Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[MissileMan]

You may use whatever source you have to try and disprove me.

Is this your best response to the demolition of your "proof" of the resurrection?

 

[Gunny]

Is this your best response to the demolition of your "proof" of the resurrection?

My question would have to be, given the title of this thread, is have you disproven it?

 

[MissileMan]

My question would have to be, given the title of this thread, is have you disproven it?

Quite sufficiently dismissed his offered "proof" of the resurrection, yes. As for whether I have disproven the resurrection, no. I wasn't attempting to. Then again, you can't disprove the unproveable. But now that the assertion has been made that the Bible is 100% accurate and true, the burden has shifted to him to prove that it's 100% accurate and true.

 

[glockmail]

1. The Gospel is only the "gospel truth" if you believe the Gospel.

2. You can't use a source to prove itself....

1. There are 4 Gospels; different books from different authors. These basically say the same thing but from a different perspective.
2. The Bible is a compliation of many books. So you can't use another book from the same library to confirm the first? Is that what they taught you in law school, Jillie?

 

[glockmail]

Is this your best response to the demolition of your "proof" of the resurrection?

I just think its your turn to adddress the challenge, as I have stepped up to the plate to several of yours, slamming the ball out of the park each time.

 

[glockmail]

Quite sufficiently dismissed his offered "proof" of the resurrection, yes. ......

Yes- your dismissal of the obvious.

 

[MissileMan]

Yes- your dismissal of the obvious.

Here's the obvious. What evidence, other than the Bible, can be offered to substantiate that the Romans wasted the manpower of 2 guards to keep an eye on a dead man? In the absence of any guards, the body could have been easily removed from the tomb within 3 days.

Your so called "proof" is a farce.

 

[MissileMan]

I just think its your turn to adddress the challenge, as I have stepped up to the plate to several of yours, slamming the ball out of the park each time.

That's some imagination you have.

 

[glockmail]

Here's the obvious. What evidence, other than the Bible, can be offered to substantiate that the Romans wasted the manpower of 2 guards to keep an eye on a dead man? In the absence of any guards, the body could have been easily removed from the tomb within 3 days.

Your so called "proof" is a farce.

Why wouldn't they have stationed guards?

 

[glockmail]

That's some imagination you have.

I call it perception of the obvious.:rotflmao:

 

[Dr Grump]

1. There are 4 Gospels; different books from different authors. These basically say the same thing but from a different perspective.
2. The Bible is a compliation of many books. So you can't use another book from the same library to confirm the first? Is that what they taught you in law school, Jillie?

No you can't when the sources are unprovable Glockie...

 

[jillian]

1. There are 4 Gospels; different books from different authors. These basically say the same thing but from a different perspective.
2. The Bible is a compliation of many books. So you can't use another book from the same library to confirm the first? Is that what they taught you in law school, Jillie?

And how many gospels were excluded because the church didn't think they deified Christ enough?

And how many years after the alleged events, glockie, were the ones that are accepted written?

Also still waiting for you to address the facts that are incorrectly relayed in the NT.

Like I said... you can't use a source to prove itself. :food1:

 

[MissileMan]

Why wouldn't they have stationed guards?

Duh! It's a dead body. Where's it going to go? What act(s) is it going to commit that a guard would be needed to prevent?

 

[5stringJeff]

Duh! It's a dead body. Where's it going to go? What act(s) is it going to commit that a guard would be needed to prevent?

The Jewish leaders were quite aware that Jesus had predicted His resurrection. They requested the guard so that they could make sure no one stole His body.

 

[mattskramer]

1. How about the things that are well documented to exist, like the existence of the Gospels, the origin of the Christian faith, or the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. Swoon, conspiracy, hallucination or myth, which one are you?
2. That's a hell of a source you've got there (no pun intended). The very first sentence: In post 308 I cited two sources independent of the Gospels.

Yet again I remind you of the thread title and the challenge before you. The burden of proof is on you to prove that tye Bible is incorrect in even one instance, and you have thus failed to provide a shred of evidence. Yet you and others continue to ask me to provide proof that the Bible is correct, and in fact that Jesus even existed, and I have provided evidence at every instance.

Either I am the Mighty King of Debate or else y'all have an indefensibly weak argument.

I doubt that there is anything new for me to consider. I have read points and counterpoints and counterpoints to those counterpoints and rebuttals to those counterpoints and so on and so on. Check out:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

I have already proven, by being nit-picky, that specific statements in the Bible are inconsistent. You use the excuse that some stuff is not to be taken literally and that different translations say different things. You still have not clarified who killed Saul. Who held the sword?

 

[glockmail]

[1]And how many gospels were excluded because the church didn't think they deified Christ enough?

[2]And how many years after the alleged events, glockie, were the ones that are accepted written?

[3]Also still waiting for you to address the facts that are incorrectly relayed in the NT.

[4] Like I said... you can't use a source to prove itself. :food1:

I sense frustration, Jilly. Don’t worry, Hillary is coming soon, and will make it all better for you.

1. There have been many story writers who wished to obtain greatness but were deemed not to be great. Only carefully reviewed works are deemed acceptable for the Bible, which is why now I can confidently challenge you to find fault.
2. It depends on the specific event. Many records in ancient times were passed on verbally by several independent memorizers, and the exact text verified periodically by meetings between them and confirmation. This is a well documented practice, so feel free to google away at it.
3. I’m still waiting for you, dear girl, to rise to the challenge and give a specific example.
4. Are you too busy eating spaghetti to respond to the answer that I gave you before?

 

[Dr Grump]

I’m still waiting for you, dear girl, to rise to the challenge and give a specific example.

She did dear boy...you musta missed it....

That aside, re passing down passages from different sources..you ever heard of the term Chinese Whispers?

pppssstttttt...googling ain't the be-all and end-all..A good ole library is probably a better source.

Who decided what works were acceptable to the bible? When in history was it decided? Be specific....

 

[glockmail]

She did dear boy...you musta missed it....

....

Perhaps you could point out where.

 

[Dr Grump]

Perhaps you could point out where.

post 341

 

[glockmail]

post 341

345