Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[Annie]

[emp. m.] I figgered that's what this was about.

Enough, I'm not playing those games.

 

[MissileMan]

Tiring, very tiring.

Finish the rest of the quote. The argument and the thread have continued because of your insistance that your premise can be construed to mean that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. The burden has clearly shifted to you to prove your new allegation. I admit it's a difficult task, but also one that you clearly aren't capable of tackling, especially in the light that you don't even believe it yourself. Why did you make such a claim in the first place when you know that it isn't true? Did you think that elementary-school-level arguments and logic would prevail here? More likely that you failed to consider the capability of several people here to blast holes in your house of cards.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, I explained that to you early on in some detail. Obviously you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t still be here. Apparently you forgot. I’m starting to think that you have memory problems.

Alas, I'm not here to spoon feed you. Maybe if you weren't in this virtual menstrual cycle I'd have more patience, but you are and I don't. Sorry, sister.

As it is I have spent way too much time proving that the Bible is true, when the nature of this discussion is that you or someone else has to prove that it is false. As I recall, you already capitulated that point a few pages ago. But then, well, there’s that memory issue again.

Y'know, I've given this thread some consideration, and I've altered my stance a bit. I have not altered my belief in the Bible as God's word, but that is based on faith.

However, the premise of the argument that is the original post is questionable at best.

You present the Bible as the factual word of God, as recorded by men, and demand those who do not believe in Judeo/Christianity to disprove that it is true.

The burden of proof is not on those who do not beleive it is true, or the word of God. They are not insisting anyone accept anything as a truth or fact.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of the truth or fact, to substantiate with evidence that it is indeed truth or fact.

While those who do not believe cannot disprove it, neither can you prove it. That is not what Christianity is about anyway. Christianity is about faith. It is not about attempting to force others to believe your faith is right. It is about YOU believing your faith is right.

Christ himself intones us to not waste time on those who will not listen. And there is no example in the New Testament of Christ even attempting to force anyone to follow Him.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Y'know, I've given this thread some consideration, and I've altered my stance a bit. I have not altered my belief in the Bible as God's word, but that is based on faith.

However, the premise of the argument that is the original post is questionable at best.

You present the Bible as the factual word of God, as recorded by men, and demand those who do not believe in Judeo/Christianity to disprove that it is true.

The burden of proof is not on those who do not beleive it is true, or the word of God. They are not insisting anyone accept anything as a truth or fact.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of the truth or fact, to substantiate with evidence that it is indeed truth or fact.

While those who do not believe cannot disprove it, neither can you prove it. That is not what Christianity is about anyway. Christianity is about faith. It is not about attempting to force others to believe your faith is right. It is about YOU believing your faith is right.

Christ himself intones us to not waste time on those who will not listen. And there is no example in the New Testament of Christ even attempting to force anyone to follow Him.

Domination.

 

[LOki]

Do you expect ancient man to know about ruminating?

Irrelevent. My expectations are not at issue.

Of course not, as he has no knowledge of the digestive sytem.

Irrelevent. Ancient man's ignorance is not at issue.

Your defense (as the burden is on you) is irrelevant.

I make no defense. I merely point out that the Bible clearly asserts that the hare chews cud; the hare does not chew cud--the Bible is proven wrong in this regard.

 

[LOki]

Y'know, I've given this thread some consideration, and I've altered my stance a bit. I have not altered my belief in the Bible as God's word, but that is based on faith.

However, the premise of the argument that is the original post is questionable at best.

You present the Bible as the factual word of God, as recorded by men, and demand those who do not believe in Judeo/Christianity to disprove that it is true.

The burden of proof is not on those who do not beleive it is true, or the word of God. They are not insisting anyone accept anything as a truth or fact.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of the truth or fact, to substantiate with evidence that it is indeed truth or fact.

While those who do not believe cannot disprove it, neither can you prove it. That is not what Christianity is about anyway. Christianity is about faith. It is not about attempting to force others to believe your faith is right. It is about YOU believing your faith is right.

Christ himself intones us to not waste time on those who will not listen. And there is no example in the New Testament of Christ even attempting to force anyone to follow Him.

GunnyL adds to the sense.

 

[glockmail]

....you don't even believe it yourself. .....

So now you maintain to know what I believe. Isn't that special.

 

[glockmail]

Y'know, I've given this thread some consideration, and I've altered my stance a bit. I have not altered my belief in the Bible as God's word, but that is based on faith.

However, the premise of the argument that is the original post is questionable at best.

You present the Bible as the factual word of God, as recorded by men, and demand those who do not believe in Judeo/Christianity to disprove that it is true.

The burden of proof is not on those who do not beleive it is true, or the word of God. They are not insisting anyone accept anything as a truth or fact.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of the truth or fact, to substantiate with evidence that it is indeed truth or fact.

While those who do not believe cannot disprove it, neither can you prove it. That is not what Christianity is about anyway. Christianity is about faith. It is not about attempting to force others to believe your faith is right. It is about YOU believing your faith is right.

Christ himself intones us to not waste time on those who will not listen. And there is no example in the New Testament of Christ even attempting to force anyone to follow Him.

I don't own a gun that can shoot through the internet, so I cannot force anyone to respond to this thread.

Post 1 repeats a simple challenge from a radio preacher. I thought it was interesting and apparently some others do as well. There is no burden on me to prove or disprove anything.

The thread has been interesting at times as some of the posters brought out supposed inconsistencies in the Bible that have been well published and assumed as true by many. After quick research, however, I have been able to show that the inconsistencies are due to lapses in logic, misunderstanding of the context, or worse.

