Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[Gunny]

The definition of a “day” seems pretty clear to this alleged idiot. It is the interval of light between two successive nights. It is the time between sunrise and sunset. It is a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.

It only seems clear to you because you have been raised on our concept of time, with all the explanations already laid out for you.

How do you figure into your simplistic little definition that people used to think the Earth was flat and had no idea it revolved around the sun? IIRC, they in fact believed just the opposite at one point in time.

Or that it is light and dark for 6 months at a time at the poles? Does that mean there is only one day a year there? According to your definition, that's exactly what it means.

 

[8236]

And all this comes back to the point i was making before, that since we cant agree on common reference points as to what we mean by such concepts as time etc. and in particular what our interpretations are to the meaning of time intervals in biblical times are, then this whole discussion becomes pointless.

 

[Gunny]

And all this comes back to the point i was making before, that since we cant agree on common reference points as to what we mean by such concepts as time etc. this whole discussion becomes pointless.

Actually, in reference to the question asked in the thread title, the discussion is not pointless at all. In thread after thread, anyone who attempts to use the Bible, Judeo-Christian ethic, or anything that in any way smacks of religion is hammered with "prove it."

One thread that asks "Has it ever been disproven?" is hardly pointless.

 

[8236]

It only seems clear to you because you have been raised on our concept of time, with all the explanations already laid out for you.

How do you figure into your simplistic little definition that people used to think the Earth was flat and had no idea it revolved around the sun? IIRC, they in fact believed just the opposite at one point in time.

Or that it is light and dark for 6 months at a time at the poles? Does that mean there is only one day a year there? According to your definition, that's exactly what it means.

It is easy to define a day as being the time taken for the sun to reappear at the same point above the horizon. This is as valid at the poles as at the equator

 

[8236]

Actually, in reference to the question asked in the thread title, the discussion is not pointless at all. In thread after thread, anyone who attempts to use the Bible, Judeo-Christian ethic, or anything that in any way smacks of religion is hammered with "prove it."

One thread that asks "Has it ever been disproven?" is hardly pointless.

I dunno, I'm getting confused now, and confess to being drunk: i cant concentrate anymore: its 00:15 here in the uk now and i think i need my bed bye

 

[glockmail]

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

I had asked you earlier for specifics on this so I could analyze it, didn't I? Where is your response to that?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So are you seriously saying that the bible was NOT written by human beings????

Well, they claim the koran Mohameds revelation, but he could neither read nor write. So, who actually "wrote" the koran. Nobody knows because it is irrelevant. Its like dictating to a secretary, she doesnt sign her own name.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The word “Asswipe” is a euphemism for the word “toilet paper”. I am clearly not toiletpaper. I am clearly not toilet paper. An idiot is a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25. My IQ is over 110. Therefore I am not an idiot. Enough with the erroneous name-calling.

Did you really post that ??????

IQ might be over 110, but nothing else about you is.

 

[Gunny]

It is easy to define a day as being the time taken for the sun to reappear at the same point above the horizon. This is as valid at the poles as at the equator

So you are saying there is only one day per year at the poles?

Regardless, I think man's concept of time is being taken for granted here, based on the presumption that other concepts/standards of time have existed.

Underlying that is the premise that an omnipotent being is restricted by Man's laws; which, I find absurd, to say the least.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was refering to LuvRgrl who by her comment to one of my previous posts seemed to be implying that the bible was not written by humans. I should have made that clearer.

I was being a bit lazy, however, see my post above.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why should we have to guess at the 'spirit' of the thread starter, ultimately decided by you? Why not just the question?

Thats the style of liberals debating. If the evidence isnt on your side, change the arguement. If the new arguement doesnt work, lie, obfuscate, distort, and attack the messenger, but by all means NEVER ADMIT Y0U ARE WRONG, for us intellectuals are far superior to the man in the street. Hell, They read 17 newspapers a day, so they HAVE to know more about the situation in Iraq than the footsoldiers do.

 

[Dr Grump]

Answer the question if you can instead of seeking more excuses...

I'm not trying answer the question ro offer an excuse. If you take the header thread literally as stated,. the answer is no, nobody has ever proven anything wrong in the bible...only opinions. To which I answer..so?

 

[8236]

Well, they claim the koran Mohameds revelation, but he could neither read nor write. So, who actually "wrote" the koran. Nobody knows because it is irrelevant. Its like dictating to a secretary, she doesnt sign her own name.

Exactly! If it is revelation from god then someone had to transcribe it; and the 'secretary' is prone to making errors.

