Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[Nienna]

I disagree. There has been nothing presented to authenticate Biblical claims other than the Bible itself.

Untrue. Archaeology and many branches of science corroborate things that were written in the Bible. Other historical writings (like ancient Roman records) corroborate Biblical stories.

The bolded line has been repeated on this board several times and is devoid of any reason. It's circular logic to insist that you have to believe in order to believe. If the world's supposed "greatest truth" can't be backed up with even an iota of tangible evidence, I find it amazing that so many people buy into it. I guess Barnum was right.

God gave us the CHOICE about whether or not we accept and believe in Him. He purposely made it so that we are not FORCED to believe. This life is all about making the choice. When people say you can't PROVE it, they mean that they cannot force someone to believe, not that there is no tangible evidence to back up what they believe.

 

[Hobbit]

Another explanation of how the ark survivors became all the other races in such a 'short' time is that only notable relatives are typically listed on ancient Hebrew geneologies. It could have been just those few generations or it could have been hundreds...thousands...etc. The book was written by Moses, so we won't have any concrete way of determining how long it took for that to happen unless we can find and date the original Ark.

Oh, and to be fair, Nienna, it's more than skin pigmentation. Black Africans have wider noses and higher cheekbones than Caucasians, as well as the frizzy hair effect. They are also naturally better at athletic activities involving running and jumping. Caucasians. Have the greatest amount of body hair and the widest variety of hair and eye color, as well as a few other modifications made for cold weather, such as a fat storage system that leads to a greater likelihood of obesity. Asians have flatter eye sockets and very high cheekbones. The proportions of the races are also different (short asians and blacks with 'back,' to name two). A black man painted white or a white man painted black would look different from a white man or a black man, respectively.

 

[Dr Grump]

not that there is no tangible evidence to back up what they believe.

Nope, there is no tangible evidence. Some parts of the bible could be historical record - say like Herod was king at the time of Jesus's birth - but all the divine stuff is total faith. Nothing more. There is absolutley no evidence of any miracle being such other than the word of witnesses.

 

[Hobbit]

Nope, there is no tangible evidence. Some parts of the bible could be historical record - say like Herod was king at the time of Jesus's birth - but all the divine stuff is total faith. Nothing more. There is absolutley no evidence of any miracle being such other than the word of witnesses.

There's archeological evidence, and explanation, behind all 10 plagues. The miracle was in the timing (volcanic eruption that triggers this stuff goes on at just the right time for Moses to not only be around to bug the Pharoah, but also predict each one the day before).

 

[Dr Grump]

There's archeological evidence, and explanation, behind all 10 plagues. The miracle was in the timing (volcanic eruption that triggers this stuff goes on at just the right time for Moses to not only be around to bug the Pharoah, but also predict each one the day before).

The plagues I believe possible...Moses' predictions? hhhhhmmmmmmm

 

[Hobbit]

The plagues I believe possible...Moses' predictions? hhhhhmmmmmmm

The only reason the Pharoah believed that the plagues were indeed the result of his f***ing with the Hebrews is because Moses kept coming in ahead of time and telling him it was coming. I will concede that non-biblical evidence is weak in this regard, but with the Pharoah considered a living God in those times, I have a hard time believing that a bunch of plagues would cause him to release his most abundant source of free labor without there being a VERY direct connection between the plagues and the Hebrews.

 

[Gunny]

Pick and choose. You select some passages but not others. What about the mustard seed being the smallest seed?

You've got some nerve accusing ANYONE of picking and choosing about anything. You are the MASTER of the art, hands down.

 

[Nienna]

Oh, and to be fair, Nienna, it's more than skin pigmentation. Black Africans have wider noses and higher cheekbones than Caucasians, as well as the frizzy hair effect. They are also naturally better at athletic activities involving running and jumping. Caucasians. Have the greatest amount of body hair and the widest variety of hair and eye color, as well as a few other modifications made for cold weather, such as a fat storage system that leads to a greater likelihood of obesity. Asians have flatter eye sockets and very high cheekbones. The proportions of the races are also different (short asians and blacks with 'back,' to name two). A black man painted white or a white man painted black would look different from a white man or a black man, respectively.

Very true... and all these characteristics become predominant through inbreeding. "Asian" eyes are not due to deeper socket, but to a thicker layer of fat around the eye.

