Re: What is your strongest disproof of the Bible?

[minstrelofc]

Well, in that  case, trying to find a disproof for anything which happened in the bible is ultimately futile because all and any miracle that happened can just be attributed to god and his divine power, which obviously cannot be verifiably disproven.

In that case, what is the point of this thread?

The bible describes certain events that may be able to be historically verified or debunked. I'm looking for things like that - ways that things can not have happened the way the Bible says they did - even taking in to account the work of a powerful entity.

Now, while I have biblical reason to believe that God did these miracles, I have no biblical reason to believe that God "covered his tracks" - eliminated the evidence that these things were done. That seems like it would be quite dishonest, and is grounds for some pretty heavy re-evaluation.

In short, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either the Bible is a history textbook with some morals thrown in, or it's in a completely different realm and the text therein cannot be taken literally.

Correct. I'm looking for very strong evidence that it is not a "history textbook with some morals thrown in" that just happens to be written by a powerful, perfect, divine being.

Thanks for the link - I'll take a look.

Like I said before, you don't have the right frame of mind for this type of exercise.

If by "the right frame of mind" you mean "the same perspective, assumptions, and general world view as 'me'", then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
(we could quibble over the other details in your post all day, (and I'm sure it would be great fun for all involved) but they're not relevant to the task at hand - if you would really like to, start a thread called "Translations of Mind Games with 'n' Significant Digits at Relativistic Speeds" or some such, and I'll meet you there)

[Tom62]

It might well be that some myths in the Bible have an element of truth. Take for example the story of the biblical flood. The original story may well be that there was a local flood and a local farmer took the precaution to put his family, his two cows and his two goats on a raft. Since that is a rather interesting event, people started to talk about it. This story then travels by word of mouth and every person in the "chain" adds some more juicy details to the story to make it sound more interesting. After a couple of generations of story telling, the raft turns into a boat, the boat into an ark, the local flood into a global flood, the four animals into all animals of the world, etc. etc.

For me there is nothing left in the Bible that tells the true story of what happened so many centuries ago. Everything written down in the Bible is merely hearsay from religiously inspired people, who heard some rumors about unverifiable events. You can't therefore not read the Bible like a history book, like most fundamental Christians do, because facts show that the Bible contains many "historical" mistakes and even contradicts its own historical "accounts". A very good example of this is the story of Joshua (see: http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html).

Try to reconcile the New Testament story with history and you run into similar confusions.

The traditional year of Jesus' birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to re-date the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.)

[jcm]

The great flood would have needed cloud cover so dense it would have blocked out the sun, thus killing noah and all the animals he was trying to save.

Women are not made out of male bones.

Snakes don’t talk

The earth is not older than our sun

The moon is not a “small sun” that creates light in the same way the sun does.

Rainbows existed before the great flood.

Thou shall not kill yet killing animals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses and people who are deemed “evil” is morally acceptable.

Jesus is Horus 2.0

[oldschooldoc]

The great flood would have needed cloud cover so dense it would have blocked out the sun, thus killing noah and all the animals he was trying to save.

Women are not made out of male bones.

Snakes don’t talk

The earth is not older than our sun

The moon is not a “small sun” that creates light in the same way the sun does.

Rainbows existed before the great flood.

Thou shall not kill yet killing animals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses and people who are deemed “evil” is morally acceptable.

Jesus is Horus 2.0

Wait, wait, don't tell me minstrelofc...these were all metaphors not to be taken literally, am I right?

If that is your answer, please. That's called cherry picking, I'm sure you've heard of it. Are Christians born with a built-in translation device that tells them when something in the bible is a metaphor, and not just fallacy?

[jcm]

Wait, wait, don't tell me minstrelofc...these were all metaphors not to be taken literally, am I right?

only after science says "what? no, the universe really works this way..."

before then, human beings were very comfortable with knowing the sun rotated the earth.

