Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

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

Your premise is flawed.

 

[glockmail]

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.

I agree completely. And I'm not afraid to delve into science and archeology with my Bible in tow. In fact, it is an excellent "road map".

 

[glockmail]

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.

No I don't remember "hiking" away from an argument.

With your undefinable standard you can raise the bar as high as you like, and keep raising it.

 

[MissileMan]

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.

I don't disbelieve every word of the Bible. I believe a man named Jesus Christ existed, I just don't believe he was God incarnate. I don't doubt the existence of the places mentioned nor of most of the people. I don't, however, believe in the supernatural embellishments added to the Judeo-Christian mythology.

added: The fact that the Bible contains some truth is in no way an indication or proof that it is all true.

 

[MissileMan]

Your premise is flawed.

Hardly, though someone with your lack of conviction would think so.

 

[Nienna]

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.

You are certainly entitled to your choices. And I understand why you would expect truth to be evident. It seems like it should be; if it is true, there should be nothing to hide.

But, from a Christian point of view, proving truth is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is loving God; likewise, God's goal (if you read the Bible through, you will see why I can claim to know God's will in this) is not to reveal all knowledge to humans, but to give them the chance to CHOOSE to love Him. If He made His truth so irrefutably evident, people would not have the CHOICE. This is why God made some parts of the Bible unprovable--so that people would be free to willingly choose to love Him.

 

[glockmail]

Hardly, though someone with your lack of conviction would think so.

Moi? Lack of conviction? Hardly.

 

[no1tovote4]

Moi? Lack of conviction? Hardly.

What brought that on? I don't believe I have seen any evidence of such...

 

[glockmail]

What brought that on? I don't believe I have seen any evidence of such...

A desparate act by a desparate Missle Man?:happy2:

 

[CharlestonChad]

-Haven't we proven that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? If so, then how did Jesus turn water into wine?

-Is it not common knowledge that dinosaurs existed more than a few days before mankind?

-Biologists know that life starts with gamete cells creating new cells, yet the bible insists that somatic cells (Rib) can create a new person (Eve).

-Reptile specialists have proven that serpents do not have the ability to speak.




The Bible has some good lessons, but it's not meant to be taken word for word as complete truth.

 

[MissileMan]

What brought that on? I don't believe I have seen any evidence of such...

It wasn't a statement about Glock's faith, but the repeated display of an unwillingness to stand by what he's written.

 

[glockmail]

-[1] Haven't we proven that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? If so, then how did Jesus turn water into wine?

[2]-Is it not common knowledge that dinosaurs existed more than a few days before mankind?

[3]-Biologists know that life starts with gamete cells creating new cells, yet the bible insists that somatic cells (Rib) can create a new person (Eve).

[4]-Reptile specialists have proven that serpents do not have the ability to speak.




The Bible has some good lessons, but it's not meant to be taken word for word as complete truth.

1. e=MC^2; matter turns into energy; why not the reverse equation?
2. A day in the time of Genesis is not the same as a contemporary day. Genesis is a parable.
3. God created both types of cells out of inert matter in Genesis 1.
4. Who says the serpent was a reptile?

 

[glockmail]

It wasn't a statement about Glock's faith, but the repeated display of an unwillingness to stand by what he's written.

I stand by everything that I've written.

I've witness you lose your temper more than once dealing with this issue. Also lame attempts to misinterpret my posts. Now you are trying to shoot the messenger of truth.

Why not just deal with the fact that I am right and you are wrong?

 

[CharlestonChad]

1. e=MC^2; matter turns into energy; why not the reverse equation?
2. A day in the time of Genesis is not the same as a contemporary day. Genesis is a parable.
3. God created both types of cells out of inert matter in Genesis 1.
4. Who says the serpent was a reptile?

1. Matter can be defined as energy, but in a different form. I positive that this equation cannot explain a human being turning one form of matter into another without any additional energy or matter.

2. Ok, if that's a parable then what says that everything else in the book isn't a parable?

3. Sorry, using the bible as an answer to a question challenging the bible doesn't work.

4. What type of creature did the devil incarnate himself as?

 

[glockmail]

1. Matter can be defined as energy, but in a different form. I positive that this equation cannot explain a human being turning one form of matter into another without any additional energy or matter.

