Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

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

Prove it untrue. That is the context of this thread.

 

[MissileMan]

Prove it untrue. That is the context of this thread.

That boat already sailed...you changed the context of the thread. You're now claiming that if it hasn't been proven untrue then it is automatically true.

Why are you so hesitant to answer a simple question about the Bible? Could it be that you don't really believe your own claims?

I'll ask you again, did the great flood wipe out all mankind except those on the ark? There are only two possible answers, yes or no.

 

[Hamiltonian]

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

The Gospel of Thomas is well recognized to be authentic, at least in modern times. Can you not possibly consider the fact that it was excluded because it was deemed heretical? It may have also been excluded because it was not as well known back then (and actually only discovered in its entirety in 1945, although many fragments from it were known to be found around 200AD and earlier) or it might have been excluded because it was a sayings gospel instead of a narrative one like the four main gospels. Or the church could have simply not selected it because it conflicted with what John said.

 

[MissileMan]

Prove it untrue. That is the context of this thread.

I only have to prove it untrue to someone who believes it true...again, all you have to do is answer the simple question and we can proceed.

 

[glockmail]

... You're now claiming that if it hasn't been proven untrue then it is automatically true.

.....

I'll ask you again, did the great flood wipe out all mankind except those on the ark? There are only two possible answers, yes or no.

1. Perhaps you could point out where I said that?
2. I think it wiped out all of mankind in a portion of the world that was to the limit of acient man's understanding. But that's my personal belief, not backed up by a rigorous study of the Bible.

 

[glockmail]

The Gospel of Thomas is well recognized to be authentic, at least in modern times. ..... .

Authentic meaning what, exactly?

I could write a chapter for a Tom Clancey novel and it would be proven authentic: written by me when I said it was written.

 

[glockmail]

I only have to prove it untrue to someone who believes it true...again, all you have to do is answer the simple question and we can proceed.

Maybe you can get a hobby.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Authentic meaning what, exactly?

I could write a chapter for a Tom Clancey novel and it would be proven authentic: written by me when I said it was written.

Authentic meaning written by St. Thomas the Apostle, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus.

 

[glockmail]

Authentic meaning written by St. Thomas the Apostle, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus.

Proof? Links?

 

[Hamiltonian]

Proof? Links?

Nobody has been able to prove it false, therefore it must be true .

http://www.nag-hammadi.com/gospel.html

 

[MissileMan]

1. Perhaps you could point out where I said that?

Post #453 "If it has never been proven false, then how can it not be true?"

2. I think it wiped out all of mankind in a portion of the world that was to the limit of acient man's understanding. But that's my personal belief, not backed up by a rigorous study of the Bible.

Nor backed up by the Bible itself. So, when the Bible said "all mankind", that wasn't really true unless you apply some kind of spin to it. Why are there scientists claiming that the Grand Canyon is a remnant of the great flood if it was localized to the Middle East?

 

[MissileMan]

Maybe you can get a hobby.

I have a very entertaining hobby. I write daily episodes of "As the Glock Squirms".

 

[glockmail]

Nobody has been able to prove it false, therefore it must be true .

http://www.nag-hammadi.com/gospel.html

Interesting but it offers no proof into the actual source of the document.

 

[glockmail]

Post #453 "If it has never been proven false, then how can it not be true?"



Nor backed up by the Bible itself. So, when the Bible said "all mankind", that wasn't really true unless you apply some kind of spin to it. Why are there scientists claiming that the Grand Canyon is a remnant of the great flood if it was localized to the Middle East?

1. You referenced where I posed a question to you, as yet unanswered.
2. "Spin" according to your opinion. I am trying to make sense of something written for ancient man, according to my modern persepctive. It is you who are attempting a simplistic approach. I can't speak for your "scientists" who claim that about the Grand Canyon. You would not hear that from me; it was created by the Colorado River.

 

[glockmail]

I have a very entertaining hobby. I write daily episodes of "As the Glock Squirms".

You have a distorted view of reality.

 

[MissileMan]

1. You referenced where I posed a question to you, as yet unanswered.

It has been answered several times. Your refusal to accept a satisfactory answer doesn't equal "unanswered".

2. "Spin" according to your opinion. I am trying to make sense of something written for ancient man, according to my modern persepctive. It is you who are attempting a simplistic approach.

Yet here we are with you still avoiding answering a very simple question. There are only two possible answers to it...true or untrue. Answers like "true, if" or "true when" are based in interpretation and opinion, not in fact or truth.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Interesting but it offers no proof into the actual source of the document.

The author put his name on the document, and appears elsewhere in the New Testament. He repeats several things referenced in other parts of the New Testament, speaks of experiences which the author had according to the New Testament, and originates from the lifetime in which St. Thomas was alive. Parts of it tie into other stories in the Bible. In fact, it matches all of your criteria for the Bible being credible, except sometimes it conflicts with the Bible.

 

[glockmail]

..... There are only two possible answers to it...true or untrue. .....

The Truth is rarely so simple.

 

[glockmail]

The author put his name on the document, and appears elsewhere in the New Testament. He repeats several things referenced in other parts of the New Testament, speaks of experiences which the author had according to the New Testament, and originates from the lifetime in which St. Thomas was alive. Parts of it tie into other stories in the Bible. In fact, it matches all of your criteria for the Bible being credible, except sometimes it conflicts with the Bible.

According to your site, the documents were 1600 years old. So Thomas lived that long?

Anyone could have written those documents.

An interesting book called "The Case for Christ" was written by an ex-atheist investigator who proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were authentic. Perhaps you could provide the same level or proof.

You were the one who claimed authenticity. The burden of proof is on you. Is your faith in the fallibility of the Bible strong enough?

 

[Hamiltonian]

According to your site, the documents were 1600 years old. So Thomas lived that long?

Anyone could have written those documents.

An interesting book called "The Case for Christ" was written by an ex-atheist investigator who proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were authentic. Perhaps you could provide the same level or proof.

You were the one who claimed authenticity. The burden of proof is on you. Is your faith in the fallibility of the Bible strong enough?

The originals were estimated to have been written around 50 AD, which is around when most of the Gospels were thought to have been written. Thomas was alive at that time.

I believe it was authentic, that is it was written by who the author whose name appears on the parchment. I do not think that the content of the gospel can be proven any more or less authentic than the Bible.

There's something that you should understand, which is that I'm saying they are as authentic as the Bible, so that they are not absolutely authentic.