[minstrelofc]

I'll point to (Fooce, C. & Warnick, B. (2007). Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education. 5(3), 357-378.) in which they concluded the Bible cannot be used as a science text (and, by extension, a history text, as both are based on empirical facts; i.e., water boils at 100degC or Napoleon was at the Battle of Waterloo) in any modernist sense, as it was originally compiled as premodern. That is, not to be used as a guidebook on how one should live, but rather a description of one's life at the time of writing, thus placing the "reader" (and I use the term loosely, as literacy was something of a rarity at that time) in the world via the text.

An excellent paper - thank-you again for recommending it. I disagree with it on a couple of small points, (of course) but the greater argument it makes is quite convincing - The process of understanding a "modern" textbook is totally different than the process of understanding a "pre-modern" text. (btw: on a side note, I was quite entertained by their word choice of "pre-modern")

Modernity assumes that textual reference by itself is sufficient to produce
meaning.The premoderns deny this claim and believe there must be something
outside of textual reference, a context, which gives a text meaning. [...] Second,
the insufficiency of the text by itself implies that we cannot separate our texts, our
ways of understanding the world, from the world the texts attempt to describe.

Good stuff

[minstrelofc]

You can't therefore not read the Bible like a history book, like most fundamental Christians do, because facts show that the Bible contains many "historical" mistakes and even contradicts its own historical "accounts". A very good example of this is the story of Joshua (see: http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html).

Try to reconcile the New Testament story with history and you run into similar confusions.

The traditional year of Jesus' birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to re-date the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.)

Tom62: Wonderful! That's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. I've added those to my list - Thanks!

For the curious, the sort of method I'd follow with the above is:
1) Figure out exactly what claims the Bible makes
2) Start with the scholarly accepted times of the events that correspond with those claims
3) If (when) those conflict, start going through each of the accepted times to determine how they were arrived at, etc
4) Dependent on results
5) Profit!

[oldschooldoc]

For the curious, the sort of method I'd follow with the above is:
1) Figure out exactly what claims the Bible makes
2) Start with the scholarly accepted times of the events that correspond with those claims
3) If (when) those conflict, start going through each of the accepted times to determine how they were arrived at, etc
4) Dependent on results
5) Profit!

Profit?! Damn, I need to get in on this...haha

Best of luck with the above, I'm quite anxious to see where this leads you.

[curiosityandthecat]

An excellent paper - thank-you again for recommending it. I disagree with it on a couple of small points, (of course) but the greater argument it makes is quite convincing - The process of understanding a "modern" textbook is totally different than the process of understanding a "pre-modern" text. (btw: on a side note, I was quite entertained by their word choice of "pre-modern")

What about the larger implications this has on how one views the Bible?

[minstrelofc]

Jesus is Horus 2.0

The others are too easily "explainable". This one is interesting... I have a wild suggestion that could explain it, but it's possible that it won't hold up to any scrutiny at all.

Added to my list, thanks.

[PipeBox]

The bible describes certain events that may be able to be historically verified or debunked. I'm looking for things like that - ways that things can not have happened the way the Bible says they did - even taking in to account the work of a powerful entity.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it occurs to me that if God is all powerful, even inconsistencies with the Bible and history could be explained away as him covering up the evidence of his miracles and testing you.  I mean, you've already accepted that he exists, how much easier is it to accept that he might be testing the world because he must?  I mean, you can see the Andromeda Galaxy with your own eyes in the night sky, and its light has been in transit for more than the traditional 6,000 years the earth has existed.  With telescopes we can see light that has been in transit for more than 11.7 billion years.  We can see stars that went nova long before the earth existed.  If God put that light there, 6000 light years from us, what purpose could it possibly serve showing us something that doesn't and never did exist, except to test us by demonstrating a universe at odds with the Bible's description of it?

