Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[MissileMan]

That's exactly right...although I must point out that evolutionists, who pride themselves on being completely irreligious...actually have to have a hell of a lot more faith than creationists do! Think about it...believing in all those billions of "missing links" and "in-between forms" even though not a single damned one has ever been found...and having to come up with an explanation for how the tiny little atom came from a huge explosion called the Big Bang. (The Big Bang theory, interestingly, doesn't explain where matter came from because it assumes that matter existed in the beginning.) It's doesn't take that much faith for anybody to believe that God made it. No mental gymnastics required for that.

Do you use God as the explanantion for all natural phenomenon or just those science has yet to prove? Do you think God sticks his finger in a vial and makes a chemical reaction occur during an experiment? Using God for an explanation IS easy...it's also very childish, don't you think?

 

[MissileMan]

Excellent post. Science has proven the Bible right many times and consistently. It has never proven the Bible wrong.

Other than the existence of some of the places and a few of the people mentioned in the Bible, what exactly has science proven correct in the Bible?

 

[no1tovote4]

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

No, God "cursed" the Serpent to crawl on his belly on the ground, and gave the first prophecy of Christ and Mary, by saying that a woman would crush his head into the ground...

Therefore, hypothetically and logically, before that curse the serpent clearly walked above the ground, the type of creature it was before such an action is not explained at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

Other than the existence of some of the places and a few of the people mentioned in the Bible, what exactly has science proven correct in the Bible?

This is a misconception, science does not prove anything at all, the scientific method tests to a high probability, but it never proves anything, it simply wasn't designed for it.

 

[glockmail]

Do you use God as the explanantion for all natural phenomenon or just those science has yet to prove? Do you think God sticks his finger in a vial and makes a chemical reaction occur during an experiment? Using God for an explanation IS easy...it's also very childish, don't you think?

No and no, since God designed the atoms, molecules, and reactions. Has science proven this to be false? Just because we understand the mechanics behind it does not mean that God is out of the equation.

 

[glockmail]

Other than the existence of some of the places and a few of the people mentioned in the Bible, what exactly has science proven correct in the Bible?

Post 316 is an example. There are thousands of others.

Nice try at trying to change the debate, but in this thread the burden is on you to disprove. So far you have failed to muster much of a challenge. Do you not have the ability?

 

[jillian]

No and no, since God designed the atoms, molecules, and reactions. Has science proven this to be false? Just because we understand the mechanics behind it does not mean that God is out of the equation.

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. But that doesn't make the bible science. And, as has been said repeatedly on this thread, it also doesn't mean the bible should be literally interpreted. And again, prove that water was turned in to wine or there was a resurrection. You can't. You have to take it on faith. I still don't understand why the need to pretend it's anything but that. Isn't faith enough?

 

[glockmail]

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. But that doesn't make the bible science. And, as has been said repeatedly on this thread, it also doesn't mean the bible should be literally interpreted. And again, prove that water was turned in to wine or there was a resurrection. You can't. You have to take it on faith. I still don't understand why the need to pretend it's anything but that. Isn't faith enough?

In Gospel (something believed to be absolutely and unquestionably true) John 2 we have a account where this was done, and no proof by you or others disputing this. Again, look at the thread title.

 

[MissileMan]

Post 316 is an example. There are thousands of others.

Nice try at trying to change the debate, but in this thread the burden is on you to disprove. So far you have failed to muster much of a challenge. Do you not have the ability?

I conceded accuracy in references to most places and some people in the Bible. What else BESIDES those things has science proven correct from the Bible? Has science proven ANY of the supernatural stories from the Bible? The answer of course is no. And yes, it's true that science hasn't disproven any of it either. What does it all mean? Nothing. You can't imply that the Bible is 100% accurate because parts of it are true. And, since it's a proven fact that most mythology has a bit of reality sewn into it so as to make it more believable, it's reasonable to conclude that Judeo-Christian mythology is no different than other ancient mythologies when it comes to supernatural claims.

 

[glockmail]

...[1] Has science proven ANY of the supernatural stories from the Bible? The answer of course is no. ...
[2] You can't imply that the Bible is 100% accurate because parts of it are true. ….

