Can you prove the Bible has fallacies?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RCN

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2005
2,134
0
0
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
You can find more here:

Um, a lot of those are really taken out of context....

Um, I said not all are real contradictions and for the most part they are not taken out of context.


Use my first example....explain the two deaths....
 

RCN

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2005
2,134
0
0
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Is it perfect, or fallible? Discuss.

Edit - The thread title is asking how you as an individual came to the conclusion that the Bible is not what it claims to be. I am not asking for people to disprove it for me.


As to the edit.......because I have read it many many times...
 

Minjin

Platinum Member
Jan 18, 2003
2,208
1
81
Here's an essay thats worth a read:

Text

Seem familiar? ;)

As for the question at hand, I think a more interesting question would be: If it WAS absolutely, conclusively disproven, would you still believe...would you still have faith?

Mark

 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: RCN
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
You can find more here:

Um, a lot of those are really taken out of context....

Um, I said not all are real contradictions and for the most part they are not taken out of context.


Use my first example....explain the two deaths....

2 Samuel 23:8 (King James Version)

These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

This verse is referring to Adino the Eznite who slew eight hundred men.

1 Chronicles 11:11 (King James Version)

And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

This verse refers to Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, who slew three hundred men.

Two different people; two different numbers.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?


Starting the Foundation
Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is derived from the Greek word ?apologia,? which means ?to defend.? The entire Clarifying Christianity site is filled with apologetics?proofs and explanations for many Christian-related issues. The focus of this page is the proof supporting the accuracy of the Bible. After all, if the Bible is not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a ?blind faith??something people believe without any evidence to support it.

However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common, there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity ?because it feels right? (or use wording like that). This is unfortunate, since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. The existence of all that evidence is one reason we started this site. We want people to learn about the solid evidence that supports their faith, and have a place that collected that evidence so they can show it to others.

By the way, if you would like some reference materials that are a little more portable than a computer with an Internet connection, a book we recommend is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. This book is available in larger bookstores and most Christian bookstores. Also, the Tucson Community Church recorded a seminar called ?Knowing The Facts Behind The Faith.? It is available on DVD and VHS video (NTSC format). If you are interested in purchasing a copy, you can get one directly from the church that produces them at the Tucson Community Church website. They also handle international orders.

The Proof of Science
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Enough that we have a separate page to discuss this proof alone. If you would like to see our science page, click on this sentence.

The Proof of Prophecy
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called ?prophecies.? The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God?s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other ?sacred writing? has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

One Type?The Messianic Prophecies
Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an ?anointed one? (?Messiah? in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred?a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible?s writers were inspired supernaturally?by God. To examine these prophecies yourself, click on the link below.

The Messianic Prophecies

A Second Type?Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations
There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah?s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God?s prophet and continue their bad behavior?later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.

Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.) Although an entire web site could be filled with this information, we will provide one example?the foretelling of the destruction of Edom and its capital city of Petra.

Click here for an example of fulfilled prophecy dealing with nations

The Proof of Textual Evidence
Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the ?library? of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today?s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).

Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)

Note: Those minor differences that do exist between the Old and New Testament manuscripts are interesting for academic reasons. They are the topic of a future ?in depth? Clarifying Christianity page. (It is currently about 10,000 words long and still under construction?stay tuned.)

The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this ?sect.? None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the ?book? we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus? miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as ?fairy tales.?

The Proof of Historians
Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:

?Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works?a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.?

In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called ?Christus,? which means ?The Messiah?) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

?Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.?

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Many others have stated the facts.
To add to the list.

It's been translated from one language to another then to another etc. Translations are not perfect.
Over time, the same language changes and some words gain new meanings. Even if the translations were perfect, english now is different from what It was then.

At the very least, it's different from when it was originally written.
It's also being interpred differently from when it was first translated into English.
Contradictions have been posted before. I do not know any off the top of my head.
If something contradicts itself, then it's impossible for it to be 100% true/right.
Lots of the stuff that they talk about does not make sense, (Example, the earth is 6000 years old according to the bible? hahaha very funny)

I honestly do believe the bible exists to teach through symbolism and metaphors. I just do not see how ANYONE could interpret as literal fact, as so much of it seems te defy logic and science.

