent and she would fall.He should have known how his creation would go till this present day.Why then did he create man when he knew that failure was imminent? The bible says he destroyed the world once and will do it again (some call it rapture, others call it Armageddon, a few think it's both ways). Why create something and condemn it? Is the bible implying that god is confused? That he makes errors? Isn't he supposed to be the all knowing god? Explain this please."

God, is omnipotent, omniprecscient, etc, etc. If you think deeply, you will realise that having a right, is not complete without the right not to exercise that right. I hope you can understand that. Having an ability, is not complete without being able to decide whether to exercise that ability or not to exercise the ability. If you can understand this simple concept, then you will understand that God was under no compulsion to exercise his ability to fore know.

"If you can only look beyond your greed for blessings and fear of the unknown, you will see the outright ridiculousness of religion in general (most especially Christianity).You all claim that the Christian god is not the author of confusion but watch that video and you'll more than enough contradictions to make you feel sorry for yourselves.I won't be surprised to come back here and see dim witted sentiments of people who have watched the video and still have it in them to defend the indefensible.Like Karl Max rightfully said, Religion is the opium of the masses. . .

"Die Religion , ist das Opium des Volkes"

It blind folds you to all forms of common sense.Matter of fact, religion and reason/logic/common sense don't go hand in hand.They don't mix.Like someone rightfully said, Moslems put their shoes outside the door when they come to the mosque. . .Christians leave the brains at the door when they come to church."

a long time ago, nuclearboy, i believe, said that he had convinced himself into thinking that harakiri actually was in search for answers, but that he realised that that was not the case. I am also beginning to think that harakiri is not sincerely interested in knowing the answer to his question: What is the proof that the Christian god is the real deal? Why? because he follows it up with "No bible quotations please.Just straight answers.Thanks."

The christian god comes from the bible. one very easy way to prove whether he is the real deal is to compare what he (the christian god) claims to say with what really is happening. But his caveat, no bible quotations, as i have said earlier, means that he is not giving the christian god a chance to prove himself.Simple. Even a child would agree with me, i believe. He said that he does not hinder the bible from proving itself, yet he refuses to allow people who believe the bible has the capacity to prove itself, the opportunity to do so. He gave the example of a man who you ask if a particular child is the mans child. Then he goes on to say that the man will use two things to prove that he is the father of the child, 1. physical resemblance, 2. dna evidence. I wonder if it has occured to harakiri, in all his wisdom, that those two proofs are from withing the father. Abi, all of una wey dey read this thread, na another person resemblance de papa go take use to prove say the pikin na im own abi na his own resemblance to the pikin? Abeg make person talk o! DNA self, na from another person de papa go go borrow dna to use prove say na im be de papa abi no be im own DNA, wey he go comot from him body the person wey dey ask go use try to see whether e match the pikin own?

So, clearly, it is only reasonable and sensible for the bible, which the christian god claims authorship, to be used to prove his existence. hakiri, ko haka ba? if you can get past that little restriction which you are using to prevent yourself from seeing the answer, then you will be proving your sincerity.

QUOTE. here you all are, misquoting the bible at random., you so called Christians keep disgracing yourselves like this, before you come here to embarrass the rest of the congregation with your semi-educated bible knowledge.You are an outright embarrassment to Christians worldwide.Let's expose your a little bit shall we?I'll address your answers one by one : .I won't be surprised to come back here and see dim witted sentiments of people who have watched the video and still have it in them to defend the indefensible.Like Karl Max rightfully said, Religion is the opium of the masses. . .

"Die Religion , ist das Opium des Volkes"

It blind folds you to all forms of common sense.Matter of fact, religion and reason/logic/common sense don't go hand in hand.They don't mix.Like someone rightfully said, Moslems put their shoes outside the door when they come to the mosque. . .Christians leave the brains at the door when they come to church.QUOTE

mr. harakiri, John F Kennedy once said: "civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof" One thing i will plead with you for is this: CIVILITY! just try and be civil in your posts. the above quoted, seems to me, i may be wrong o, but i am sure many people will be offended just as i was, it seems to me to sound rude and distasteful. Even if we cannot in our daily lives carry out discussion,argument, etc without resorting to cheap shots, at least, we can pretend that we are civil on nairaland. Because the lack of civility can make some people who would otherwise have something useful to contribute to the discussion shy away.

another thing that has been bothering me is this? mr harakiri says that he does believe that there is a supreme being, but feels that it is not the christian god. has he investigated other religions to find out if there is one? I dont think so, because he goes on to say agree with Karl Max in saying that religion is the opium of the masses. so, it's not just christianity that irks him, its all religion. in one post, he will say, jewish god, in another christian god, which one do you really mean, cos i believe you know that judaism is a very different religion from christianity? right?

so, i am really beginning to feel that there is a whole lot of insincerity involved and i earnestly hope i am wrong. what harakiri does not know is that i am not a christian. but of all the religions i investigated, true christianity, and let me say this, there is a difference, big difference between christianity and christendom, and true christianity. As i was saying, true christianity seems like the most reasonable religion to me. I investigated hinduism, islam, buddhism, taoism, confucianism, shintoism, judaism before reaching my conclusion about true christianity. let me just say this, so as to try and differentiate between true christianity and christendom/chritianity. true christianity does not believe in hellfire but believes in hell.(yeah, there is a difference between hellfire and hell), true christianity does not force tithes on its members, people give voluntary and of their own volition, true christianity does not engage in politics, war, and other conflicts and its members try to be peaceable, not just peaceful.(yeah, there is a huge difference btw being peaceable and being peaceful.),true christianity does not preach that everyone will go to heaven, does not preach rapture, does not condone violence, immoral behaviour, well, there are a lot of other differences but going on to list them will derail what i was trying to say, but if you just compare what i said, you will find that most of the people you consider, and class as christians, are not true christians but part of christendom.

