With all the archeological evidence proving the Bible is correct...

With all the archeological evidence proving the Bible is correct, and all the geological science showing evidence for Noah's flood, and so many Biblical prophecies coming true, why do you still stubbornly reject the simple fact that the Bible is an authoritative social and scientific work?

Please do prove that such archaeological evidence exists.

I'm going to go ahead and blame literacy

The claims of these threads can be refuted with a single rebuttal. I'm mostly curious why people bother bumping it by insulting a troll.

...

always remind me of this

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Moar, this is now furry bread

margqrin...so luv in mqrame...morplox

The Bible is the greatest book of all time.
Facts.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Where's proof? Post maymays

...

...

...

...

...

Not OP, but usually when we accept things as historical fact, we look at what the books written then said. Most ancient historians we believe though there are only a handful of copies in one language. The Bible has been found with hundreds if not thousands of copies in multiple languages with a consistency of 99% through the copies.
So at the very least, accepting the non miraculous events portrayed is just logical. If you refute that, we have to refute history as we know it.

>With all the archeological evidence proving the Bible is correct


nice bait, user

i know the people on this site are literally fucking retarded, but i don't think they're THAT stupid

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Actually you can easily tell how smart someone is going to be by how they read one book.
Also by their lack of intellect and meme posting.

...

...

...

...

...

...

oh look it's the never ending shitpost

...

FOSSILS

...

I'm the one you responded to.

I'd say that the consistency proves that the events portrayed were perceived and/or understood in the same manner, but everyone accepting it as truth doesn't make it true. You still have to consider the possibility that in the earlier days people were a lot more gullible and superstitious, as well as every claim not necessarily being stated by a 1st hand source. Unfortunately I'm not well-read on christian history so I can't really argue on the matter. All I can really say is that you can't really set a too high limit on questioning credibility.

...

...

99%?!?
What drugs are you on right now?
The consitency is lower than 80% from the ealiest copies to the modern ones.

...

...

...

...

...

...

To clarify: I'm not saying it should be refuted as much as questioned. It's as close as we can get to truth, so it IS fully reasonable to accept it as such. It's just ill-advised to crawl up your own ass and believe nothing can ever refute it.

Hey Jesus. I appreciate you still doing this.

...

Same. Makes me use my brain for half a second, and lets me enjoy the furfaggotry that follows it.

...

look. if evolution existed jesus would have brought it up. i mean he was the son of god for christ sake.
case closed i win.

...

Say my name, Bastian!

...

...

God is not a very good ghostwriter. You would think the Bible would have been a way better read than anonymous greentext stories at the least.

god i love hard blush

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Jesus is so cool

>Argha Noah

>archeological evidence proving the Bible is correct
lol, look at all that archaeological evidence saying I'm allowed to kill my girlfriend if she's not a virgin.
This is the worst one yet, try again.

>99% consistency
yeah, no.
The 752 different variations of Catholicism are vastly different. Also, ONE book in ONE language has trouble being consistent with itself.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...