Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[MissileMan]

There is nothing I can say to anyone to "prove" to them that the Scriptures are in fact truth... Why is that? Because only God's mercy is able to take off each person's "blinder of sin" to the truth... Only he is able to convict that person of their sins ..... Not I.... Not anyone else......

Until that happens for some of you, there's no use for me to sit here and argue anything in this thread because youre presupposition is skewed by sin...

Incessant insistence that you won't find the Bible true unless you believe it's true is illogical, irrational, convenient, and wholly useless.

 

[glockmail]

....
Can you tell me which 1st and 2nd century manuscripts you are talking about?
....

About three years ago I read the book "A Case for Christ" and this stuff was detailed in there. I lent the book to someone, undoubtedly to save their soul and thus offend them, with instructions to pass it along to someone else who needed offending. In any case I don't have easy access to the specifics.

 

[glockmail]

And in my experience conducting extensive research in this area I've learned that you're wrong. See how easy it is to 'conduct research'? Unless you cite specifics, your claims of 'having done research' aren't going to add to your credibility.

What, you didn't know that he/she was a biblical scholar as well as a renowned biologist?:happy2:

 

[flaja]

And in my experience conducting extensive research in this area I've learned that you're wrong. See how easy it is to 'conduct research'? Unless you cite specifics, your claims of 'having done research' aren't going to add to your credibility.

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex W
Codex A(lexandrinus)
Sinaitic Syriac Manuscript
Chester Beatty Papyri

Just to name a few. Manuscript copies of the Bible are named so scholars can discuss them more easily.

Biblical manuscripts are classified, according to their content and word choice, into what are known as text types. Several text types have been identified. The manuscripts that are included in the TR generally follow the Byzantine text type.

Critics of the AKJ generally believe that the Textus Receptus is not as old as the manuscripts used for modern translations. James R. White claims that Westcott and Hort, proved that the Byzantine Text Type was invented in the 4th century by a group of scholars living in Antioch.

But, the TR, based on the Byzantine Text Type, has a historical tradition as old- if not older- than other text types and manuscripts. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, two of the modern translators’ favorite manuscripts, originated from the Alexandrian text-type. The Bible gives no record of apostolic activity in Alexandria. Church history, however, shows Alexandria to have been often a center of heresy. The Byzantine text-type originated in Antioch which was a Christian center since before the conversion of Paul.

The Book of Matthew and the last 2/3 of Luke contained in Codex W (Freer Manuscript, housed in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.) are in a very pure Byzantine text. Codex W also has Alexandrian, Western and the mixed Cesarean text types. The gospels are in the Western order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.

Codex W may date to the 4th century and certainly is no older than the 5th. It may be contemporaneous with Codex Sinaiticus. Furthermore Codex W seems to have been originally owned by a monastery located near the pyramids of Egypt. If the Byzantine Text was invented in Antioch in the 4th century, how could it have found itself used for a manuscript in Egypt only a century later? Surely the Egyptians had enough of their own manuscripts in their own text types.

The Gospels found in Codex A(lexandrinus) are also in the Byzantine Text Type. Scholars regarded Codex A as the oldest extant Greek text for many years. It dates to at least the 5th century- and also originated in Egypt.

From the 1930s to the 1960s various scholars identified dozens of readings in the Chester Beatty Papyri that match the Byzantine text.

The Sinaitic Syriac Manuscript, found in the Monastery of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai dates to the early 3rd century, but it is in remarkable agreement with the Traditional Text upon which the TR is based.

The Gothic version of the Bible, prepared shortly after 350AD, agrees with a majority of the Greek manuscripts i.e. the Traditional Text.

Trinitarian Bible Society
The Lord Gave the Word:
A Study in the History of the Biblical Text
Malcolm H. Watts

 

[flaja]

About three years ago I read the book "A Case for Christ" and this stuff was detailed in there. I lent the book to someone, undoubtedly to save their soul and thus offend them, with instructions to pass it along to someone else who needed offending. In any case I don't have easy access to the specifics.

I know that some ms fragments have been dated to the 1st century, but I’ve never heard anything about a complete ms dating to the 1st century.

Is the book you read the one where a news journalist tries to examine the Gospel as a modern day reporter would? The title sounds familiar, but I haven’t read it.

 

[flaja]

What, you didn't know that he/she was a biblical scholar as well as a renowned biologist?:happy2:

Your condescending attitude is un-called for, insulting and un-professional. If my posts have shown that you are wrong about something, have the courtesy to admit it. If you wish to have a serious discussion, fine. Otherwise drop dead.