and yet, even after my search, and finding true christianity, i am not a christian. because what is required by true christianity i am not yet ready to practice.for instance, the bible says:“If possible,as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men." and literallyy the word peaceable,, means peacemakers. being a peacemaker means , going out of ones way to establish and to maintain peace. that is why the bible also says that if someone slaps you you should not retaliate, instead turn the other cheek. truthfully, if someone slaps me, i will land him his own slap sharp,sharp. so my knowleddge of my limitations and my laziness and unwillingness to train myself is what is preventing me from practicing christianity.

just as some parents watch porn, smoke, etc but will not allow their children to do such, and if they find that their children do such, would be mad. its not that those parents do not know that smoking for example is dangerous to thier health. they do, but the continue anyway. but because of their interest in preserving the health of their children, they insist that their children do not do such. heck even some doctors i know smoke. so knowledge does not always translate to action so im just saying this cos i don't want anyone querying me about my rooting for christianity and not even being a christian.

now, harakiri, you see, what you are doing is turning me into your researcher when, i believe, if you were very very sincere, prove me wrong please, you would be doing the research about your question yourself. but i don't mind, honestly because, there is no point your wasting your time doing the research when someone else already did it. it took the better part of my life to find out what i will proceed to record here. note also that i do not expect you or anyone else who takes your stand to agree with me or be convinced. a man convinced of his opinion is always of the same! but i know that there are some people that would be convinced, much as i was, after finding it out for myself.

on the issue of the bible contradicting it self, yes, the bible does appear to contradict itself. it is also easy to find contradictions when you are looking for them . what may be harder to do is try and see, check from genesis to revelation, to see if this seeming contradictions are really contradictions. often times, what are discrepancies are lableled contradictions. it is very easy, in fact, one of the easiest things in the world to hurl accusations, or to find faults. almost everyone knows that.


consider this:“Discrepancies” Do Not Have to Be Contradictions
Kenneth S. Kantzer, a theologian, once illustrated how two reports of the same event can seem contradictory and yet both be true. He wrote: “Some time ago the mother of a dear friend of ours was killed. We first learned of her death through a trusted mutual friend who reported that our friend’s mother had been standing on the street corner waiting for a bus, had been hit by another bus passing by, was fatally injured, and died a few minutes later.”
Soon after, he heard a very different report. He says: “We learned from the grandson of the dead woman that she had been involved in a collision, was thrown from the car in which she was riding, and was killed instantly. The boy was quite certain of his facts.
“Much later . . . we probed for a harmonization. We learned that the grandmother had been waiting for a bus, was hit by another bus, and was critically injured. She had been picked up by a passing car and dashed to the hospital, but in the haste, the car in which she was being transported to the hospital collided with another car. She was thrown from the car and died instantly.”
Yes, two accounts of the same event may both be true even though they seem to disagree with each other. This is sometimes the case with the Bible. Independent witnesses may describe different details about the same event. Instead of being contradictory, however, what they write is complementary, and if we take all accounts into consideration, we get a better understanding of what happened.


Usually, people who make this charge have not personally read the Bible; they are merely repeating what they have heard. (harakiri, please answer truthfully, have you personally read the entire bible once, and more than once) in my search for a god and a true religion, i did not just read the bible, i read it more than once, i also read other "holy" books, the koran, the torah, the Rig-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda.
and others. but this is the internet, it is very easy for someone who hasnt gone through all this to speak as an authority. it is also possible for someone to think that i am lying, but in my future posts, when i disect each religion i have mentioned investigating in my search for god and his religion, then people can determine if in reality i read those books or im just claiming. anyway,back to bibilical "contradictions", some, though, have found what seem to be genuine contradictions and are troubled by them.

IF IT really is the Word of God, the Bible should be harmonious, not contradictory. Why, then, do some passages seem to contradict others? To answer, we need to remember that, while the Bible is the Word of God, it was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries. These writers had different backgrounds, writing styles, and gifts, and all these differences are reflected in the writing.

Moreover, if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement. In this chapter, we will present some alleged contradictions in the Bible and consider how they can be reconciled, taking the above considerations into account.

Independent Witnesses
Some “contradictions” arise when we have two or more accounts of the same incident. For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?

The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.

To illustrate this, at 2 Chronicles 3:1, we read: “Finally Solomon started to build the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem.” Later, we read: “Thus Solomon finished the house of Jehovah.” (2 Chronicles 7:11) Did Solomon personally build the temple from start to finish? Of course not. The actual building work was done by a multitude of craftsmen and laborers. But Solomon was the organizer of the work, the one responsible. Hence, the Bible says that he built the house. In the same way, Matthew’s Gospel tells us that the military commander approached Jesus. But Luke gives the added detail that he approached him through the Jewish elders.

Here is a similar example. At Matthew 20:20, 21, we read: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee approached [Jesus] with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.” What she asked was that her sons should have the most favored position when Jesus came into his Kingdom. In Mark’s account of this same event, we read: “James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, stepped up to [Jesus] and said to him: ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.’” (Mark 10:35-37) Was it the two sons of Zebedee, or was it their mother, who made the request of Jesus?

