Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

.....

"Liar, liar, pants on fire!" AWESOME!

......

When an atheist claims that God spoke to him, it is an obvious lie.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not sure trilingual means what you think it means, and I'm curious to find out, as you seem to still be avoiding the discussion by dropping unfounded accusations.

Trilingual: Able to talk out both sides of the mouth and ass simultaneously.

I'm not avoiding anything...you told me I should presume that God exists. That's not a presumption that I will make so that you can claim parts of the Bible are God's word.

 

[MissileMan]

That's been obvious for a long time, but I must say, as we are over 300 posts he may be setting some kind of record. The real question is: why? The only conclusion I can draw is that he must have some kind of psychological problem with this issue. But then that belies another question: why? Maybe he was boned by a gay priest?

That's bold talk for a "virtual transvestite".

 

[MissileMan]

When an atheist claims that God spoke to him, it is an obvious lie.

No more or less so than when a Christian claims the same.

 

[glockmail]

That's bold talk for a "virtual transvestite".

No more or less so than when a Christian claims the same.

1. You'll have to back that one up, because how I see it, you and others merely made some incorrect assumptions, and I gleefully let you stray.

2. Not quite, as the former is an obvious break in logic, while the latter is not.

 

[MissileMan]

2. Not quite, as the former is an obvious break in logic, while the latter is not.

Are you saying that you have to believe in God in order for him to be real enough to speak to you?

 

[glockmail]

Are you saying that you have to believe in God in order for him to be real enough to speak to you?

All I did was point out the obvious: if you say you don't believe in God, all the while claiming that He spoke to you, then you are obviously a liar. You should therefore admit that what you said was false. You can always use the excuse that you were making an obvious contradiction; that would be believable.

 

[MissileMan]

All I did was point out the obvious: if you say you don't believe in God, all the while claiming that He spoke to you, then you are obviously a liar. You should therefore admit that what you said was false. You can always use the excuse that you were making an obvious contradiction; that would be believable.

Of course I was being sarcastic, but can't you see how arbitrary the standard is? If I now claimed to believe in God and made the same statement would it really be more plausible?

 

[glockmail]

Of course I was being sarcastic, but can't you see how arbitrary the standard is? If I now claimed to believe in God and made the same statement would it really be more plausible?

If you truly believed than it would be more plausible. If you had a witness to your conversation (as I have had) then it would be beyond reproach. What is totally illegitimate is someone claiming to believe simply to bolster their argument, which is essentially what you have done. This tells me that you have a very weak argument and are more intent on digging your heels in then opening your mind.

You “free thinkers” claim to have open minds, but it is obvious that the opposite is true.

 

[MissileMan]

If you had a witness to your conversation (as I have had) then it would be beyond reproach.

Explain this comment please...are you saying you and a witness shared a conversation with God, or that you had one?

I made the statement to illustrate that making an unproveable claim follwed by a challenge to prove it untrue accomplishes nothing. My statement and challenge was no weaker an argument than the one I was responding to.

 

[glockmail]

Explain this comment please...are you saying you and a witness shared a conversation with God, or that you had one?

I made the statement to illustrate that making an unproveable claim follwed by a challenge to prove it untrue accomplishes nothing. My statement and challenge was no weaker an argument than the one I was responding to.

1. He spoke to me very clearly while I was meditating after communion. Then, my son tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he had seen the image of a cross come through the ceiling and into my head.
2. Your premise is that the thread topic argument is weak. However it is an open test that has been challenged for thousands of years and no one has been able to defeat it. This is clear evidence that the premise of the thread topic is very, very strong.

 

[MissileMan]

1. He spoke to me very clearly while I was meditating after communion. Then, my son tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he had seen the image of a cross come through the ceiling and into my head.
2. Your premise is that the thread topic argument is weak. However it is an open test that has been challenged for thousands of years and no one has been able to defeat it. This is clear evidence that the premise of the thread topic is very, very strong.

I concede that the Bible has never been proven wrong. I'll add, so what? It's never been proven to be 100% true either. If it had been, there wouldn't be many Muslims, or Hindus, or Bhuddists, or atheists. If it had been, there wouldn't be any need for faith. Your argument in this thread has been specious since the first post.

 

[glockmail]

I concede that the Bible has never been proven wrong. I'll add, so what? It's never been proven to be 100% true either. If it had been, there wouldn't be many Muslims, or Hindus, or Bhuddists, or atheists. If it had been, there wouldn't be any need for faith. Your argument in this thread has been specious since the first post.

If it has never been proven false, then how can it not be true?

1. Islam was created by a power hungry guy who hated Jews and Christians. It is full of contradictions and the Koran is easily proven false. We've gone over that in another thread.
2. Hinduism and Buddhism were created in far away countries before communications. Happenings in the Holy Land were like happenings on Mars. They developed their own thing and there is too much invested to change. They are basically non-violent and non evangelical so there is no impetus for others to learn about them.
3. Atheists are a small minority. In any given population there are zealots on either extreme.

Faith means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For some it is blind, for me it is a road map to study and rational thought. The more I study the more my knowledge of God, my Faith, grows.

 

[MissileMan]

2. Hinduism and Buddhism were created in far away countries before communications.

If the Bible is to be believed, they were created by direct descendents of Noah within a handful of generations. Is there even a slight resemblence between Judaeism and Hinduism or Bhuddism?

 

[glockmail]

If the Bible is to be believed, they were created by direct descendents of Noah within a handful of generations. Is there even a slight resemblence between Judaeism and Hinduism or Bhuddism?

Where is that stated?

 

[MissileMan]

Where is that stated?

You're kidding, right? Weren't the handful of humans on the Ark the only ones left alive after the great flood...according to the Bible?

 

[glockmail]

You're kidding, right? Weren't the handful of humans on the Ark the only ones left alive after the great flood...according to the Bible?

Who's to say the great flood was only in a small area, confined to the small area of the world that God chose His people? Remember that in Genesis 1 He made humans, and in Gen 2 He then made Adam and Eve.

That's a more plausible explanation than a world-wide event, and could have been done by raising levels in one small area, very high, requiring only a small lowering on the much larger remainder of the earth.

 

[MissileMan]

Who's to say the great flood was only in a small area, confined to the small area of the world that God chose His people? Remember that in Genesis 1 He made humans, and in Gen 2 He then made Adam and Eve.

That's a more plausible explanation than a world-wide event, and could have been done by raising levels in one small area, very high, requiring only a small lowering on the much larger remainder of the earth.

Genesis 6:13
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

efited to add:
Genesis 7:21
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.


Is everything in the Bible 100% true or not?

 

[glockmail]

Genesis 6:13
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

efited to add:
Genesis 7:21
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.


Is everything in the Bible 100% true or not?

Evidently He was speaking in superlatives, as the Earth was not destroyed. Perhaps He was referring to all mankind in a particular place. In any event, much of Genesis is a parable and not to be taken literally. But of course, we have gone over this before. So yes, everthing in the Bible is 100% true, when looked at with an open mind and in the right context.

 

[MissileMan]

Evidently He was speaking in superlatives, as the Earth was not destroyed. Perhaps He was referring to all mankind in a particular place. In any event, much of Genesis is a parable and not to be taken literally. But of course, we have gone over this before. So yes, everthing in the Bible is 100% true, when looked at with an open mind and in the right context.

Did you write that with a straight face? That's one of the lousiest excuses for an answer I've ever read. I expected no less though...when push came to shove I knew you'd puss out with some lame bullshit like this.