2. Ok, if that's a parable then what says that everything else in the book isn't a parable?

3. Sorry, using the bible as an answer to a question challenging the bible doesn't work.

4. What type of creature did the devil incarnate himself as?

1. God has unlimited amount of energy to provide the conversion.
2. It’s very easy to tell the difference. When God says “thou shalt not..” it’s obvious that this is a literal meaning. When the words are abstract than there is a deeper meaning.
3. Of course it does, as it demonstrates consistency.
4. I have no idea. Most say it looked like a snake.

 

[CharlestonChad]

1. God has unlimited amount of energy to provide the conversion.
2. It’s very easy to tell the difference. When God says “thou shalt not..” it’s obvious that this is a literal meaning. When the words are abstract than there is a deeper meaning.
3. Of course it does, as it demonstrates consistency.
4. I have no idea. Most say it looked like a snake.

1. Is it logical for a lawyer to go to trial with the defendant being the only witness? The Bible doesn't prove the Bible. Get it?

2. So why do so many Christians try to take the Bible word for word?

3. Same reply as #1.

4. Didn't God say it looked like a snake? Or was that not meant to be literally?

 

[glockmail]

1. Is it logical for a lawyer to go to trial with the defendant being the only witness? The Bible doesn't prove the Bible. Get it?

2. So why do so many Christians try to take the Bible word for word?

3. Same reply as #1.

4. Didn't God say it looked like a snake? Or was that not meant to be literally?

1. You've lost me on this one. The olny time I've used "the Bible to prove the Bible" has been to show consistency, which is standard practice in the legal profession, to use your analogy.
2. You'll have to ask them. I think that they are making a mistake.
4. I don't believe that God said that. But for the sake of argument, say that it looked exactly like a snake. So what? It could have looked like a brick.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Honestly folks,
I don't see how this topic pertains to anyone that doesn't believe in the bible.
Unless it's for entertainment purposes, it does no good to argue the point.
I myself do not believe in the Bible but I know enough to leave it be.
What’s wrong with having faith in the Bible, true or not?
That’s the beauty of faith. We all believe in something even if it’s nothing.
If you can convince me that this topic has a profound affect on you life, then
so be it. Otherwise, don’t try so hard to bring people down for no reason
other than your own personal satisfaction. I will continue to believe in my
religion without anyone’s approval, and I don’t really need proof that I’m right
or wrong so long as I think I’m doing the right thing (Within reason, as it
pertains to society).

 

[jillian]

Honestly folks,
I don't see how this topic pertains to anyone that doesn't believe in the bible.
Unless it's for entertainment purposes, it does no good to argue the point.
I myself do not believe in the Bible but I know enough to leave it be.
What’s wrong with having faith in the Bible, true or not?
That’s the beauty of faith. We all believe in something even if it’s nothing.
If you can convince me that this topic has a profound affect on you life, then
so be it. Otherwise, don’t try so hard to bring people down for no reason
other than your own personal satisfaction. I will continue to believe in my
religion without anyone’s approval, and I don’t really need proof that I’m right
or wrong so long as I think I’m doing the right thing (Within reason, as it
pertains to society).

I agree with everything you say. But I'd point out that it's not the people who don't believe the NT is fact/science/ or anotherwise appropriate basis for legislation who make it an issue.

I think everyone should be free to believe or not believe as they wish. I have no wish to dissuade anyone from their chosen beliefs. But I don't want them saying their book is the literal truth and, as such, should be imposed on the rest of us.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I think everyone should be free to believe or not believe as they wish. I have no wish to dissuade anyone from their chosen beliefs. But I don't want them saying their book is the literal truth and, as such, should be imposed on the rest of us.

Impose is a strong word and a sensative issue as far as religion is concerned.
I know, you know, we all know it happens on both sides of the fence.
It happens with everything to include politics. Everyone wants life to be as
easy as possible, but you can't make everyone happy. Is there an easy way
to be nuetral? I think not, but we'll never solve anything by trying to prove
who gets to be right or wrong. There is no possible way you could credit
or discredit the entire Bible, or any other religion for that matter.
So what's the solution?