Clearly, it was the two sons of Zebedee who made the request, as Mark states. But they made it through their mother. She was their spokesperson. This is supported by Matthew’s report that when the other apostles heard what the mother of the sons of Zebedee had done, they became indignant, not at the mother, but “at the two brothers.”—Matthew 20:24.

Have you ever heard two people describe an event that they both witnessed? If so, did you notice that each person emphasized details that impressed him? One may have left out things that the other included. Both, however, were telling the truth. It is the same with the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, as well as with other historical events reported by more than one Bible writer. Each writer wrote accurate information even when one retained details that another omitted. By considering all the accounts, a fuller understanding of what happened can be gained. Such variations prove that the Bible accounts are independent. And their essential harmony proves that they are true.

Read the Context

Often, apparent inconsistencies can be resolved if we just look at the context. Consider, for example, the often-raised problem about Cain’s wife. At Genesis 4:1, 2 we read: “In time [Eve] gave birth to Cain and said: ‘I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.’ Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel.” As is well known, Cain killed Abel; but after that, we read that Cain had a wife and children. (Genesis 4:17) If Adam and Eve had only two sons, where did Cain find his wife?

The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the following verse, we read: “He became father to sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4) So Cain could have married one of his sisters or even one of his nieces. At that early stage of human history, when mankind was so close to perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the risks for the children of the union that it would today.

Our considering the context also helps us to understand what some have claimed is a disagreement between the apostle Paul and James. At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled?

Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18.

James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.

The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.
Different Viewpoints

Sometimes the Bible writers wrote about the same event from different viewpoints, or they presented their accounts in different ways. When these differences are taken into consideration, further apparent contradictions are easy to resolve. An example of this is in Numbers 35:14, where Moses speaks of the territory east of the Jordan as “on this side of the Jordan.” Joshua, however, speaking of land to the east of the Jordan, called it “the other side of the Jordan.” (Joshua 22:4) Which is correct?

In fact, both are correct. According to the account in Numbers, the Israelites had not yet crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, so to them east of the Jordan was “this side.” But Joshua had already crossed the Jordan. He was now, physically, west of the river, in the land of Canaan. So east of the Jordan was, for him, “the other side.”

Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.

The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

Read the Account Carefully
Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. This is the case when we consider the conquest of Jerusalem by the Israelites. Jerusalem was listed as part of the inheritance of Benjamin, but we read that Benjamin’s tribe was unable to conquer it. (Joshua 18:28; Judges 1:21) We also read that Judah was unable to conquer Jerusalem—as if it were part of that tribe’s inheritance. Eventually, Judah defeated Jerusalem, burning it with fire. (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1: Hundreds of years later, however, David is also recorded as conquering Jerusalem.—2 Samuel 5:5-9.

At first glance, all of this might appear confusing, but there are in reality no contradictions. In fact, the boundary between Benjamin’s inheritance and Judah’s ran along the Valley of Hinnom, right through the ancient city of Jerusalem. What later came to be called the City of David actually lay in the territory of Benjamin, just as Joshua 18:28 says. But it is likely that the Jebusite city of Jerusalem spilled across the Valley of Hinnom and thus overlapped into Judah’s territory, so that Judah, too, had to war against its Canaanite inhabitants.
21 Benjamin was unable to conquer the city. On one occasion, Judah did conquer Jerusalem and burn it. (Judges 1:8, 9) But Judah’s forces evidently moved on, and some of the original inhabitants regained possession of the city. Later, they formed a pocket of resistance that neither Judah nor Benjamin could remove. Thus, the Jebusites continued in Jerusalem until David conquered the city hundreds of years later.

We meet up with a second example in the Gospels. Concerning Jesus’ being led out to his death, in John’s Gospel we read: “Bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out.” (John 19:17) However, in Luke we read: “Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cyrene, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus.” (Luke 23:26) Did Jesus carry the implement of his death, or did Simon carry it for him?

To begin with, Jesus evidently carried his own torture stake, as John points out. But later, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke testify, Simon of Cyrene was impressed into service to carry it for him the rest of the way to the place of execution.

Proof of Independence
True, there are some apparent inconsistencies in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile. But we should not assume that they are definite contradictions. Often it is merely a case of lack of complete information. The Bible provides enough knowledge to fill our spiritual need. But if it were to give us every detail about every event mentioned, it would be a huge, unwieldy library, rather than the handy, easy-to-carry volume that we have today.

Speaking of Jesus’ ministry, the apostle John wrote with justifiable exaggeration: “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.” (John 21:25) It would be even more of an impossibility to record all the details of the long history of God’s people from the patriarchs to the first-century Christian congregation!

Actually, the Bible is a miracle of condensation. It contains enough information to enable us to recognize it as more than merely a human work.
Any variations it contains prove that the writers were truly independent witnesses.

Whew! people keep on bringing different things and even though i would like to ignore them and answer harakiri's question, i keep getting sidetracked because i know i have responses to what they say and i feel bad if i don't present the other side.

Anyway, as i said earlier, i will begin to disect religion, starting with its beginning. in my next post, i will discuss mythology. then later i will discuss searching for the unknown through magic and spiritism, hinduism, buddhism(this one is very interesting), taoism and confucianism, shitoism, judaism, christianity, apostates of christianity, islam, the reformation(remember, John wycliffe, Jan Hus, Martin luther ) and finally, what i believe to be the true god, the God of true christianity.

But that is a long way off: First, let me prepare to tell you about the beginning of religion.



