Can the Bible be proved wrong? (page 6)

wobble

Dear The Quiet One,

The journey you are embarking on sounds much like mine, I was born-in, and stayed in for 58 years.

When I left I decided to read the Bible without Watchtower goggles on. I then decided to really look at the bible's claim of inspiration. I was also looking at alternative faith systems/religions etc.

I think this is not a bad way of slowly educating yourself, but if you want to cut out a lot of research and time, start at the beginning.

Decide what sort of person you want to be in life, do you wish to remain a deluded/duped person who believes in something because men tell you it is so?

Then O.K, go away and believe in the Tooth Fary, Santa Claus, whatever you wish to believe in.

I decided I would only put my trust in things that could be proven, and proven in a rationalistic and forensic way.

If you decide that life would be better that way, and I think it is, then start by proving the existence of God, when you have done that ,come back here and give us the proof.

Or if you do not find any evidence, move on in life, leaving bibles and religious mumbo-jumbo behind.

Good Luck !

trevor

The Bible as we know it is a collection of hearsay, visions and offerings from many different people. There are thousands of other letters and documents that could have been included but weren’t. What has been included could have jus as easily been omitted.

It has been edited and altered to a point where it contains less substance than Dan Brown’s Davinci Code novel. What we have is a dubious book that is so contradictory and unscientific, that even most Christians have had to declare it to be the work of men and not their god, to avoid appearing ridiculous.

We really do need to go back to the drawing board and start again. This is just a wild hunch but I am inclined to take the findings of 21 st century scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and engineers, more seriously than the ramblings of shepherds, fishermen and wanderers from 2000 years ago.

PSacramento

Yeah I'm kind of going out on a limb here and assuming that the ages recorded in the bible aren't 500 million years or so off.

Actually, you are going off on a limb that the writers actually recorded those lineages, geneologies, ages and events in a chronological order and that it applied to MANKIND and not JUST the Hebrew people and there is n o reason to believe that at all.

The bible may be many things but it is NOT a science book nor is it a record of human civilization or Mankind in General.

You will not find views or info on any other race of people UNLESS those people have direct contact with the Hebrews.

No mention of Australia, the Russian steps, the Icelandic tribes, the Chinese civilization, Europe ( In the OT), and N. and S. America.

I am just saying that, like every other ancient writers, the writers of the OT were products of their time and their writings must be viewed as such.

Can the bible be proven wrong?

Of course it can, in specififcs, pretty much like any other book from its time.

The thing is that the bible is not a linerar teling of the history of the world, it is a story of a people and of God's dealings with those people and the only way to prove the bible wrong in THAT regard is to prove that God never dealt with them, at all.

And as we know, trying to prove a negative is a waste of time.

sir82

we have the period of 2200 BC for a flood in the area of where Noah lived, Mesepotamia.

Yeah but the Bible doesn't say "the area where Noah lived".

It says "the whole earth was covered".

Surely the God of the universe could inspire his writers to write what really happened, couldn't he?

Why go into detail about how "all flesh under heaven expired" and "the tops of all the mountains were covered" if it was a local flood?

Why inspire someone to write as if it were a global flood, when it was local? Why inspire someone to write something that can so easily be misunderstood, and then when science advances enough, be debunked?

It's not particularly less terrifying if it were a local flood. The point is still made - obey God or he'll kill you. Whether everyone on the whole earth perished, or whether everyone in an area of a few hundred square miles perished, the point is the same. So why embellish it?

Lore

Yeah I'm kind of going out on a limb here and assuming that the ages recorded in the bible aren't 500 million years or so off. Actually, you are going off on a limb that the writers actually recorded those lineages, geneologies, ages and events in a chronological order and that it applied to MANKIND and not JUST the Hebrew people and there is n o reason to believe that at all.

No actually that doesn't really matter at ALL since there was never a global flood in the entire history of the human race (of which the Hebrews are a part) Because no matter which era of people you want to twist it into talking about, it didn't happen to them.

So it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference if the bible was written in chronological order or if it was written by a dyslexic imbecile who thinks 'son of' means 'distant relative maybe' - The fact is: no global flood = bible wrong

PSacramento

We've kind of gone over the "whole earth" thing a few times and we don't knwo if the author was being literal and concret about it ( which I doubt since the bible doesn't speak of the whole planet Earth that much) or being literal in the sense of " It's so hot my skin is literally on fire" or just writing the way ancient man wrote " Alexander ruled the world", or " the Roman empire ruled the world".

Look, the flood account boils down to whether an individual chooses to view ALL of Genesis as literal AND concrete or just a story in which the authour quite typically, takes some "artistic liberties" with the story telling, which is typical for that writing period.

Mad Sweeney

I was born-in, and stayed in for 58 years.

Damn. I don't feel so bad about my 40+ now. More power to you, wobble.

Lore

I'm pretty sure I mentioned early on that:

Of course it can be proven wrong. Unless you are able to take everything it says as symbolic.

So if you are willing to say that the creation account is symbolic,

The flood account is symbolic,

The ages and geneologies are symbolic,

Every refference to anything involving the entire earth is symbolic

The 7 year famine was symbolic

The sun standing still was symbolic

The earth having corners is symbolic

The world ending soon is symbolic

The power of prayer is symbolic,

Anything that would leave behind any evidence is symbolic,

If everything it says is symbolic then bible can't be wrong about anything. But then the claim that 'the bible has never been proven wrong' loses all meaning.

It's like saying the Spider Man comics have never been proven wrong, as long as you view certain parts of it as symbolic.

jgnat

The bible, not to be short-changed, records the ebb and flow of the faith of a people. It has history, rich symbolism, stories, poetry, codified laws, exotic prophecies, and letters. It is beautiful.

Trying to declare the bible divine, infallible, and "scientifically accurate" in all respects is the path to insanity. It degrades God and the bible, too. To defend it so is to ignore the best discoveries of our day.

My "aha" moment came to me when gazing at the stars. Red-shift allows us to calculate really how far these stars are from us, and how fast they are moving away. To even see the light of these stars means our earth is millions of years old. Because it takes so many known years for the light itself to get here.

To try and reconcile the bible chronology would mean that God created the stars and the intervening light at the same time.

On a road trip this week, I marvelled at the shifting topography. The rich geological story, missed by the bible, includes several ice ages which planed and reshaped our planet. Passing through sandy hills, I realized I was passing the shores of an ancient sea.

Again, trying to reconcile the bible to new evidence is doomed to failure. How much more rich to value what we see.

Mad Sweeney

The bible, not to be short-changed, records the ebb and flow of the faith of a people

Except it is less of a recording than a revised re-hashing. The OT was compiled ex post facto during and after the Babylonian exile. The NT was compiled ex post facto in the third century. We have no first hand recordings at all, so even from that viewpoint it is flawed.

Can the Bible be proved wrong?

Share this