 

[glockmail]

I know that some ms fragments have been dated to the 1st century, but I’ve never heard anything about a complete ms dating to the 1st century.

Is the book you read the one where a news journalist tries to examine the Gospel as a modern day reporter would? The title sounds familiar, but I haven’t read it.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Paperback)
by Lee Strobel

 

[glockmail]

Your condescending attitude is un-called for, insulting and un-professional. If my posts have shown that you are wrong about something, have the courtesy to admit it. If you wish to have a serious discussion, fine. Otherwise drop dead.

They haven't come close.

You were the one bragging about your biology degree and getting all high-falutin' about old bible manuscripts. So lighten up, or rise life.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Incessant insistence that you won't find the Bible true unless you believe it's true is illogical, irrational, convenient, and wholly useless.

Unless you have experiecend the kind of life-changing exprerience that -Cp is talking about, incessant insistance that it is untrue is illogical, irrational, convenient and wholly useless.

 

[MissileMan]

Unless you have experiecend the kind of life-changing exprerience that -Cp is talking about, incessant insistance that it is untrue is illogical, irrational, convenient and wholly useless.

So we understand each other, it's your opinion that my not taking -CP's or your or anyone else's word for it is illogical, etc. ?

 

[flaja]

They haven't come close.

You were the one bragging about your biology degree and getting all high-falutin' about old bible manuscripts. So lighten up, or rise life.

I take both my science degree and the Bible very seriously. Neither is a trivial matter. I am not here to waste my time with foolery from the likes of you.

 

[glockmail]

I take both my science degree and the Bible very seriously. Neither is a trivial matter. I am not here to waste my time with foolery from the likes of you.

When you can't beat 'em, insult 'em. when you can't insult 'em, dismiss them.

 

[Nienna]

Incessant insistence that you won't find the Bible true unless you believe it's true is illogical, irrational, convenient, and wholly useless.

I understand what you are saying. But I don't think it is exactly the way this thing works. There are things in the Bible that can be disproven-- historical events, persons, prophecies. These can be researched and compared to other historical documents and archaelogical evidence, and shown to be accurate or innacurate. You can believe these things without believing in God.

However, what Christians mean when they say one cannot believe the Bible until one believes in God is this: First, the Bible is not simply a historical or scientific text. It is God's way of "speaking" to people, to give people a tangible resource in the work of understanding Him.

Secondly, before we enter a relationship with someone, we first have to place trust in that person. It is no different with God. He gives us historical and archaelogical evidence in order to show His trustworthiness. But, other parts of the Bible are not meant to be "proven." They are meant to be guidance and communication with our Father, so that we can grow closer to Him and understand His will for our individual lives.

This is why Christians shake their heads when people tell them to "prove" the Bible. Can you "prove" a conversation with your wife or friend? In order to understand God's communication, you have to be looking for an answer. In order to hear His answer, you have to believe He exists. You have to take the step and enter the relationship before you can have interaction with Him.

 

[flaja]

I understand what you are saying. But I don't think it is exactly the way this thing works. There are things in the Bible that can be disproven-- historical events, persons, prophecies.

Whether or not prophecy can be disproved depends on how you interpret prophecy to begin with, that is whether or not a prophecy has been fulfilled depends on what you expect to happen based on what you think the prophecy means.

As for historical events and persons, whether or not the Bible is true in these matters depends on whom you identify the people and places in the Bible to be and whether or not archaeological and paleography can tell us who they are. For example the Bible speaks of a queen from a place called Sheba who visited Solomon to learn of his renowned wisdom. The identity of this queen and the location of her country have yet to be determined with 100% accuracy (meaning not all historians/Bible scholars agree). Critics of the Bible can easily say this queen did not exist because there is not irrefutable evidence for her.

BTW: I am inclined to accept Immanuel Velikovsky’s analysis that equates the Queen of Sheba with the female Egyptian Pharaoh Hatsheptsut.

These can be researched and compared to other historical documents and archaelogical evidence, and shown to be accurate or innacurate.

This is not as easy as it sounds. For example the Bible identifies only 1 or 2 Egyptian Pharaohs by their proper name. But, Pharaohs customarily had multiple names which can be often found in numerous documents. Identifying who’s who in the Bible can be very difficult and you can easily be lead down many blind allies.