Ehen, i remember sef, i had promised mazaje citations so that i could "sell more books" to him. But he has not even said anything about my post. I hope he read it. and if he wants my references, let him just ask me and i will post them, but be warned, you may have to go the the bank o, because my sources are in excess of 100. So prepare to buy a lot of books and confirm for your self if you doubt what i say or believe that i just thought up everything i posted.

Sure the bible is a myth, unscientific and false. . . .Tell me one scientific theory that was gotten from the bible. . . .What about other historical narratives in the bible that are FALSE like the exodus and the Noah' flood?. . . . .

When i was younger, preparing for the SAT, i was taught to avoid the use of words like always, surely, certainly etc. I would advise you to do the same. Those words are absolute. And as i can show you here, the bible is not unscientific. About the bible not being a myth, i will not go into that one yet, but if you insist, i will. Let me just warn you that it will make me own this thread for some time now because, the amount of info i am going to bring out, with citations, to prove, that the bible is not a myth, , anyway,

A scientific theory does not have to be gotten from the bible to prove that the bible is scientific. If the bible does not contains scientifically accurate statements, it is obvious that it is not unscientific. For example,  look at these two examples:

What Is the Shape of the Earth?
That question has intrigued humans for thousands of years. The general view in ancient times was that the earth was flat. The Babylonians, for example, believed that the universe was a box or a chamber with the earth as its floor. Vedic priests of India imagined that the earth was flat and that only one side of it was inhabited. A primitive tribe in Asia pictured the earth as a huge tea tray.

As early as the sixth century B.C.E., Greek philosopher Pythagoras theorized that since the moon and the sun are spherical, the earth must also be a sphere. Aristotle (fourth century B.C.E.) later agreed, explaining that the sphericity of the earth is proved by lunar eclipses. The earth’s shadow on the moon is curved.
However, the notion of a flat earth (with only its upper side inhabited) did not disappear completely. Some could not accept the logical implication of a round earth—the concept of antipodes. Lactantius, Christian apologist of the fourth century C.E., ridiculed the very idea. He reasoned: “Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? . . . that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards?”2

The concept of antipodes posed a dilemma for a few theologians. Certain theories held that if there were antipodeans, they could have no possible connection with known humans either because the sea was too wide to navigate or because an impassable torrid zone surrounded the equator. So where could any antipodeans have come from? Perplexed, some theologians preferred to believe that there could be no antipodeans, or even, as Lactantius argued, that the earth could not be a sphere in the first place!

Nonetheless, the concept of a spherical earth prevailed, and eventually it was widely accepted. Only with the dawn of the space age in the 20th century, however, has it been possible for humans to travel far enough into space to verify by direct observation that the earth is a globe.
And where did the Bible stand on this issue? In the eighth century B.C.E., when the prevailing view was that the earth was flat, centuries before Greek philosophers theorized that the earth likely was spherical, and thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.”3 Other Bible translations read, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and “the round earth.”—Moffatt.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.

What Holds Up the Earth?
In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars? They had no knowledge of the law of universal gravitation, formulated by Isaac Newton and published in 1687. The idea that heavenly bodies are, in effect, suspended in empty space upon nothing was unknown to them. Thus, their explanations often suggested that tangible objects or substances held the earth and other heavenly bodies aloft.

For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in these waters. The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, one on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century B.C.E., believed that the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies.

Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: “It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon.”4 So, what does the earth “rest upon”? Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth—immobile—at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them—the sun, the moon, and the planets—moved across the sky.

Aristotle’s explanation seemed logical. If the heavenly bodies were not firmly attached to something, how else could they stay aloft? The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years. According to The New Encyclopædia Britannica, in the 16th and 17th centuries his teachings “ascended to the status of religious dogma” in the eyes of the church.5

With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle’s theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force—gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton’s colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance.6

What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” (beli-mah′) used here literally means “without anything.”7 The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, “on empty space.”
A planet hanging “on empty space” was not at all how most people in those days pictured the earth. Yet, far ahead of his time, the Bible writer recorded a statement that is scientifically sound.

The Bible and Medical Science—Do They Agree?
Modern medical science has taught us much about the spread and prevention of disease. Medical advances in the 19th century led to the introduction into medical practice of antisepsis—cleanliness to reduce infections. The result was dramatic. There was a significant reduction in infections and premature deaths.
Ancient physicians, however, did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor did they realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sickness. Little wonder that many of their medical practices would seem barbaric by modern standards.

One of the oldest medical texts available is the Ebers Papyrus, a compilation of Egyptian medical knowledge, dating from about 1550 B.C.E. This scroll contains some 700 remedies for various afflictions “ranging from crocodile bite to toenail pain.”8 States The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: “The medical knowledge of these physicians was purely empirical, largely magical and wholly unscientific.”9 Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture made of human excrement combined with other substances.10

This text of Egyptian medical remedies was written at about the same time as the first books of the Bible, which included the Mosaic Law. Moses, who was born in 1593 B.C.E., grew up in Egypt. (Exodus 2:1-10) As a member of Pharaoh’s household, he was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” (Acts 7:22) He was familiar with “the physicians” of Egypt. (Genesis 50:1-3) Did their ineffective or dangerous medical practices influence his writings?
No. On the contrary, the Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that were far ahead of their time. For example, a law regarding military encampments required burying excrement away from the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:13) This was a profoundly advanced preventive measure. It helped keep water free from contamination and provided protection from fly-borne shigellosis and other diarrheal illnesses that still claim millions of lives each year in lands where sanitary conditions are deplorable.

The Mosaic Law contained other sanitary regulations that safeguarded Israel against the spread of infectious diseases. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. (Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Any person who touched a corpse was considered unclean and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included washing his garments and bathing. During the seven-day period of uncleanness, he was to avoid physical contact with others.—Numbers 19:1-13.