I myself would like to see some contradictions. Like you said, if the Bible contradicts itself it can't be 100% correct and therefore would disprove God's existance as he claims to be perfect.

How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
Originally posted by: everman
I'm trading a slice of pie for a lawnchair, I have french silk, apple, lemon, and pecan.


I'll take that trade!

French Silk, please.
 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Is it perfect, or fallible? Discuss.

Edit - The thread title is asking how you as an individual came to the conclusion that the Bible is not what it claims to be. I am not asking for people to disprove it for me.

EatSpam
Considering it was written by men and there's no evidence that it was produced directly or indirectly by a diety.....


Therefore anything written by a man could be a lie. Give it enough time and the conspiracy theory people will thrive. In 4000 years or so, if the world is still around, you think they will believe what happened in the world in the last couple years. I highly doubt it, doesn't matter how much picture or video we have. By then it would be easy to duplicate the proof we have. Most likely it will have been re-written a little here and there. The line of fact and fiction will be blurred.

People don't like the past especially if it conflicts with them. Unless they can manipulate it to their favor. That argument works for and against religion.
 

dnuggett

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
6,703
0
76
Originally posted by: Minjin
Here's an essay thats worth a read:

Text

Seem familiar? ;)

As for the question at hand, I think a more interesting question would be: If it WAS absolutely, conclusively disproven, would you still believe...would you still have faith?

Mark

And vice versa if it were absolutely conclusively proven, would you then believe?

 

astrocase

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2005
1,377
0
0
It's just a book. Who cares. You either have faith in it or you don't. There's no proving required. Those that aren't religous just laugh at it and those that are just believe it.
 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
RCN
Um, I said not all are real contradictions and for the most part they are not taken out of context.

Use my first example....explain the two deaths....

What two deaths? I really don't know about this one.

 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: DAGTA
How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.

1 Peter 1:23 (King James Version)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.


in·cor·rupt·i·ble (nk-rpt-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being morally corrupted.
2. Not subject to corruption or decay.

pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est

1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: ?A memory without blot or contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment? (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: ?I felt pure and sweet as a new baby? (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics. Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music. Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics. Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy. Free of empirical elements: pure reason.
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
God gave humans the freedom to choose their own actions. As such, if a human (or group of humans) chooses to alter the Bible, I do not believe that in any way proves God does not exist.
 

dnuggett

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
6,703
0
76
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DAGTA
How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.

1 Peter 1:23 (King James Version)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.


in·cor·rupt·i·ble (nk-rpt-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being morally corrupted.
2. Not subject to corruption or decay.

pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est

1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: ?A memory without blot or contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment? (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: ?I felt pure and sweet as a new baby? (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics. Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music. Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics. Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy. Free of empirical elements: pure reason.


All that, yet still no point to your post? You can do better than that can't you?

 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DAGTA
How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RapidSnail
1 Peter 1:23 (King James Version)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.


in·cor·rupt·i·ble (nk-rpt-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being morally corrupted.
2. Not subject to corruption or decay.

pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est

1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: ?A memory without blot or contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment? (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: ?I felt pure and sweet as a new baby? (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics. Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music. Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics. Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy. Free of empirical elements: pure reason.

I agree with the point by RapidSnail, also there is a disclaimer in the last words of the bible that says some very very un-nice things will happen to the persons who change the meaning of the bible.
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DAGTA
How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.

1 Peter 1:23 (King James Version)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.


in·cor·rupt·i·ble (nk-rpt-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being morally corrupted.
2. Not subject to corruption or decay.

pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est

1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: ?A memory without blot or contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment? (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: ?I felt pure and sweet as a new baby? (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics. Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music. Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics. Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy. Free of empirical elements: pure reason.


All that, yet still no point to your post? You can do better than that can't you?

I'm not sure what you're saying.
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
I agree with the point by RapidSnail, also there is a disclaimer in the last words of the bible that says some very very un-nice things will happen to the persons who change the meaning of the bible.

You're right.

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.