God vs. Science

[NAG2I]

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.