This sanitary code reveals wisdom not shared by the physicians of surrounding nations at the time. Thousands of years before medical science learned about the ways in which disease spreads, the Bible prescribed reasonable preventive measures as safeguards against disease. Not surprisingly, Moses could speak of Israelites in general in his day as living to 70 or 80 years of age.—Psalm 90:10.
You may acknowledge that the foregoing Biblical statements are scientifically accurate. But there are other statements in the Bible that cannot be proved scientifically. Does that necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?

Mr. Mazaje, even though i am not highly educated, i like to do research. I will dredge up every encyclopaedia in the world
Now, let me talk about the flood.

it can hardly be a coincidence that in primitive legends around the world there is recollection of a great flood that destroyed mankind with the exception of a few who were preserved together. Memory of this is found in Mesopotamia and other parts of Asia, in Australia and the Pacific islands, among scores of Indian tribes in North and South America, in stories told among the ancient Greeks and the Romans, in Scandinavia, and among African tribes. Many of these accounts make mention of animals’ being preserved in a boat along with humans. Paralleling the Bible record, some relate that birds were sent out to determine when the water had receded. (Compare Genesis 7:7-10; 8:6-12.) No other ancient event is so widely recollected.

Historical details associated with the Flood have affected customs even down till our day. How? Well, the Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.” That “second month” corresponds to the latter part of October and the first part of November on our calendar. (Genesis 7:11) It is therefore noteworthy that many people around the world commemorate a Day of the Dead or Feast of Ancestors at that time of year. Why then? Because these customs reflect a memory of the destruction caused by the Deluge.


In the days of Noah, the Bible says, a great flood covered earth’s highest mountains and destroyed all human life that was outside the huge ark that Noah built. (Genesis 7:1-24) Many have scoffed at this account. Yet seashells are found on high mountains. And further evidence that a flood of immense proportions occurred in the not-too-distant past is the great number of fossils and carcasses deposited in icy, mucky dumps. The Saturday Evening Post noted: “Many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . . Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures . . . Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved.”

This fits in with what happened in the great Flood. The Bible describes it in these words: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” The downpour “overwhelmed the earth,” being accompanied no doubt by freezing winds in the polar regions. (Genesis 1:6-8; 7:11, 19) There, the temperature change would be the most rapid and drastic. Various forms of life were thus engulfed and preserved in frozen muck. One such may have been the mammoth that was uncovered by excavators in Siberia. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6284214.stm http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter1.asp)

Around the Arctic Ocean there is a great swath of permanently frozen land, the greater part of which is covered with a frozen muck composed of sand, silt and earth. In an article entitled “Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” The Saturday Evening Post of January 16, 1960, observes:
“The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. . . . They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. . . . many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . .
“Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?”
The logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood. With the removal of the insulating watery canopy, the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze, trapping animals that then lived far north of their present habitat. The proof that this was a sudden event, and not something that occurred over a long period of time, is the fact that even the green grass they were eating was quickly deepfrozen in their mouths and stomachs, where it has been discovered in modern times. How consistent this evidence is with what the Bible says about the Noachian flood!


Is There Worldwide Evidence?
Do we see similar effects of flooding throughout the earth? A. M. Rehwinkel gives an example in his book The Flood:
“Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock, for example, which can be traced to Scandinavia, are scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany. Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons. The same phenomenon is found here in America in the New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. . . . In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.”
Some have theorized that these huge masses of stone were carried to their present locations on top of glaciers during an ice age. “However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any signs of glaciation. For example, in Southern California,” notes the book Target: Earth. Too, glaciers cannot account for many of these “erratic” rock masses resting on ground higher, sometimes thousands of feet higher, than their apparent original location. “And there is still another problem connected with the erratics for which the glacial theory has no satisfactory answer,” observes Rehwinkel:
“And that is the question of the mixture of rocks in one locality brought there from sources lying in opposite directions. This phenomenon has been observed in several places of the earth. One of them is in Saxony, where rocks are found lying together of which some had their source in Scandinavia in the north, while others were carried there from some source in the south. . . . Moving ice cannot accumulate boulders from opposite directions and deposit them together at one place.”
“All Flesh . . . Expired”

According to the book of Genesis, outside the ark “all flesh that was moving upon the earth expired” during the worldwide flood. (Gen. 7:21) Is there widespread evidence of such a watery destruction of living creatures?

Interestingly, in the United States, England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere huge fissures in the earth have been found filled with the remains of large numbers of animals. They include mixtures of bones of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, reindeer, horse, hog, bear, and many others. One such cavern near Palermo, Sicily, yielded more than twenty tons of bones for commercial purposes. Often these fissures are located on isolated hills at considerable height where animals would be expected to flee from floodwaters that “kept increasing greatly upon the earth.” (Gen. 7:18) With regard to the variety of animal remains found in one bone cave, the book Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries asks:
“What made rabbits run into the same cave as coyotes? And an antelope with a wolverine and a grizzly? Bones of the mastodon were found, also a few reptiles . . . The whole mass of bones was covered and preserved by a flood deposit of gravel and rocks.”
An extraordinary testimony to the widespread watery destruction of animal life is the remains of the mammoths found throughout northern Siberia and into Alaska. Hundreds of thousands (some estimate as many as 5,000,000) of these creatures were rapidly buried and quick-frozen in icy muck. They are sometimes found in a near-perfect state of preservation, with undigested tropical vegetation in their stomachs and between their teeth. As to the type of catastrophe that could sweep away creatures over so widespread an area, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries observes:
“There is one significant fact that is always connected with every dinosaur fossil and every mammoth fossil, and that is that every fossil is almost invariably dug out of water-laid sedimentary rock. Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.”