I don't know if you're a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), but if you are, you're either unaware of the facts or willing to disregard them.  Indeed, if you're willing to see the universe as a test, nothing we say should or will be trusted because you would risk your spot in heaven.  The only way to get rid of the ridiculous assumption that it is a test created by a malevolent version of the Biblical God (ironically still at odds with the description of the God of the Bible) is Occam's Razor.  One doesn't make assumptions unless one can back them up, which is why this thread is rather perverse.  It's the equivalent of you asking us to disprove pink unicorns living on the far side of the moon, when you have no well-reasoned, logical, evidential cause to believe in them.

We did not become atheists by disproving God.  It is impossible, depending on how you view him.  He is in every way isolated from reality so that his existence would be indistinguishable from his absence.  No, we became atheists, or remain atheists, because we haven't been given any evidence for his existence.  We don't believe there are no gods, we haven't been convinced there are any.

I previously believed in the God of the Bible, but I asked myself why I had any reason to and came up empty handed.  If you do the same, you'll find you have no reason.  Give us any supposed proof of God and we'll show you a natural explanation.  I hope this helps you.

[Ihateyoumike]

Are Christians born with a built-in translation device that tells them when something in the bible is a metaphor, and not just fallacy?

Well... actually....

"The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
(John 14:26)
(emphasis mine)

How very perceptive of you to notice

Does this not seem just a little too convenient for you? I mean, you state your arguments very well, but is this not just another case of godidit?

I know for a fact that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I have a picture, which a man made under the instruction of the FSM, which will prove it.


You may now attempt to change my mind. However, you may not dispute my proof (the picture) because I hold this picture to be sacred and holy. It is indisputable proof to me, and you will not change my mind that it is false. Also, if you do not believe that the picture is proof, it is only because the flying spaghetti monster has not taught you how to open your mind to him, and allowed you to view this picture in a way that would prove him to you. His ways are higher than ours, man! You need to allow yourself to be touched by his noodly appendage!

If you have a hard time doing this, you might be able to see why your bible quoting seems just a little too convenient to an atheist.

[suntzu]

minstrelofc,

"The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
(John 14:26)
(emphasis mine)

Looking at the above quote let's consider an external example that the bible is false.  You have God helping you interpret the bible, so do about a billion other Christians.  Yet, none of you a-holes interpret the scriptures the same.  There are a ton of jack-holes just like you who say the the bible is infallible and then can't agree on the infallible interpretation.  Your holy helper is a SUCKS!  If he is going to "teach you all things" maybe he should teach you all the SAME thing!  If your quote came from the bible, then obviously if one other Christian disagrees with you about an interpretation either God is an imperfect teacher or the bible is flawed.  Either way you get to become an atheist now.  Welcome to the club.

Furthermore, as an engineer I have to throw in my two cents about pi.  3 is not 3.14159.....  Your God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent!  If he can raise the dead, turn water into wine, and walk on water the least we can expect is 3 digits of precision for something as crucial as pi.

[McQ]

minstrelofc,

"The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
(John 14:26)
(emphasis mine)

Looking at the above quote let's consider an external example that the bible is false.  You have God helping you interpret the bible, so do about a billion other Christians.  Yet, none of you a-holes interpret the scriptures the same.  There are a ton of jack-holes just like you who say the the bible is infallible and then can't agree on the infallible interpretation.  Your holy helper is a SUCKS!  If he is going to "teach you all things" maybe he should teach you all the SAME thing!  If your quote came from the bible, then obviously if one other Christian disagrees with you about an interpretation either God is an imperfect teacher or the bible is flawed.  Either way you get to become an atheist now.  Welcome to the club.

Furthermore, as an engineer I have to throw in my two cents about pi.  3 is not 3.14159.....  Your God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent!  If he can raise the dead, turn water into wine, and walk on water the least we can expect is 3 digits of precision for something as crucial as pi.

This is a reminder that this forum does not tolerate personal attacks on other members. Argue your points, please, and leave the name calling out of it.

[curiosityandthecat]

Well, gee, suntzu, tell us how you really feel.