Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[Gunny]

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

Of course human beings wrote the Bible. However, your presumption that it is inaccurate/incorrect simply because human beings wrote it is nothing more than that .... presumption.

 

[8236]

Of course human beings wrote the Bible. However, your presumption that it is inaccurate/incorrect simply because human beings wrote it is nothing more than that .... presumption.

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.

 

[no1tovote4]

My point is:
1) There are quite a few things in the bible that are easily provable (IMO), such as people, countries existing etc.
2) There are huge tracts of the bible that are unprovable, especially when it comes to the actions of Christ.

The other thing is the spirit with which this thread was started. Was it started to say
1) There is nothing in the bible that can be proven wrong and that is it. IOW, yeah, that's true. You can say that about a lot of historical books that were written centuries ago. I spoke to an English guy quite a few years ago who taught English in Spain. Part of English history is that Spanish Armada was destroyed by Sir Francis Drake and a storm in 1588. He said when he was in Spain, according to them the Armada never sailed.
2) Or, was it started to say that nothing in the bible can be proven wrong therefore everything in it is correct.

If it is the former, this thread need only be one post long because of course nothing in the bible can be proven wrong, King Soloman's Temple or not.

The original question didn't say has all of the Bible been proven incorrect, it asked if any of the Bible had been proven incorrect. There are portions that could be proven incorrect if one searched for that type of evidence.

I have yet to say that means it is true, it was simply the question of the thread. So far all we seem to get from people who don't want it to be true is excuses...

 

[Dr Grump]

The original question didn't say has all of the Bible been proven incorrect, it asked if any of the Bible had been proven incorrect. There are portions that could be proven incorrect if one searched for that type of evidence.

I have yet to say that means it is true, it was simply the question of the thread. So far all we seem to get from people who don't want it to be true is excuses...

What was the spirit in which the thread was started? You answer that, then you'll get as to why, or why not, people have answered the way they have...

 

[Annie]

What was the spirit in which the thread was started? You answer that, then you'll get as to why, or why not, people have answered on this thread...

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

 

[Dr Grump]

Why should we have to guess at the 'spirit' of the thread starter, ultimately decided by you?

You don't. I am not deciding anything. I have decided to base my posts on what I think the person was saying. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, maybe I'm not. I don't know until the person who started the thread gives an answer. Going by previous threads both on this and other messageboards I've been on, these types of threads sometimes are to be taken literally, sometimes not. With this one I don't know...

Why not just the question?

See above. Could be. But IMO, if that is the case only one answer needed posting being, "no"...

 

[Dr Grump]

The original question didn't say has all of the Bible been proven incorrect, it asked if any of the Bible had been proven incorrect..

Where is the word "any" in the thread header, or "all" for that matter....

 

[no1tovote4]

Where is the word "any" in the thread header, or "all" for that matter....

The word "ever" is a clear implication towards "any" rather than "all"...

The question is clear. Then if you read the post it talks about all the parts, and whether any of them had been proven false. This is just one more of the excuses we have heard throughout...

 

[mattskramer]

It happens often where a term is used on one generation to mean "a" and in the next it means "b". For example, in the book AA, it talks about a group of stockbrokers who are gay. Guess what, they aint homosexuals. Does that make the description inaccurate?

Also, it seems as though what they considered a year could have been the moons cycle, since many in the Bible lived like 900 years or so.

I really feel sorry for all you Bible haters, what a terribly awful life you must lead.

If God wrote the Bible, and by definition, God is perfect, then it follows that the Bible is perfectly accurate. If man wrote it, then the Bible may have flaws. I like my life just fine. I’m not a Bible hater. I simply do not believe that every sentence of the Bible states the truth. Even though some people supposedly lived to be 900 years old, the Bible apologists still have to account for at least several million years. According to modern science, the earth is several billion years old. According to the Bible it is, at most, less than one million years old.

 

[mattskramer]

As I stated previously, the measurement of time as we know it is a product of Man's intellect. Our current process of measuring time is actually not that old.

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html

The argument that an omnipotent being is bound by Man's later measurement of time is nonsensical, IMO.

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.

 

[no1tovote4]

If God wrote the Bible, and by definition, God is perfect, then it follows that the Bible is perfectly accurate. If man wrote it, then the Bible may have flaws. I like my life just fine. I’m not a Bible hater. I simply do not believe that every sentence of the Bible states the truth. Even though some people supposedly lived to be 900 years old, the Bible apologists still have to account for at least several million years. According to modern science, the earth is several billion years old. According to the Bible it is, at most, less than one million years old.

Once again, they have nothing truly to account for. Your description here doesn't account for the power of their Deity in that book. Such a Power could easily take seven days to spend Billions of years...