Target: Earth notes with regard to the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.”


And when the destruction had been accomplished, what happened to the floodwaters? A sinking of the sea basins would cause the waters to collect there, allowing dry land to appear again. (Compare Psalm 104:8.) In the oceans today there is more than enough water to have accomplished what the Bible describes; 71 percent of the earth’s surface is water, with an average depth of two and a half miles.

Human Testimony to an Earth-wide Flood
A worldwide flood would surely make a deep impression in the memories of those who survived it. It is only reasonable that they related this event to their offspring. Since it was from “the families of the sons of Noah,” the builder of the ark, that “the nations were spread about in the earth after the deluge,” we would expect to find references to the Flood in the traditions of different peoples. (Gen. 10:32) Is there such testimony to a worldwide flood?
In his book Die Sintflut in Sage und Wissenschaft (The Deluge in Legend and Science) Dr. Johannes Riem of Germany notes: “Among all traditions there is none so general, so widespread on earth, . . . as the Flood tradition.” Some 150 separate flood legends have been found from every part of the earth, including ancient Greece, Rome, India, Australia, and the Americas. Though these legends differ in details, there is remarkable agreement on basic points. For example: (1) There was a moral cause of the Flood, namely, man’s wickedness; (2) Global destruction of the human race took place; (3) One man was forewarned and saved himself and a few others in an ark or boat. The Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament: Genesis says:
“The harmony between all these accounts is an undeniable guarantee that the tradition is no idle invention; a fiction is individual, not universal; that tradition has, therefore, a historical foundation; it is the result of an event which really happened in the ages of the childhood of mankind.”


Regarding the possibility of the existence of such suspended waters, the book The Genesis Flood (1961), by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, observes:
“The region above about 80 miles is very hot, over 100° F and possibly rising to 3000° F, and is in fact called the thermosphere for this reason. High temperature, of course, is the chief requisite for retaining a large quantity of water vapor. Furthermore, it is known that water vapor is substantially lighter than air and most of the other gases making up the atmosphere. There is thus nothing physically impossible about the concept of a vast thermal vapor blanket once existing in the upper atmosphere.”



consider this report by Byron C. Nelson in his book The Deluge Story in Stone:
“The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation.”
In this connection, William J. Miller, Emeritus Professor of Geology at the University of California at Los Angeles, notes in An Introduction to Historical Geology (1952): “Comparatively few remains of organisms now inhabiting the earth are being deposited under conditions favorable for their preservation as fossils. . . . It is, nevertheless, remarkable that so vast a number of fossils are embedded in the rocks.” A catastrophe such as the Noachian flood could account for this.
Around the Arctic Ocean there is a great swath of permanently frozen land, the greater part of which is covered with a frozen muck composed of sand, silt and earth. In an article entitled “Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” The Saturday Evening Post of January 16, 1960, observes:
“The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. . . . They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. . . . many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . .
“Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?”


Throughout the world there are more than 90 different stories of a historical global flood. Among Hindus, this is known as the Jalapralaya. Jal means “water,” and pralaya denotes “dissolution”—hence, a “dissolution by water.” It is believed that all living creatures perished in the Jalapralaya. However, Manu found favour with his god and was given divine warning to build a ship to save himself and seven other rishis (sages), a total of eight persons. After his ship settled on a northern mountain, the flood subsided and Manu emerged to perform the first sacrifice to his god in this present yuga. Manu is also believed to be mankind’s first lawgiver. In fact, various Hindu myths assert that the progenitor of each successive race of humans was named Manu.
24 One Hindu version says it was the god Vishnu who warned and preserved Manu. Interestingly, the name Vishnu without the digamma is Ish-nuh, which in Chaldee means “the man Noah,” or “the man of rest.” Hindu tradition has Vishnu ‘resting’ or sleeping on a coiled snake called Shesha, floating on an ocean. Shesha means “remainder,” and according to careful researchers, Shesha represents the ‘residue’ of the universe after its destruction at the end of an age. Clearly, this myth alludes to the Bible’s historical record of the Deluge and the ark of preservation with its occupants.
25 The legendary individuals embodied in Manu—as surviving the Jalapralaya, being the progenitor of the present race, the first lawgiver, and performing the first religious sacrifice after the flood—are a logical confirmation of some events in the life of the Biblical Noah. (Compare Genesis 6:8, 13-22; 8:4, 18–9:7; 10:32.) Moreover, the Hindu account of the Jalapralaya agrees with some major features of the inspired Scriptural record, namely (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water and (3) a seed of mankind preserved.
You seem very knowledgeable. perhaps you have heard of the Gilgamesh Epic. if you haven't copy it out and search google and then you will find it.  Try and see if it has any resemblance to the Biblical story of Noah’s flood.

On this point, Prince Mikasa, a well-known archaeologist, stated: “Was there really a Flood? . . . The fact that the flood actually took place has been convincingly proved.”(Monarchs and Tombs and Peoples—The Dawn of the Orient, page 25.)

Where are the archaeological findings that supports the exodus narrative?.

