Fairly often, I hear people debate whether the Bible can be proven to be true (or not true). By that, I mean arguments on both sides suggest, strongly, that the Bible’s history and science is either right or wrong.
I’m sort of used to that from secular (or agnostic/atheist) sources. What surprised me recently was the publication of a new book from an apologetics ministry that listed reasons why the Bible can be trusted as an historical document.
Amazingly, the writer claimed that predictive prophecy is not even bullet-proof evidence, primarily because critics can say that the “prophecies” were written down after they actually occurred.
It’s incredible to me that a ministry leader would make that claim. The “prophecy written after the fact” excuse is an empty one. For example, the numerous prophecies in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), preserved as they are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, are thousands of years ahead of the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
That can’t be explained away.
What do you think?