An analysis of the content of the Bible indicates that the source has been corrupted. I agree with this quote:

Quote from: psybits on March 26, 2015, 07:51:09 PM

I do think most of the bible should be seen as a story, and I think verses from the bible are irrelevant when it comes to a genuine investigation of if there is a higher power or not. The bible is just a book that has gone through many, many revisions over the years at the whims of kings and other leaders throughout history. It has little to do with if there is genuine evidence of a higher spiritual force behind the universe or not.

There is no proof that the Bible is an "impossible" book; there is far more evidence that the content has changed, some of this evidence is referenced in the audio called FIRST CHRISTIANS. I agree with this quote:

Quote from: the joint on April 14, 2015, 10:29:34 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2015, 04:40:59 PM

This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book.

The way it was written,
the period of time it took,
the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it,
the facts of life that it expresses,
the fulfilled prophesies,
the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever,
the fact that its popularity is beyond any other,

all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

No, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder."

Proof is proof. If I believe that some evidence constitutes proof for something but you don't believe the same, then neither one of us can be certain if proof is "in the eye of the beholder."

Fortunately, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder." Our opinion is irrelevant. All we need to do is look to the logical rules of sound inference to determine whether the evidence actually constitutes proof. Specifically, we look to these rules and ask the question, "Is it logical that our conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence?"

The answer is either that it does or doesn't. There is no middle ground. The evidence you keep referencing is not proof for God, and that won't change no matter how hard you try to convince yourselef.