Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

Did you write that with a straight face? That's one of the lousiest excuses for an answer I've ever read. I expected no less though...when push came to shove I knew you'd puss out with some lame bullshit like this.

I can see you are resorting to insults and your bad temper again. No, I wrote exactly what was on my mind.

 

[MissileMan]

I can see you are resorting to insults and your bad temper again. No, I wrote exactly what was on my mind.

The insult was the one aimed at my intelligence by your post. It's so devoid of even a hint of honesty that I probably should have just called you a liar and a disingenuous prick... I went the nice route instead.

 

[Annie]

The insult was the one aimed at my intelligence by your post. It's so devoid of even a hint of honesty that I probably should have just called you a liar and a disingenuous prick... I went the nice route instead.

I understand getting upset, but I do believe you are now at 3 names, you guys go on with this for like ever. You should be used to each other by now?

 

[MissileMan]

I understand getting upset, but I do believe you are now at 3 names, you guys go on with this for like ever. You should be used to each other by now?

It's only really a name if you look at it with an open mind and in the right context.

 

[Annie]

It's only really a name if you look at it with an open mind and in the right context.

Well that would be one way to look at it...

 

[Hamiltonian]

If it has never been proven false, then how can it not be true?

Consider the following statement.

"I did not listen to the Beatles at all today."

Now there is no way for you to prove that this statement is false, but that doesn't make it true. This is how something may not be able to be proven true or false.

But do not focus on the truth of the Bible. You have come to be a Christian for the message and morals that the Bible preaches, not simply because the book is entirely true. Even if it were not true, the message would not change, and that is what is really important.

 

[glockmail]

Consider the following statement.

"I did not listen to the Beatles at all today."

Now there is no way for you to prove that this statement is false, but that doesn't make it true. This is how something may not be able to be proven true or false.

But do not focus on the truth of the Bible. You have come to be a Christian for the message and morals that the Bible preaches, not simply because the book is entirely true. Even if it were not true, the message would not change, and that is what is really important.

Your argument is not analogous at all. The Bible is written down for all to read, not so with your song supposedly heard by a single person.

I choose to focus on the Truth of the Bible, as my Faith is such that it is infallible. I have so much faith, in fact, that I challenge anyone to prove it false.

 

[glockmail]

The insult was the one aimed at my intelligence by your post. It's so devoid of even a hint of honesty that I probably should have just called you a liar and a disingenuous prick... I went the nice route instead.

As I said before.....

 

[Hamiltonian]

Your argument is not analogous at all. The Bible is written down for all to read, not so with your song supposedly heard by a single person.

I choose to focus on the Truth of the Bible, as my Faith is such that it is infallible. I have so much faith, in fact, that I challenge anyone to prove it false.

My argument is analogous. You can try to prove what I said wrong. If I put it in a book for everyone to read they could try to prove it wrong. Even if everyone in the world could read what I said, just because still they can't prove it false, and doesn't make it true. There is no way to prove what I said was false. Just because someone here can't point to something in the Bible that is false does not make the book true.

There is no way to prove many things in the Bible are false. Even if I pulled someone from Ancient times who claimed that Jesus was in the tomb and had not risen you could just claim that person is lying. Even if I produced some scientific evidence that the Earth is older than several thousand years, you could claim that the science is wrong. When you argue that God used superlatives, you're making an interpretation, an assumption, and when you make an assumption you can just always assume the Bible is correct and then you can't draw any other conclusion.

 

[glockmail]

My argument is analogous. ....

Incorrect, since many stories tie into one another, yet where written by different authors, and there are no inconsistencies. Your argument pertains to one specific event supposedly witnessed by one person.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Incorrect, since many stories tie into one another, yet where written by different authors, and there are no inconsistencies. Your argument pertains to one specific event supposedly witnessed by one person.

No, my analogy fits the argument that you were making. Now you've switched to another argument, which is that because it is so complex and not able to be proven false it must be true.

Well they have simply excluded the inconsistencies that exist. For example, put in the Gospel of Thomas and you do have contradictions with the Gospel of John.

Anyways, even your new argument is still a form of logical fallacy. First, one logical fallacy you seem to be making is called Begging the Question or circular reasoning. This is that you start under the assumption that the Bible is never wrong, and use this premise to reach the conclusion that it is never wrong. You did this when you said God must have been speaking in superlatives.

A second logical fallacy you've been making is called an argument from ignorance. This is where you claim something is true because people are unable to prove it false. No matter how complex the Bible is, or how many coincidences is not logical proof that it must be true.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I heard a preacher on the radio a while back claim that it never has, so I used this as a challenge in another thread, and the resulting discussion has been ongoing for quite some time, and has taken over the original topic. I thought it might be interesting to start a specific thread for this separate issue. Here's how it started: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=497953&postcount=89

Besides, it appears Matts needs some help. Who knows, maybe I will as well.

