didymus said:Stands up historically, literally and scientifically... In what sense?
I'm glad you asked.
Historically: The Bible has been proven to be 99.8% historicaly accurate. Archaeologist have dug up numerous cities mentioned in the Bible previously thought to be mere myths, and were in the exact loacation stated in the Bible. Many other cities (such as Sodom and Gomorah) that were destroyed, and have shown to been destroyed around the same time and time-frame as stated in the Bible. Also, Luke (who wrote the book of Luke, and Acts in teh New Testament) has been praised to be the greatest historian of all time by somone who set out to disprove the Bible. Time and time again, the Bibles account of historic events have been confirmed.
Literarily: The Bible is one of the few, if not the only, religious book that isn't constrained to a "holy language" needed to understand it. Jesus was a freakin' genius in how he taught in parables. In that way of teaching, anyone can understand the message, which can be translated into many languages, and the stories are relevant even to people reading about them 2000 years later. For a God who wants all humanity to be with him, the fact that the Bible is so vaersital makes complete sence to me.
Scientifically: For starters, the Bible is the first book to state the world being round: in the book of Job, it refers to the "circle of the earth," also it says that God "hangs the earth on nothing." When viewed from outer space, the earth, in fact, appears as if it's "hanging on nothing" like the Bible states.
Although evolution is primarily taught around the world and in schools (especialy here in the U.S.), they only metion the data that's relevant to evolution, and omit any evidence to the contratry. But the more scientists look at life, the more and more it shows that evolution just doesn't happen. Evolution is a belief about the past; it's not a theory because a theory is something you can test multiple times using the scientific method. But when the observations of life today show that no new information in the DNA is ever created, like evolution requires, and even the simple functions of cells become increasingly more complex the deeper scientists look at them. Sicentists are often baffled at how dinosaur bones are found with flesh and other systems still intact. How could cells survive over 65 million years? Well, they refuse to accept the possability that maybe it's not 65 million years old after all.
There is also evidecne to support the global flood of Noah in the Bible: such as the fact that at a certain depth of sediment layers there is life, then no life at all for some layers above it. If the layers had been layed down over millions of years, plants should have grown on those layers, but if they were layed down rapidly (as if a flood stirred them up and let them settle under water) then obviously there wouldn't be any plants inbetwen the layers. Not to mention, the "bent" sediment layers found. If the sediments were set over millions of years they would be flat, and any change in the terrain would cause them to break and snap. So they must have been wet when set down in order for them to dry bent like they are with no breaking, as if under the water of a huge flood.
I do not wish to go into more detail about how the book of Genesis is backed up scientificaly, but if anyone is intrested I would suggest checking out www.answersingenesis.org -A ministry run by many highly quailfied scientists dedicated to providing scentific evidence for the creation story written in Genesis.