As I stated earlier my Faith is based on questioning the evidence before me with an open and perceptive mind. I understand that others have a different view of Faith, where they don’t dare question the possibility that God exists or the Bible is not His word. That type of Faith is fine for many but it’s not mine.

 

[glockmail]

Irrelevent. ...
Irrelevent. ...
I make no defense. ....

Of course its irrelevant if you insist on taking a passage out of context. That's easy to do, but lazy.

 

[LOki]

Of course its irrelevant if you insist on taking a passage out of context. That's easy to do, but lazy.

The full context was provided, and is provided, in full, again:

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.

You'll excuse me for not adding some special context that doesn't correct the false statement of fact that the hare chews cud. You'll further excuse me for not accepting your additional context (not provided by the Bible, but rather manufactured by yourself) regarding the false statement in the Bible, that the hare chews cud, because it is an excuse for the error, rather than a correction of that error.

My point still stands: the Bible clearly asserts that the hare chews cud; the hare does not chew cud--the Bible is proven wrong in this regard.

 

[Gunny]

I don't own a gun that can shoot through the internet, so I cannot force anyone to respond to this thread.

Post 1 repeats a simple challenge from a radio preacher. I thought it was interesting and apparently some others do as well. There is no burden on me to prove or disprove anything.

Did you read before responding? The burden of proof, by the general rules of debate accepted anywhere IS on you as the presenter of the Bible as the word of God.

To people who do not believe, it is at best a history of early Judaism and Christianity. On the surface, and without faith, that is all it is. It is up to YOU to prove it is something more if you expect nonbelievers to accept it as something more.

The thread has been interesting at times as some of the posters brought out supposed inconsistencies in the Bible that have been well published and assumed as true by many. After quick research, however, I have been able to show that the inconsistencies are due to lapses in logic, misunderstanding of the context, or worse.

There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible attributable to it being written by men. You cannot refute them all.

As I stated earlier my Faith is based on questioning the evidence before me with an open and perceptive mind. I understand that others have a different view of Faith, where they don’t dare question the possibility that God exists or the Bible is not His word. That type of Faith is fine for many but it’s not mine.

Anyone who is honest has at one time questioned their faith. Questioning one's faith is a far cry from trying to win an argument on a message board and have those that disagree with you buy off on your specific brand of "faith."

I'm not one to speak for Christ, but I somehow can't see Him approving of attempting to legitimize Him by winning an argument on a message board playing word games.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not one to speak for Christ, but I somehow can't see Him approving of attempting to legitimize Him by winning an argument on a message board playing word games.

We all know he's not attempting to legitimize anyone but himself.

 

[Gunny]

We all know he's not attempting to legitimize anyone but himself.

I firmly believe in offering the message of Christ. If it is rejected, move on. Christ says the same thing, in so many words. There's no point in trying to force it on anyone. The choice is up to the individual which path he/she chooses.

I don't see the difference between a Christian trying to shove Christianity down everyone's throats and an Islamofascist trying to shove Islam down everyone's throats.

When you take away the choice, Christianity loses a lot of its meaning because it is all about choice.

 

[glockmail]

The full context was provided... .

Actually the full context is the Chapter itself, and then again the Bible itself. The interpretation I gave you was not of my manufacture, but came up at the top of the list from my first Google.

When you have a deeper understanding of the total, you will see that the same health related issues God has with the cud chewing animals is evident with the rabbit.

What's really amazing is that if the Bible was written by mere men, they would not have known that.

 

[glockmail]

Anyone who is honest has at one time questioned their faith. Questioning one's faith is a far cry from trying to win an argument on a message board and have those that disagree with you buy off on your specific brand of "faith."

I'm not one to speak for Christ, but I somehow can't see Him approving of attempting to legitimize Him by winning an argument on a message board playing word games.

I'm not attempting to win an argument, as to change the mind of the closed minded is impossible. I've worked in the public arena for many years and understand completely that out of an audience of 100, no matter how clear or simple or definitive your argument is, there will always be 3 or 4 in the back row who think you are wrong no matter what.

Then there are the real dummies that champion your legitimate opposition no matter what in an attempt to deride you. These types are best ignored, especially after they puss-out accepting a challenge to defend ones honor. http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=522174&postcount=39

BTW, what do you percieve are the word games?

 

[Annie]

Glock, you persist in the name calling, you are going to be on a time out.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not attempting to win an argument, as to change the mind of the closed minded is impossible. I've worked in the public arena for many years and understand completely that out of an audience of 100, no matter how clear or simple or definitive your argument is, there will always be 3 or 4 in the back row who think you are wrong no matter what.

Then there are the real dummies that champion your legitimate opposition no matter what in an attempt to deride you. These types are best ignored, especially after they puss-out accepting a challenge to defend ones honor. http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=522174&postcount=39

BTW, what do you percieve are the word games?

You really need to get over this whole wanting me to come down and visit you thing. It's affecting your already limited performance.

 

[Annie]

don't bait.

 

[glockmail]

Glock, you persist in the name calling, you are going to be on a time out.

Where is the name calling here?

So why is it OK to insult someone's spouse http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=522115&postcount=1 yet not OK to insult the insulter?

And why is it OK to stalk and taunt another poster with irrelevant comments?

 

[glockmail]

You really need to get over this whole wanting me to come down and visit you .....

Only a wuss would refuse a challenge to defend his honor.

Domination. Pwned.