The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible.The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below).The Bible tells Christians that God is infallible, and Christians believe the Bible because they believe it was written by an infallible deity. So the start of our logical deduction must be the Bible, so let’s concentrate on that.Let’s take the Christian God’s greatest act, creating the world and all who live on it (indirectly).Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Luke and Timothy escaped, probably because they did not look like Jews (Timothy's father was a gentile). Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas, and with him made the long coasting voyage described in Acts 20. Mark; and in the Acts he knows all the details of St. Mark's mother, and the name of the girl who ran to the outer door when St. Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the rest of the Acts: The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative, but there is no change of language.Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only .99... When Paul departed from Philippi, Luke was left behind, in all probability to carry on the work of Evangelist. Luke is "the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches" (2 Corinthians ), and that he was one of the bearers of the letter to Corinth. He went up to Jerusalem, was present at the uproar, saw the attack on the Apostle, and heard him speaking "in the Hebrew tongue" from the steps outside the fortress Antonia to the silenced crowd. The characteristic expressions of the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the "we" as in the other sections. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive examination of every word and phrase in the first of the "we" sections (xvi, 10-17), and shows how frequent they are in the rest of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with the other Gospels. Luke (Gospels and Acts), and that in all parts of the work." When he comes to the end of his study of this section he is able to write: "After this demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from a source, and so was not composed by the author of the whole work, take up a most difficult position. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have transformed everything else into his own language.I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity. I mean it is the christian population’s job to prove god exists. Just because science is currently unable to completely disprove the existence of god, that does not make you correct.
I’ve never seen a boat that big, even with modern engineering techniques.
There is simply too much evidence available for our inspection. Everything other than Noah, his family (or part of his family) and the animals he chose to save would be killed.
There are around 10 MILLION known species of animal on our planet.
I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch.
Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?