The author strangely, chooses to ignore the accuracy of the Bible and favors the secular record.
What accuracy of the bible? There is are no hard dates listed anywhere in the bible, the OT is centered around events that either cannot be confirmed, or are just simply immpossible. Not to mention the fact that there is not a shred of contemporary confirmation. The OT canon wasn't even finalized until the mid 2nd century CE.
he NT is hardly any better, take Herod "slaughter of the innocents" for example, King Herod had his share of enemies and detractors, yet not a single one of them ever capitalized on, or even so much as mentioned such an event.
It's nonsensical because the Bible repeatedly shows its accuracy in all manner of ways.
Name them. Name them, and cite contemporary corroboration and confirmation
Why would then, a person show favor to a limited secular record?
For starters, it's not the "secular record" it's the historical record. It's been compiled by using multiple overlaping contemporary scources]/i] whenever and where ever possible. Many, if not all, of the significant events found in the bible are recorded nowhere else and have left no clear evidence that would be expected from some of those events (i.e. the Noachian flood.)
Regardless, the author whether she likes it or not, shows how accurate the Bible is,
Don't just assert it... prove it.
because although she fudges against the Bible taking away or adding a few years here and there, it is only a few years
The bible doesn't give any hard and fast dates for someone to fudge. Nowhere in the bible do you find that event X happened in year Y. How can she fudge daes against the bible when the bible gives not dates?
Now compare how consistant secular scientists' dates for the age of the universe is using different dating methods
And what dating "methods" would you refering to? I have a feeling you are refering to radiometric dating, which has fuck all to do with the age of the universe. The "methods" for dating the universe are a framework of complex equations based on observed constants.
and it will differ by millions or billions of years
The margin of error is millions of year, but the age of the universe has remained roughly constant under the current cosomlogical model.
Clearly the Bible is more reliable then
The bible does not even give a single date for any event, how is that reliable? The bible makes fantastic claims for which no contemporary corroboration can be found, how is that more reliable?
You haven't made a case for the bibles reliability, you have done nothing more than assert a mangled assumption of how science arrives at the age of the universe and then asserted that makes the bible reliable. It's like holding up a dead fish and asserting that it proves that the Lord of the Rings is historically reliable.
It's sad that Christine refuses to see that
It's sad that you have traded reason for blind faith, logic for dogma, and truth for unfounded assertions.
