While this handy little chart seems like it pins Bible believers down, the fact that it is blatantly false renders its pointless.
Christians teach fellow Christians that the Bible proclaims its own validity, but if I were talking to a non believer that is not the approach I would use.
If someone asked, like the graphic does, "How do you know it is infallible?" I would ask them to show me an error in it. Believe me, people have spent 2,000 years trying to find an error in it, and if they could find one they would be talking about that instead of circular logic.
The Bible contains thousands of names, cities, dates, and rulers; none have been found to be inaccurate. When the Bible addresses science, it is accurate. Archaeology only confirms, and never contradicts, the Bible.
For further proof of the validity and infallibility of the Bible, please read Is the Bible True? Proving the Credibility of the Word of God Through Archaeology
Comments
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
Your anonymous comment was quite emphatic, and yet the link provides only one instance of something supposedly contradicting the Bible. “Arguments from silence” don’t count, since not yet discovering something doesn’t mean that it never existed. Besides, if evolutionists get to talk about missing links as if they are facts, even though there has never been a shred of proof, then arguments from silence should not be held against the Bible.
I’m not at all concerned about what one professor, conservative as he might be, said about the city of Ai. There is too much evidence in support of the validity of Scripture; to abandon that because one person dates Ai later than Joshua would be foolish. It is important to remember that there are many factors that can skew data when dating ancient findings.
I am not an archaeologist and do not claim to be. At the end of the day the Bible says that God is pleased by our faith. I don’t have to be able to prove every single detail of something to accept it as truth, but I’m glad that God has allowed us to see so many proofs of His existence.
http://tommycmann.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-bible-true.html
I wanted to give a quick answer the other day, but I have spent a little time re-reading your link and looking into the facts, and I have to disagree with the article’s premise and conclusion.
In the days of Josephus there was debate on the actual location of Ai, and even still today there are at least 4 schools of thought. In other words, no one can say for certain where ancient Ai actually lies, so no blogger can disprove the Bible based on Ai.
The actual city of Ai would need several requirements in order to be accurate according to the biblical description. The Bible refers to Ai as being smaller than the city of Gibeon, having a valley to the north and a mountain between Ai and Bethel. It would also need a hiding place for an ambush with a descent going towards Jericho, plus an entrance gate around the city.
If those things aren’t accounted for then the city is not Ai. This is why there are 4 schools of thought—no city in question meets all the requirements. However, there is one site—not the one from your article—that meets all but one requirement. The only missing piece is a gate into the city, which may never be found. But all the natural landmarks—size, mountains, valleys, and location—are all accounted for.
There were two clues in your link that tipped me off that it was bogus. First, it was written in 1988 and the opinions on Ai have changed a lot in recent years due to new findings.
Second, it said “this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.”
Ai was not abandoned since it was part of the Promised Land. The city was immediately rebuilt and inhabited by the Hebrews. After the Babylonian captivity ended the Hebrews returned to their homes, some of them in Ai.
Recent excavations have found not only all the evidence that a site needs to be in order to be Ai (minus the gate), but the pottery found matches up with biblical records. Not only are some pottery pieces dates correctly to the Bronze Age, but other pieces are Babylonian, meaning they came back with the Hebrews from their Babylonian captivity, in perfect keeping with the record of Hosea.
So thank you for your comment. Looking into this matter allowed me to find out something I didn’t previously know. And once again, archeology only confirms, and never contradicts, the Bible.
I'm sorry you don't believe the Bible. You are missing out on the greatest book and love story ever written. I pray that the love of Jesus will warm your heart and open your eyes to the truth of His existence all around you.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/20/find-from-era-king-david-confirm-old-testament/