 

[Nienna]

Nope, there is no tangible evidence. Some parts of the bible could be historical record - say like Herod was king at the time of Jesus's birth - but all the divine stuff is total faith. Nothing more. There is absolutley no evidence of any miracle being such other than the word of witnesses.

So, some parts of the Bible have tangible archaeological/historical evidence. Some parts have to be taken on faith. But where is the evidence that DISproves something in the Bible, that proves it to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, WRONG?

 

[Dr Grump]

So, some parts of the Bible have tangible archaeological/historical evidence. Some parts have to be taken on faith. But where is the evidence that DISproves something in the Bible, that proves it to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, WRONG?

On the other hand, what proves it right? <shrug>

 

[Nienna]

On the other hand, what proves it right? <shrug>

Christians admit that it cannot be PROVEN right. But, check out the thread title. People say that Christians are foolish for believing what they do, however, when asked if the Bible has ever been proven WRONG, non-Christians have nothing. No person can FORCE someone else to believe the Bible is true. However, Christians are not foolish for believing in something that has never been proven false. This is the point of the thread.

 

[jillian]

Christians admit that it cannot be PROVEN right. But, check out the thread title. People say that Christians are foolish for believing what they do, however, when asked if the Bible has ever been proven WRONG, non-Christians have nothing. No person can FORCE someone else to believe the Bible is true. However, Christians are not foolish for believing in something that has never been proven false. This is the point of the thread.

A proposition which is set forth has to be proven... not disproven. I'm not sure why it's problematic acknowledging that believing the bible inerrant is a function of faith... not knowledge or proof. There's nothing wrong with faith and, in fact, faith can be nourishing and strengthening.

So why not just acknowledge that it's about faith? Maybe someone can explain that to me.

 

[no1tovote4]

Many times in this thread people have acknowledged their faith...

It is still very striking that nobody has presented any facts that might disprove a portion of the written history in the Bible...

 

[Nienna]

Many times in this thread people have acknowledged their faith...

It is still very striking that nobody has presented any facts that might disprove a portion of the written history in the Bible...

THANK YOU!!!!

Tried to rep you.

 

[jillian]

Many times in this thread people have acknowledged their faith...

It is still very striking that nobody has presented any facts that might disprove a portion of the written history in the Bible...

Again, it's up to the proponent of a proposition to prove it.... not for others to disprove it.

But if you want to get technical.... the earth is more than 6,000 years old and there's a whole slew of people who try to say that the rest of what we know occurred geologically and timewise never occurred based on this proposal that the bible is a literal document.

I'm kind of curious... given that the bible existed for about 4,000 years before Jesus, and was never taken literally, only allegorically, how can people coming aong 4,000 years later suddenly decide it's suddenly no longer allegory?

 

[no1tovote4]

Again, it's up to the proponent of a proposition to prove it.... not for others to disprove it.

But if you want to get technical.... the earth is more than 6,000 years old and there's a whole slew of people who try to say that the rest of what we know occurred geologically and timewise never occurred.

Not true, the original question specifically posed that very idea. Disproving something is equally scientific as finding supporting evidence. If it is incorrect in history or in fact it should be easy to find something that disproves a portion. However, as it was stated earlier just saying it is more than 6000 years old doesn't disprove any portion of the Bible.

Historically and culturally the Jews list only important ancestry, the timeline could easily be skewed by those types of actions as well as the fact that those in the past appear to have lived much longer...

 

[Nienna]

A proposition which is set forth has to be proven... not disproven. I'm not sure why it's problematic acknowledging that believing the bible inerrant is a function of faith... not knowledge or proof. There's nothing wrong with faith and, in fact, faith can be nourishing and strengthening.

So why not just acknowledge that it's about faith? Maybe someone can explain that to me.

Okay, so prove ANY portion of the Bible to be false.

Everyone here (I think) acknowledges that the believing in Biblical inerrancy is a function of faith. What is frustrating is that NO ONE (except No1! ) seems to want to acknowledge that portions of the Bible have strong evidence to back them up, and that the Bible has never been proven FALSE (at least not in this thread, No1).

The reason this is so frustrating is that Christians would like to be given credit for having the ability to reason, as well as having faith. No one can FORCE someone else to believe in Christianity/the Bible. However Christians take a lot of flack for being uneducated/averse to logic, and it would be nice for others to acknowledge that the faith is not UNREASONABLE, even if others choose not to believe in it, themselves.