1.Here is proof of the Resurrection: ”No alternative to a real resurrection has yet explained: the existence of the Gospels, the origin of the Christian faith, the failure of Christ's enemies to produce his corpse, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. Swoon, conspiracy, hallucination and myth have been shown to be the only alternatives to a real resurrection, and each has been refuted.” http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm

2. That is exactly what I am implying, and I again challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

1.Here is proof of the Resurrection: ”No alternative to a real resurrection has yet explained: the existence of the Gospels, the origin of the Christian faith, the failure of Christ's enemies to produce his corpse, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. Swoon, conspiracy, hallucination and myth have been shown to be the only alternatives to a real resurrection, and each has been refuted.” http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm

Just because you have not found something does not meant that it does not exist. The body and bones could have decayed over time.

Even before trying to tackle the argument about the location of Jesus, you must prove that he even existed to begin with. See http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

 

[glockmail]

[1]Just because you have not found something does not meant that it does not exist. The body and bones could have decayed over time.

[2]Even before trying to tackle the argument about the location of Jesus, you must prove that he even existed to begin with. See http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

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:

If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus' life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing.

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.

 

[MissileMan]

1.Here is proof of the Resurrection: ”No alternative to a real resurrection has yet explained: the existence of the Gospels, the origin of the Christian faith, the failure of Christ's enemies to produce his corpse, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. Swoon, conspiracy, hallucination and myth have been shown to be the only alternatives to a real resurrection, and each has been refuted.” http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm

2. That is exactly what I am implying, and I again challenge you to prove me wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the argument is nonsense. It presupposes that the accounts of what happened, as detailed in Bible, are all 100% accurate and true. If any of the story was embellished, the whole theory about a real resurrection being the only explanation goes flying out the window at mach speed. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible...nice try though.

 

[jillian]

In Gospel (something believed to be absolutely and unquestionably true) John 2 we have a account where this was done, and no proof by you or others disputing this. Again, look at the thread title.

So, I can say star wars is gospel truth and then tell you to prove it isn't?

Thanks for the advice re the thread title. Like Grump said... it the question is limited to a yes/no, then the answer is no. But that begs the question of whether it's true becuase it hasn't been proven either.

You do know it's just silly to say something is inerrant because it says it's inerrant. Right?

 

[Gunny]

Just because you have not found something does not meant that it does not exist. http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

End of argument. You lose again, by your own words again.

 

[Dr Grump]

1. It appears that you have a different standard of proof for the tooth fairy than for God.

2. The insult: assuming that you know how I think. I find that deeply offensive.

I have no different standard at all. I have the same standard..:O)

If you find that deeply offensive, you need to grow a thicker skin big time...

As for saying that John in his gospel said what he did as "evidence" and "proof" is, well...laughable

 

[glockmail]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the argument is nonsense. It presupposes that the accounts of what happened, as detailed in Bible, are all 100% accurate and true. If any of the story was embellished, the whole theory about a real resurrection being the only explanation goes flying out the window at mach speed. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible...nice try though.

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

 

[glockmail]

So, I can say star wars is gospel truth and then tell you to prove it isn't?...

My response to you would be strangely similar to the one responding about the tooth fairy, about 2 days ago.

 

[glockmail]

I have no different standard at all. I have the same standard..:O)

If you find that deeply offensive, you need to grow a thicker skin big time...

As for saying that John in his gospel said what he did as "evidence" and "proof" is, well...laughable

Is there a question here?

 

[jillian]

My response to you would be strangely similar to the one responding about the tooth fairy, about 2 days ago.

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

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

You sure you have a science background? That's pretty basic.

There are some pretty basic things we know about Jesus that aren't accurately reflected in the New Testament... We know his name wasn't Jesus, which is Latin. It would have been Yeshua or something similar since he was Jewish and spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

Oh yeah... and he didn't have a last name, Christ (which, I believe, is savior in latin) or otherwise. He'd have been Yeshua ben Yosef, which is Joshua, son of Joseph.