Simply speeding up the effects of time on a planet to create life would be nothing to such a being. Evolution could, in such a manner, be used to form that creation... Pretending that this hasn't already been mentioned must mean you have no real answer to it. That is because you cannot. One doesn't simply negate the other... Clearly.

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

Once again could an Omnipotent Being speed up the effects of time so that it would appear that Billions of years passed in a manner of hours? My take on "omnipotent" would make it clear that such a Being could easily do something like that. 24 hours? Don't be so obtuse!

 

[mattskramer]

Finally! Some meat! Something other than "yeah-huh" and "nuh-uh."

The premise of the thread is: DISprove these events. Can anyone prove that they DID NOT happen? There is evidence to support the idea of a global flood. Fossils at the tops of mountains, features like the Grand Canyon which had to have been formed by vast quantities of water breaking through a barrier, polystrate fossils, indicating rapid deposition of rock strata... all these features can be found all over the world.

It would not have been necessary for mutations to have occurred for all the different people groups to have arisen. Simple isolation and inbreeding will take care of that.

Oops! Gotta go...

So let me get this straight. Adam and his family was not the first family. There were others so that Cain could have children without committing incest. They supposedly communicated in the same language. I still don’t understand how these other people fit into the story of man except for Bible apologists to fill in the gap. Perhaps we did not all come from Adam. Can you tell me more about this other “first” family? Did it live outside of the garden?

Anyway, now you have the great flood. Have we returned to incest again? I thought that God opposed incest? Isn’t it a sin? Otherwise, how did Noah’s children produce offspring?

Anyway, we then come to the tower of Babel. Mankind decides to build a tall tower to the heavens. (Does heaven reside as a city in the clouds? If so, why haven’t our satellites bumped into heaven yet?) Okay. God gets angry. Intend of throwing down a lightning bolt, as Zeus would have done, or create an earthquake, he makes people speak in different languages. (Just as Robert Tilton used to try to do in his old religious TV show. It was a funny show to watch.) Couldn’t these people, who now speak different languages, have used their hands to make signs and drawn in the sand in order communicate the building instructions and continue the construction.

Anyway. These people who now have different languages went their separate ways, continuing to in-bread, and that is how we have different nationalities and languages. But wait. This may all be another fable – not to be taken literally. Oh well. Perhaps Greek mythology has a better explanation.

 

[mattskramer]

Once again could an Omnipotent Being speed up the effects of time so that it would appear that Billions of years passed in a manner of hours? My take on "omnipotent" would make it clear that such a Being could easily do something like that. 24 hours? Don't be so obtuse!

Okay. I think that I begin to see your point. He could have caused the creationism to move quickly to the point at which man was created. Therefore, according to modern scientific tools, it may look like the earth is very old when it is not really very old. That could account for the word “day” in the Bible.

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay. I think that I begin to see your point. He could have caused the creationism to move quickly to the point at which man was created. Therefore, according to modern scientific tools, it may look like the earth is very old when it is not really very old. That could account for the word “day” in the Bible.

Correct. Such a Being could do that... Finding evidence of age wouldn't necessarily mean that because of the timeframe of Creation that story was "proven" untrue...

 

[Dr Grump]

The word "ever" is a clear implication towards "any" rather than "all".

Really? What makes you think that? Could be either/or IMO...

The question is clear. Then if you read the post it talks about all the parts, and whether any of them had been proven false. This is just one more of the excuses we have heard throughout...

Excuses for what? I don't see any "excuses" for anything...

 

[Dr Grump]

Once again, they have nothing truly to account for. Your description here doesn't account for the power of their Deity in that book. Such a Power could easily take seven days to spend Billions of years...

Simply speeding up the effects of time on a planet to create life would be nothing to such a being. Evolution could, in such a manner, be used to form that creation.

Then why not state that was what was done?

 

[no1tovote4]

Then why not state that was what was done?

It pretty much is allegorical. "Let there be light" could easily have begun the Big Bang. Etc.

Why? Because those writing it wrote in terms they understood...

This is easy, even for somebody who doesn't believe in it. If you were being honest with yourself you too would see it. This is not the story to supposedly find fault...

 

[no1tovote4]

Really? What makes you think that? Could be either/or IMO...



Excuses for what? I don't see any "excuses" for anything...

Excuses for the fact that you cannot yet point to one "error". That was all that was asked for. Misdirection and excuses... It's silly many people have spent a very long time attempting to "prove" the foolishness of those who beliieve, yet we have yet to see one... This is plain sad.

 

[no1tovote4]

Really? What makes you think that? Could be either/or IMO...



Excuses for what? I don't see any "excuses" for anything...

What makes me say that? Because if one thing were proven wrong than the answer to the question would be "yes". That is why. This isn't rocket science bub. Answer the question if you can instead of seeking more excuses...