 

[jillian]

Okay, so prove ANY portion of the Bible to be false.

Everyone here (I think) acknowledges that the believing in Biblical inerrancy is a function of faith. What is frustrating is that NO ONE (except No1! ) seems to want to acknowledge that portions of the Bible have strong evidence to back them up, and that the Bible has never been proven FALSE (at least not in this thread, No1).

The reason this is so frustrating is that Christians would like to be given credit for having the ability to reason, as well as having faith. No one can FORCE someone else to believe in Christianity/the Bible. However Christians take a lot of flack for being uneducated/averse to logic, and it would be nice for others to acknowledge that the faith is not UNREASONABLE, even if others choose not to believe in it, themselves.

There is nothing unreasonable in expecting someone who sets forth a hypothesis to prove it, rather than having others disprove it. I think we can all agree there are parts of the bible steeped in history. David, Solomon, Moses, Pharoah, etc ... all existed. I certainly take those facts as such. That does not mean that the earth was created in seven days or that there were two people named Adam and Eve, when all accepted scientific evidence states that our development was evolutionary and not spontaneous.... hence us having only one chromosome of difference from the great apes.

If I write an historical novel, it does not make it any less of a novel because I include a factual/historical setting.

The Kabalah purports that each of the protagonists of the bible, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Sarah, Rachel... are actually illustrations of each of the aspects of G-d .... the sephirot. Does that mean I don't believe there were people who existed who lived through the experiences set forth? No. But it also means they were not necessarily to be taken literally. Nor do I need others to have the same beliefs as me. My issue is when people try to substitute the bible for science and history.

*Edit* And for the record, I don't think that science and faith are mutually exclusive. Stephen Hawking's writings are as close to biblical in proportion as anything I've ever read. It's just there's a place for both faith and science.

Oh...and the reason fundamentalist, evangelical Christians (not all Christians) get a bad rap is because they think the bible is on equal footing with science and should be taught equally in the classroom. The bible, unless it's a comparative religion class, belongs at home and in Church or in parochial school.

 

[no1tovote4]

There is nothing unreasonable in expecting someone who sets forth a hypothesis to prove it, rather than having others disprove it. I think we can all agree there are parts of the bible steeped in history. David, Solomon, Moses, Pharoah... all existed. I certainly take those facts as such. That does not mean that the earth was created in seven days or that there were two people named Adam and Eve, when all accepted scientific evidence states that our development was evolutionary and not spontaneous.... hence us having only one chromosome of difference from the great apes.

If I write an historical novel, it does not make it any less of a novel because I include a factual/historical setting.

The Kabalah purports that each of the protagonists of the bible, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Sarah, Rachel... are actually illustrations of each of the pillars of faith.... the sephirot. Does that mean I don't believe there were people who existed who lived through the experiences set forth? No. But it also means they were not necessarily to be taken literally. Nor do I need others to have the same beliefs as me. My issue is when people try to substitute the bible for science and history.

Once again the hypothesis "set forth" is a question, it requested information, specifically that of any portion of a book that could be proven incorrect...

So repeating that some assertion other than that one question has been posed is simply repeating an error and another misdirection from the original point of the thread. It is telling that instead of seeking information you keep attempting the misdirection.

That each of them existed doesn't "prove" that the earth wasn't created in seven days either. A Being of such power could easily make Billions of years pass in hours, that the Earth appears older than what is written doesn't change that little fact of perception. The question still remains has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

 

[jillian]

Once again the hypothesis "set forth" is a question, it requested information, specifically that of any portion of a book that could be proven incorrect...

So repeating that some assertion other than that one question has been posed is simply repeating an error and another misdirection from the original point of the thread. It is telling that instead of seeking information you keep attempting the misdirection.

That each of them existed doesn't "prove" that the earth wasn't created in seven days either. A Being of such power could easily make Billions of years pass in hours, that the Earth appears older than what is written doesn't change that little fact of perception. The question still remains has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

How do you prove a negative? How can you disprove something that only has resonance because of "faith"?

You've got it backwards.... Again, it's for someone setting forth the hypothesis to prove... not the other way around. By the by, you ignored what I said that is inconsistent with a fundamentalist belief in the bible. S'okay.