LB206 is right. Sort of.. Most of the Bible was written before Jesus was born though, and what came after was mostly people like Paul, the converted Jew (If I remember correctly he is the author of Acts), who never meet Jesus in person. Quite a few books were written by his Disciples (the people closest to him), and its interesting if you read to discover who the Disciples were...one was a tax collector for the government, another was a doctor (or the ancient equivalent, whatever)! Paul was probably the most educated person who had part in writing the Bible, his Roman citizenship gave him access to what we would consider a university education. These were not stupid people (and they weren't drunk, lol)Benji wrote:And think about this: The Christain Bible was written by Jesus's friends. You know how your friends always mess up your stories? "And then he walked on water.""He didn't walk on water, you bonehead, you were drunk. It was a puddle."
I'm only kidding, don't take offense to what I just said. I'm sure the Apostles (is that who wrote it? I'm Jewish, I dunno) were very trustworthy.
Im glad you emphasized the 'some'. I happen to be of the opinion that science is proving creation on its own. I'd like to introduce you to a website run by Christians, who are scientists, who believe in a young earth, and (obviously) Special Creation. This is the Q/A part of their page, and it has an overload of information from a scientific viewpoint on creation.Science is asking the question "Why" and trying to figure it out, where as some in the religious camp declare the question already answered. And that doesn't sit well with me.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Its kinda fun to look at the evidence evolutionists have come up with to try to prove evolution, and when you hear the truth behind the scientific methods of what they are saying you realize there's a major problem and major wholes in the science of evolution. Like carbon dating for example...its kinda been brushed under the rug, or at least i haven't head about anything really ancient being dated with it in recent news. When they first came out with it they did some fossil and said millions or billions or something to that effect...if you look into the science behind carbon dating you discover a few things...the half-life of the isotope of carbon they use in carbon dating is around 11,000 yrs (give or take i cant remember exacly) That means that in around 60,000 years using the most cutting edge technology to measure the carbon level, you cannot detect anything. It basically means carbon dating is useless after 60,000 yrs! okay I've railed long enough have fun chewing on all the great stuff at AIG's webpage (that is if you actually look...cause if you dont then...well you mouth will be empty and if you chew you'd be grinding your teeth and that would just be gross...so dont chew if you dont look...)