Considering that the events of Exodus occurred about 3,500 years ago, there is a surprising amount of archaeological and other external evidence testifying to the accuracy of the record. Egyptian names are correctly used in Exodus, and titles mentioned correspond to Egyptian inscriptions. Archaeology shows that it was a custom of the Egyptians to allow foreigners to live in Egypt but to keep separate from them. The waters of the Nile were used for bathing, which calls to mind that Pharaoh’s daughter bathed there. Bricks have been found made with and without straw. Also, in Egypt’s heyday magicians were prominent.—Ex. 8:22; 2:5; 5:6, 7, 18; 7:11.
5 Monuments show that the Pharaohs personally led their charioteers into battle, and Exodus indicates that the Pharaoh of Moses’ day followed this custom. How great must have been his humiliation! But how is it that ancient Egyptian records make no reference to the Israelites’ sojourn in their land or to the calamity that befell Egypt? Archaeology has shown that it was the custom for a new Egyptian dynasty to erase anything uncomplimentary in previous records. They never recorded humiliating defeats. The blows against the gods of Egypt—such as the Nile god, the frog god, and the sun god—which discredited these false gods and showed Jehovah to be supreme, would not be suited to the annals of a proud nation.—14:7-10; 15:4.
“Biblical archaeology confirms much of the Bible's historical accuracy. True science harmonizes with the Bible. The following facts were in the Bible long before they were discovered by secular scholars: the order of stages through which the earth passed in its development, that the earth is round, that it hangs in space on nothing, and that birds migrate.—Genesis, chapter 1; Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7; Jeremiah 8:7.

FALSE archaeology DOES NOT confirm much of the bibles historical accuracy rather archaeology has shown that some of the major stories in the bible like the exodus and most of the conquest  are NON HISTORICAL. . . .There is no where in the bible where it states that the earth is round. . .The same bible talks about the sun revolving around the earth, the earth having four corners, and the earth being created before the sun and the stars. . . .Read a little about the ancient Greek philosophers and you will be HIGHLY amazed at their achievements when it comes to predicting the future and their knowledge of the cosmos despite not having special tools like we do today. . .”

Your problem is that while you are asking me to read, you yourself are not reading. I gave you citations from  bible, but it did not even cross your mind to look them but it occurs to you to encourage me to “read a little about the ancient Greek philosophers”. For me to do that, we i will have to do some little work, but look at you, i gave you the citations, and you cannot even look the up. Nawa o!

This is FALSE because the book of Daniel was actually written mostly after the events it "predicted" happened and as such most of the events it predicted will happen DID NOT happen. . . .Its very easy to accurately predict events with accuracy after the have already occurred ,no?

For me, the clincher in believing the authenticity of the bible is the accuracy with which the world powers and their sequence was prophesied. No other book in human history was able to do that and it is simply reasonable to believe that such a book could not have been written entirely by human prediction or thinking. If you want, i can breakdown the chapters of the bible that accurately talked about the world powers starting from Egypt to the current Anglo-American/United Nations world power.  

What is this? Where or when does the bible predict anything about the world powers?. . .What new information about the present world power is found in the bible?. . . . .Where does the bible mention the United nations or the USA?. . . .

I am tired of typing, and of doing all this research, i will treat these in my next post, probably next weekend when i am free. For now, digest the post you have just read.

You said i was trying to sell books. Fyi i was only pointing you to just some literature that presents the other side. I am even going to “sell more books” because i will post a list of references below my post. Guy, abeg, don’t let your ignorance be surpassed even by your ignorance. For one, last time i checked, Jehovah’s witnesses don’t sell their books, the books are “without charge”, the only ask you , if you feel like, to make a voluntary donation to support their work.  Let me enlighten you about the concept of intellectual honesty.  I want to believe that you possess this simple virtue. If you do, you will get those books and read them. “intellectual honesty” is characterized by a “readiness to scrutinize what one believes to be true” and “to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available.”

The bible and everything in it REMAINS the thoughts, ideas, fantasies and myths written by men for reasons best known to them. . . .

Again, let me re-iterate to you, truly educated people know the danger of using absolutes like REMAIN, cos what often happens is that when a person who uses absolutes, finds that his/her use was mistaken, the person is often too embarrassed to reverse his opinion, and sticks to it even though everyone around agrees on the “foolishness” of that stand.  I have always harped on the importance of sincerity in all my posts. My father used to say that a man convinced of his opinion is always of the same. He used to say that to warn me never to be like that, saying that this was the downfall of many a man. I hope you are not of that sort. It takes a great man to look at the other side, and an even greater man to admit that the other side is right, if the evidence is compelling. John F Kennedy said that “Sincerity is always subject to proof”. If mazage, hara-kiri, tudor, etc, are sincere, they will look at the other side.
Harakiri, i will answer your question: . Trust me, i will cos i love answering such questions. But let me finish replying mazage first.

@harakiri, it seems that you believe that the bible is a myth, unscientific, false, etc for you have clearly questioned its authenticity. The problem with your stand is that as far as you are concerned, the Bible should not be allowed to prove from itself, that it is authentic. That stance, to me, is akin to not allowing an accused person to speak for himself or to have access to a lawyer. The fact remains that a lot of things, both archaeological findings, as well as world history corroborate a lot of what is said in the bible. if you would be as reasonable enough as to give the bible a fair hearing instead of just dismissing it, that would show that you are really interested in finding out whether it is authentic.


For me, the clincher in believing the authenticity of the bible is the accuracy with which the world powers and their sequence was prophesied. No other book in human history was able to do that and it is simply reasonable to believe that such a book could not have been written entirely by human prediction or thinking. If you want, i can breakdown the chapters of the bible that accurately talked about the world powers starting from Egypt to the current Anglo-American/United Nations world power.  