Here's a theory:

The entire Universe was created 5 minutes ago - with the planets and stars already in motion - and your memories implanted into your heads and the history books already written.

Now prove that theory wrong.

 

[manu1959]

Here's a theory:

The entire Universe was created 5 minutes ago - with the planets and stars already in motion - and your memories implanted into your heads and the history books already written.

Now prove that theory wrong.

because i created the universe.....10 minutes ago an implated that idea in your head ....

 

[Said1]

because i created the universe.....10 minutes ago an implated that idea in your head ....

Yes, but you forgot to take out the trash,.

 

[glockmail]

[1]No, my analogy fits the argument that you were making. Now you've switched to another argument, which is that because it is so complex and not able to be proven false it must be true.

[2]Well they have simply excluded the inconsistencies that exist. For example, put in the Gospel of Thomas and you do have contradictions with the Gospel of John.

[3]Anyways [sic], even your new argument is still a form of logical fallacy. First, one logical fallacy you seem to be making is called Begging the Question or circular reasoning. This is that you start under the assumption that the Bible is never wrong, and use this premise to reach the conclusion that it is never wrong. You did this when you said God must have been speaking in superlatives.

[4]A second logical fallacy you've been making is called an argument from ignorance. This is where you claim something is true because people are unable to prove it false. No matter how complex the Bible is, or how many coincidences is not logical proof that it must be true.

1. This is your third insistence that your analogy somehow fits my argument and I have twice now shown how you are incorrect. Perhaps you could address the issues raised specifically instead of simply insisting that you are correct- that tactic is illogical.
2. The “Gospel of Thomas” is not part of the Bible. Perhaps if I add my own chapter to a Tom Clancy novel then his work would be inconsistent as well.
3. Perhaps you should re-read post 1 for what I am discussing instead of attempting to change my argument to suit yours.
4. The “burden of proof” issue has already been raised and debated. You can try and come up with a higher standard as atheists do, but that strategy has already been rejected.

 

[glockmail]

Here's a theory:

The entire Universe was created 5 minutes ago - with the planets and stars already in motion - and your memories implanted into your heads and the history books already written.

Now prove that theory wrong.

Plate tectonics; geology; fossils.

 

[glockmail]

The insult was the one aimed at my intelligence by your post. It's so devoid of even a hint of honesty that I probably should have just called you a liar and a disingenuous prick... I went the nice route instead.

You have obviously lost the argument and are now resorting to claiming to be offended, all the while by being offensive. How ironic.

 

[Hamiltonian]

1. This is your third insistence that your analogy somehow fits my argument and I have twice now shown how you are incorrect. Perhaps you could address the issues raised specifically instead of simply insisting that you are correct- that tactic is illogical.

You have not shown anything. It does fit the original argument you made, which is that something that can't be proven false is true. Then you changed your argument to something that is complex (like the Bible) and can't be proven false must be true, and the analogy does not fit that new argument. I know that my English is bad, but I suggest you re-read the post because I never wrote that the analolgy fits the new argument that you're making.

2. The “Gospel of Thomas” is not part of the Bible. Perhaps if I add my own chapter to a Tom Clancy novel then his work would be inconsistent as well.

Exactly, it is not part of the Bible. If you get to decide which books to put in the Bible, then it isn't too hard to choose just ones that don't conflict with each other. If the Church simply chooses to leave out the books that conflict with one another, then consistency is not so miraculous.

3. Perhaps you should re-read post 1 for what I am discussing instead of attempting to change my argument to suit yours.

I quoted a post by you. Your argument was that God must have been speaking in Superlatives since the Bible is always right and we're still here. That is the logical fallacy I discussed.

4. The “burden of proof” issue has already been raised and debated. You can try and come up with a higher standard as atheists do, but that strategy has already been rejected.

You changed the whole burden of proof with this quote in post #453:

If it has never been proven false, then how can it not be true?

This is a completely different issue with Burden of Proof now that you're extending your initial argument to say that the Bible must be true since it hasn't been proven false. Since you seem to want to stick with the courts, they don't assume that anything that can't be proven false is true. If that were the case you could ask the defendant to prove that he was falsely accused, and if he could not prove that he would be guilty. That is the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[MissileMan]

You have obviously lost the argument and are now resorting to claiming to be offended, all the while by being offensive. How ironic.

The bible claims that the great flood wiped out all mankind (except those on the ark), is this true or untrue?

 

[glockmail]

......
Exactly, it is not part of the Bible. If you get to decide which books to put in the Bible, then it isn't too hard to choose just ones that don't conflict with each other. If the Church simply chooses to leave out the books that conflict with one another, then consistency is not so miraculous.
......

Committees of scholars centuries ago included books known to be true works, and disregarded books of questionable authority. Apparently your "Thomas" was among these.