As for the Koran: Gabriel is supposed to have come down from heaven and 3 times commanded Mohammed to read. After 3rd time he could (another example of nonsense in a religious script)

Actually I have a theory about who wrote the Koran. Mohammed's wife Kudija who was some ten years older than him could read and write and I reckon itwas she who gathered the stories from various sources (bible and torah) and added the bits to make it applicable to the people living in the saudi deserts. Mohammeds was then named the author as women were not suitable people to ponder on religious matters.
Another theory I have is that the founders of Islam may have been christian refugees from the Arian sect. Bishop Arius' (of Edessa - I think) teachings denied the divinity of christ - this is how many early christians were converted, as they didn't buy the divinity thing. Arianism was declared heretical and many of them took on the divinity issue, or fled, some of them south into saudi.

Ofcourse I have absolutely no evidence for any of this - its just fun to speculate.

 

[glockmail]

...
As for the Koran: Gabriel is supposed to have come down from heaven and 3 times commanded Mohammed to read. After 3rd time he could (another example of nonsense in a religious script).....

It is easy to point out errors in the Koran, which proves that it is not a work of God.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not trying answer the question ro offer an excuse. If you take the header thread literally as stated,. the answer is no, nobody has ever proven anything wrong in the bible...only opinions. To which I answer..so?

Excellent. So... We have an honest answer... It was a play on the "Who can prove it right" theme, at least that is what it appeared to me. One cannot do either...

 

[mattskramer]

I had asked you earlier for specifics on this so I could analyze it, didn't I? Where is your response to that?

Read Matthew 13:31-32 and see the bottom portion of http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/biblescienceblunders.html

Mustard seed not the smallest

Matthew 13:31-32. "31. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The
kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed
in his field: 32. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the
greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and
lodge in the branches thereof."

It is a well known fact that the orchid seed is the smallest seed in the world, not the
mustard seed. To be fair, it is arguably true that in the Palestinian area, the
mustard seed could be called the smallest commonly used seed. In the interest of
general application, I am willing to accept that someone would have referred to the
mustard seed calling it the smallest seed only by way of teaching a moral lesson
about his kingdom, as Jesus supposedly did. In other words, it would be absurd to
fault the New Testament writers for not having Jesus say, "The world's smallest
seed is really the orchid seed which is a seed far away from here and to it I liken the
kingdom!" This would be pointless since the gospel writers wanted to use
something (a common seed) to which all listeners at that time could relate. I simply
list it here as a scientific inaccuracy to emphasize the point that the bible text offers
nothing remarkable or divinely insightful in the least. Had the orchid seed been
referenced in this text as the world's smallest seed, bibliolaters would be holding
this verse up in our faces as "proof" that an all-knowing God inspired the bible!
Theists want the bible to be as accurate as a science book and reveal unknown
truths about the world, and yet when push comes to shove, and we skeptics
demonstrate that no such evidence exists, we are told "the bible is not a science
book!" Not only is the bible far from being a science book, it is only filled with
references that qualify it only to be a mere writings of the time that reflect the views
of the day in which it was written.

 

[Hobbit]

The problem, Matt, is that Jesus did NOT say, "...the least of all seeds in the world." It is the least of all seeds that they knew, making the statement true. Also, you admit yourself that it doesn't really mean anything, since Jesus was trying to reach people who had never even heard of an orchid.

 

[glockmail]

Why would Jesus create a parable that no one knew nothing about? He would have lost credibility with His audience. The analogy here is the story of creation, which does not mention DNA. If He had, he would have lost His audience.

 

[mattskramer]

Why would Jesus create a parable that no one knew nothing about? He would have lost credibility with His audience. The analogy here is the story of creation, which does not mention DNA. If He had, he would have lost His audience.

The Bible should be technically accurate. Jesus, being fully God, could have drawn the people’s attention to the mustard seed and said that the kingdom of heaven is like the small mustard seed. When Jesus used the superlative term (Examples: smallest, least, etc.) without a qualifier (Example: in this area), he was technically incorrect.

He would not have had to create a different parable or use something that the people did not know of. He could have simply avoided the superlative or supply a qualifier.

 

[jillian]

The problem, Matt, is that Jesus did NOT say, "...the least of all seeds in the world." It is the least of all seeds that they knew, making the statement true. Also, you admit yourself that it doesn't really mean anything, since Jesus was trying to reach people who had never even heard of an orchid.

You know, the question was has the bible been proven wrong? It was. Now, since I'm not a biblical literalist, I'm perfectly fine with the allegory of the mustard seed. You?