Faith in what the bible says is not a matter of credulity or sentiment or being born into a religion, etc.  "Faith follows the thing heard." By studying God's Word, its wisdom becomes apparent and faith grows.—Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:1.

Biblical archaeology confirms much of the Bible's historical accuracy. True science harmonizes with the Bible. The following facts were in the Bible long before they were discovered by secular scholars: the order of stages through which the earth passed in its development, that the earth is round, that it hangs in space on nothing, and that birds migrate.—Genesis, chapter 1; Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7; Jeremiah 8:7.

The inspiration of the Bible is shown by fulfilled prophecies. Daniel foretold in advance the rise and the fall of world powers, as well as the time Jesus would come and be put to death. (Daniel, chapters 2, 8; 9:24-27) Today, still other prophecies are being fulfilled, identifying these as "the last days." (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew, chapter 24) Such foreknowledge is not within man's power.  If it is, then you would be able to tell exactly what will happen to you tommorow and in what sequence. All the people that have died in accidents would know that an accident that could claim their lives would occur and avoid the route.  (Isaiah 41:23) You are obviously the reading type, and if you are un-biased, you should read publications that speak for both sides not just articles like the God is not Great article on Wikipedia.  If you truly seek in depth analysis of the bibles authenticity, please consult this book:  The Bible—God's Word or Man's? it contains Historical and scientific information presented to prove that the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and inspired by God for mankind's benefit. it has Full-color illustrations and is 192 pages long. Then as for your question:
What is the proof that the Christian god is the actual creator of the universe! i recommend another book:  Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?,  this book is another 192 page book, and it is written by scientists who believe in the creator and took pains to search out scientific proof of his existence. This book is specifically designed for people who seek scientific proof of the existence of a creator. Do me a favor and get these books and read them. then i would like to discuss with you your findings. These books are published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. You can ask any Jehovah's witness for these publications. Disclaimer: I am not a Jehovah's witness. I just happened to find that they were the only religious group that were able to logically explain their beliefs as well as try hard to practice them. Even their kids are able to speak convincingly from the bible, and provide corroborating evidence from history, science, current events etc. However, i find their moral standards, a bit too strict for my taste.   Thus, i cannot become one of them. Aha, i remember you said you have chatted with Jehovah's witnesses before but you didnt say anything about the outcome. In case you didn't receive satisfactory answers from your discussions with them, i think you should understand that not every Jehovah's witness is highly educated and may not be able to discuss at the level you intend to discuss. others may just be irritated by your approach, from some your posts, you seem to talk like like the person who is convinced of his opinion and always of the same. I never got an answer that made sense from Jehovahs witnesses at first until i met a professor who is one of them who had the patience to discuss with me inspite of my arrogance/ I don't know how to put it, seemingly unshakable belief that God does not exist. He later explained to me that Jehovahs witnesses are trained to discern motive, if they feel you are just trying to get into an argument, the will simply leave and refuse to discuss with you. But if they discern a candid interest in understanding their perspective for the purpose of making a decision on a stand to take, they may decide to spend their time discussing with you. The professor himself, at a point got irritated with me, and just handed the aforementioned books to me and told me, that before we discuss any further, i had to read the books so that he would be sure of the sincerity of my interest and so that he would not have to spend too much time to  tell me every single detail as his time was at a premium. I grudgingly agreed, because i was sincere, and to prove to him i was sincere. And i don't regret reading those publications. The least you can do is read them, at least it will broaden your perspective. the books are not intended to force a change of opinion but to lay the facts out. Only a person can change his stand after meditation on things read.

luv to hear from you soon. Then, while you may not have outrightly insulted anyone, you agreed with comments that are kinda offensive. Like the one made by, i think tudor, in which he  proclaims his smartness. It, in my opinion is a veiled insult at worst or a terribly display of lack of humility at best. When people say such things, it can be annoying. Let us discuss in a way that is respectful.

Its a pity that the first poster's thread has been hijacked. Yet i find it illuminating that it has been hijacked by people like harakiri, nuclear boy, tudor etc.

I am not very educated but i do have a lot of biblical knowledge. For the first poster, i will simply say, in answer to the question in his thread subject:

1. the holy spirit does not display power in that way so your question "is it a good way to show Gods power" does not even arise because that is not Gods power being displayed.

Then i wish harakiri could respond to many of the answers proffered to his questions. It seems that he has gotten tired of the thread. I would also like to know if any of the answers given have satisfied him so that i know which ones to answer or if i should answer all.

@ nuclear boy, you really do know what you are talking about and im glad people like you still exist.

For me the key thing is to have an open mind. My father used to say that the problem most people have is that a man convinced of his opinion is always of the same.

If someone is willing to reason, and not let any thing, previous bias or idea prevent the absorption of a new idea or thought, then the person is more likely to gain.

I wish though that harakiri had taken nuclearboy's advice and posted his question as a new thread, and that way, it would have been easier to focus on the discussion centered on his questions and less fanatics would come in saying things like "God is a mystery", etc. or "man of god" when those ideas are utterly false. I believe that harakiri is seeking for answers. And i know how frustrating it is when one seeks for answers and yet cannot find them. The only ones given are unsatisfactorily. I believe i have reasonable answers to his questions and i hope he gives me a chance to give him my answers.

To tudor, i can only say, that when searching for answers, sincerity is the only thing that determines whether or not one will succeed in getting the true answers. If one is sincere, when he finds the answer, even though it conflicts with all he/she has previously believed, and strongly so, his/her sincerity will make him see that his previous stance was wrong and it takes a great man to do that.