Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

Apparently, you don't have a clue what truth is. In the case of the question about the great flood, the truth is either a) The biblical account is true, and all mankind except for those on the ark was destroyed OR b) The biblical account is untrue. It really is that simple.

Trying to muddy the waters with claims of complexity in order to avoid answering the question has weakened your argument to the point of crumbling.

Then the obvious answer is a, from the perspective of the audience.

 

[glockmail]

..... You told me to read the "Case for Christ" and refute it, so you're being a bit hypocritical. ..... .

So do you now admit that you were wrong, and then insulted me by claiming that I was a hypocrit?

 

[Hamiltonian]

So do you now admit that you were wrong, and then insulted me by claiming that I was a hypocrit?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: You keep arguing that "The Case for Christ" proves something beyond a reasonable doubt. To be able to counter that argument I would have to go and read your book and tell you where it is wrong. That's telling us to read the book and refute it.

Oh, I do not care much for having strictly correct English in posts, but it appears you do from the number of times you've added (sic) or corrected me, so I thought I'd let you know you misspelled hypocrite. Also, I never called you a hypocrite, I just said something you were doing was hypocritical. Everybody does something idiotic at least once, but that doesn't mean we're all idiots.

 

[MissileMan]

Then the obvious answer is a, from the perspective of the audience.

Why the need to keep qualifying the answer? What's wrong with just a)? Are you conceding that the Bible's "truth" isn't strong enough to stand on its own?

 

[mattskramer]

http://mwillett.org/atheism/strobel.htm

 

[glockmail]

Short answer: no.

…..

Your logic evades me. Somehow I'm telling you to read a book when I reference it, yet you calling me hypocritical is not calling me a hypocrite.

 

[glockmail]

Why the need to keep qualifying the answer? What's wrong with just a)? Are you conceding that the Bible's "truth" isn't strong enough to stand on its own?

Why is it that you atheists always insist on taking the word of God out of context? It is obvious that you are afraid of the Truth.

 

[glockmail]

http://mwillett.org/atheism/strobel.htm

To clear the mist hanging over Strobel's opening chapter, let us imagine that Strobel is in the courtroom before the judge. ...

Ol' Kusk K. (afraid to use his full name) resorts to his imagination to make his argument. Puleeezzzeeee.....

Welcome back, Matts.

 

[MissileMan]

Why is it that you atheists always insist on taking the word of God out of context? It is obvious that you are afraid of the Truth.

In today's episode, our heroine is confronted with an uncomfortable fact. In a desperate attempt to squirm out of yet another un-winnable situation, he/she drops a baseless accusation. Join us tomorrow to see if he/she can explain with honesty, intelligence, and sound-reasoning exactly how I'm taking anything out of context.

 

[glockmail]

.... exactly how I'm taking anything out of context.

By insisting on literal interpretation of that which is not written to be literal.

Interesting that you would not interpret the Constitution this way, a document that is clearly meant to be taken literally.

 

[MissileMan]

By insisting on literal interpretation of that which is not written to be literal.

Interesting that you would not interpret the Constitution this way, a document that is clearly meant to be taken literally.

By what method are you determining which parts of the Bible to take literally? Seems a tad arbitrary to me.

Also, which parts of the Constitution do you believe I am against taking literally?

 

[glockmail]

By what method are you determining which parts of the Bible to take literally? Seems a tad arbitrary to me.

Also, which parts of the Constitution do you believe I am against taking literally?

1. We went over that a few hundred posts ago.
2. The ones that you find inconvenient.

 

[MissileMan]

1. We went over that a few hundred posts ago.

I believe Loki expressed his method. In which post did you explain your method?

2. The ones that you find inconvenient.

As you've made the accusation, can you be more specific or are you talking out your ass?

 

[glockmail]

I believe Loki expressed his method. In which post did you explain your method?



As you've made the accusation, can you be more specific or are you talking out your ass?

1. Way back somewhere. You go find it. I'm getting tired of addressing the same points over and over with you.
2. You are asking me to guess at how your mind thinks. I don't have a clue.

 

[MissileMan]

1. Way back somewhere. You go find it. I'm getting tired of addressing the same points over and over with you.

I didn't find it, therefore, you didn't explain it. It shouldn't be very difficult to explain, and rather than putting words in your mouth as you have put them in mine, I'm asking you for yours.

2. You are asking me to guess at how your mind thinks. I don't have a clue.

You already made a guess when you made the statement. You did get one thing right though, you don't have a clue.

 

[glockmail]

I didn't find it, therefore, you didn't explain it. ....

...., you don't have a clue.

1. Interesting logic.
2. I see we're in the "insult" part of your emotional circle again. This usually comes after a temper tantrum. Next you'll take a day or two off, then come back with a repeated question.

 

[MissileMan]

1. Interesting logic.

Prove me wrong!

2. I see we're in the "insult" part of your emotional circle again. This usually comes after a temper tantrum. Next you'll take a day or two off, then come back with a repeated question.

Now you take offense when someone quotes you?

 

[LOki]

Since it seems no one wants to bite on the fallibility of the people who wrote the Bible, I'm a bit surprised no one has brought up the cud chewing hare yet.

 

[glockmail]

Chapter and verse please.

 

[LOki]

Since it seems no one wants to bite on the fallibility of the people who wrote the Bible, I'm a bit surprised no one has brought up the cud chewing hare yet.

Chapter and verse please.

Enjoy!

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; [as] the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; [therefore] they [are] unclean unto you.