And when it comes to studying historical events, if your chronology is off you can easily conclude that the Bible is wrong. Compare Kenyon’s work at Jericho with Bryant Wood’s work at Jericho. Wood concluded that a certain level at Jericho matches the Bible’s description of Joshua’s conquest. But, this layer has been given a date that most (secular) archaeologists and historians say was not the right time to be from the Joshua period. Kenyon, digging in the layer commonly dated to Joshua’s time found nothing to suggest Joshua conquered the place the way the Bible says he did.

However, what Christians mean when they say one cannot believe the Bible until one believes in God is this: First, the Bible is not simply a historical or scientific text. It is God's way of "speaking" to people, to give people a tangible resource in the work of understanding Him.

True. But some Christians want to “prove” the Bible to the world just as much as secularists want to disprove the Bible. Just because you are a Christian does not mean you cannot have the same type of tunnel vision that a secularist can have. What a Christian believes about the Bible as a scientific and historical record can still be wrong. The age of the earth is a prime example. Some people will be dogmatic just for the sake of being dogmatic even when their dogma has nothing to do with their salvation.

This is why Christians shake their heads when people tell them to "prove" the Bible.

Adam and Eve had God’s express commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil directly from God’s mouth and they still didn’t believe Him. If you believe God, you need no further proof of the Bible’s truthfulness. If you reject God, no amount of proof will convince you.

 

[MissileMan]

I understand what you are saying. But I don't think it is exactly the way this thing works. There are things in the Bible that can be disproven-- historical events, persons, prophecies. These can be researched and compared to other historical documents and archaelogical evidence, and shown to be accurate or innacurate. You can believe these things without believing in God.

However, what Christians mean when they say one cannot believe the Bible until one believes in God is this: First, the Bible is not simply a historical or scientific text. It is God's way of "speaking" to people, to give people a tangible resource in the work of understanding Him.

Secondly, before we enter a relationship with someone, we first have to place trust in that person. It is no different with God. He gives us historical and archaelogical evidence in order to show His trustworthiness. But, other parts of the Bible are not meant to be "proven." They are meant to be guidance and communication with our Father, so that we can grow closer to Him and understand His will for our individual lives.

This is why Christians shake their heads when people tell them to "prove" the Bible. Can you "prove" a conversation with your wife or friend? In order to understand God's communication, you have to be looking for an answer. In order to hear His answer, you have to believe He exists. You have to take the step and enter the relationship before you can have interaction with Him.

I appreciate and understand what you're saying, thank you for the reply. The following isn't a dig against the religious, but an attempt to explain how I arrive at my disbelief.

I have a high standard and expectation for something touted as the "greatest truth". I expect it to be so unquestionably true and evident that there's no room for doubt, and it surely shouldn't require faith. IMO, the truth is the truth, and it shouldn't have to rely on my belief, it should be able to stand on its own.

 

[glockmail]

I understand what you are saying. But I don't think it is exactly the way this thing works. There are things in the Bible that can be disproven-- historical events, persons, prophecies. These can be researched and compared to other historical documents and archaelogical evidence, and shown to be accurate or innacurate. ......

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm looking for someone to actually prove to me that something in the Bible is wrong: plain and simple. So far, no one has been able to.

 

[glockmail]

I have a high standard and expectation for something touted as the "greatest truth". I expect it to be so unquestionably true and evident that there's no room for doubt, and it surely shouldn't require faith. IMO, the truth is the truth, and it shouldn't have to rely on my belief, it should be able to stand on its own.

With that as your standard there are many who can prove to you that water is not wet. I would suggest a more reasonable standard, such as the one used by legal scholars and jurists to commit someone to death.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm looking for someone to actually prove to me that something in the Bible is wrong: plain and simple. So far, no one has been able to.

And the fact that noone can disprove the unproveable carries what significance to you?

 

[Nienna]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm looking for someone to actually prove to me that something in the Bible is wrong: plain and simple. So far, no one has been able to.

I am not saying the Bible HAS been disproven. It hasn't, and I believe, never will be. What I am saying is that there are things that could be checked out, that don't require ONLY faith to believe them to be true.

 

[MissileMan]

With that as your standard there are many who can prove to you that water is not wet. I would suggest a more reasonable standard, such as the one used by legal scholars and jurists to commit someone to death.

We've already been down that road...and you took a hike. Remember?

I don't think it unreasonable to hold the "ultimate truth" to a high, possibly difficult, yet reasonable standard.