Confirmed Errors in the Bible.

[Soundbear]

Too Many Daves has said there are lots.

Who knows some??

[GenX]

The earth is older than 5,000 years.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Don't remember saying that (long day), but happy to believe I did. Off the top of my head:

The whole Noah affair.

[GenX]

What, I've seen it rain cats and dogs here.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

In any case it is not so much the confirmed errors as the unconfirmed "facts" I'm worried about.

What conclusively confirmed facts are there in the bible?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What, I've seen it rain cats and dogs here. </div></div>

I must have misread that bit, don't remember God sending a flood of furries.

[GenX]

Read your bible, you heathen!

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Barry, do you mean errors as in typos, mistranslations etc?

For example (cut and paste job):

Bible Errors and Contradictions - P. Wesley Edwards
(updated 1-Sept-2004)

Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph m****cripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


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

1 See C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1995), which is an extensive compilation of scripture problems.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Or do you mean claims the bible has made which have later been proven to be balls?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read your bible, you heathen! </div></div>

Next time I'm in a hotel, I promise.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any case it is not so much the confirmed errors as the unconfirmed "facts" I'm worried about.

What conclusively confirmed facts are there in the bible? </div></div>


And on that note we'll call this thread a wrap!

Thanks for all who participated.


(Barry, in his zeal, created a thread that was chalked full of potential problems from the start)

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any case it is not so much the confirmed errors as the unconfirmed "facts" I'm worried about.

What conclusively confirmed facts are there in the bible? </div></div>

A classic case of moving the goal posts. You made a statement. Back it up!!

In the meantime, a quick look. Check this out:

http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/Bible/BibHistAccurate1.htm

"Critics have claimed that the Bible contains all kinds of factual errors. Is the Bible trustworthy when it speaks of historical matters?"

[Madmax]

The bibkle contradicts itself in many parts of it, making it hard to beleive any or all of it as being truth of god. Mankind has made up things as it goes along to suit its own needs or desires. To preach what they think is right and wrong instead of the true.

The main error of the bible is the lack of truth it represents as many believe it was interperted improperly or made to do so to those churchs that wish to onyl preach what they want and make millions believe that there was is the only way, so what about the truth no one may never know 100% what is true and what is not. Therefore beleive in what you wish to beleive in and not beleive what is not proven.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Can you point me to my statement, so I can see the context?

Also if you responded to my question asking you to clarify, it would be easier to debate.

[GenX]

Barry, did people really live to be 835-years-old 4,000 years ago?

[Soundbear]

"...but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals..."

Yup, what I thought. Mis-statements galore, misleading and inaccurate.

[Madmax]

835 years old.. wow

[Return of Too Many Daves]

What?

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals..."

Yup, what I thought. Mis-statements galore, misleading and inaccurate.</div></div>

Improper translation = errors.

[GenX]

From Barry's link: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible contains two kinds of information. Some of it can be checked; some of it cannot. </div></div>

And therein lies the reason this thread will resemble the proverbial dog chasing his tail.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">835 years old.. wow

</div></div>Noah lived to be a spry 950!

[Madmax]

Chasing his tail almost sounds like the bible in a circle as if you read it from front to back you have to start all over again to read it all over again and again and again.. for what purpose?, well lets see the bible contradicts itself many times over and the church's of today have their own beliefs.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">835 years old.. wow

</div></div>Noah lived to be a spry 950! </div></div>

950 years old, how many kids and great grand kids and great great grand kids does he have?

Maybe were related to him.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">835 years old.. wow

</div></div>Noah lived to be a spry 950! </div></div>

950 years old, how many kids and great grand kids and great great grand kids does he have?

Maybe were related to him.

</div></div>

Well of course we're related!

Duh!!!

[Return of Too Many Daves]

What put this bee in Barry's bonnet today anyway? If I said that in the first place I certainly don't think it was today. I don't disbelieve I said it, but it seems a bit random.

[Madmax]

Hell no, i do not want to be related to a arrogant parrot or believe that i am.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

In Europe I read you are on average 7th cousins with the next guy on the street. Maybe balls though.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hell no, i do not want to be related to a arrogant parrot or believe that i am. </div></div>


You and I are so close it's a surprise we don't have an umbilical cord still connecting us!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Europe I read you are on average 7th cousins with the next guy on the street. Maybe balls though. </div></div>

In Wawa it's not unusual to be first cousins with your wife.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hell no, i do not want to be related to a arrogant parrot or believe that i am. </div></div>


You and I are so close it's a surprise we don't have an umbilical cord still connecting us!! </div></div>

Nah man never are we close and never will be ever be close.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Europe I read you are on average 7th cousins with the next guy on the street. Maybe balls though. </div></div>

In Wawa it's not unusual to be first cousins with your wife.</div></div>

Or your sister.

[GenX]

I've heard.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hell no, i do not want to be related to a arrogant parrot or believe that i am. </div></div>


You and I are so close it's a surprise we don't have an umbilical cord still connecting us!! </div></div>

Nah man never are we close and never will be ever be close.

</div></div>

Oh, we are close...

[Madmax]

Nah man, your not even related to my dog.


Then again my cat likes parrots.

[GenX]

How does it feel to send a "Mother's Day" card and "Happy Birthday, Sister" card to the same person?

Saves money, eh?

[Madmax]

Yes and while they are at it, they may as well send one to there sisters, sisters, cousins, mother... they never been with YET.... lol.... YET.

[GenX]

Errrr....

[Madmax]

Gotta love Wawa, it is quiet.

[GenX]

Quite what?

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite what? </div></div>

Umm typo is all, fixed now.

I forgot you Americans can't read beyond proper words... lol

[GenX]

Ahhhh....;)

[Madmax]

I guess you like that?

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What put this bee in Barry's bonnet today anyway? If I said that in the first place I certainly don't think it was today. I don't disbelieve I said it, but it seems a bit random. </div></div>


"..or however much evidence that there is that the bible is wrong." Too Many Daves

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

(Barry, in his zeal, created a thread that was chalked full of potential problems from the start) </div></div>

You would almost think that a catholic might help to defend the book his church is based on.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

(Barry, in his zeal, created a thread that was chalked full of potential problems from the start) </div></div>

You would almost think that a catholic might help to defend the book his church is based on.
</div></div>

I will defend the Bible in situations where it is even somewhat possible to defend it. But, as I said, this thread was done before it even got off the ground.

Barry's thread question is absurd. There are things, as Christians, that we can all agree on that cannot be defended in the Bible in a quantitative or empirical sense; but they don't have to be defended in such a way, because faith takes center stage.

"Confirmed errors". Right off the bat Barry gives the agnostics and atheists a huge gift: he lays the groundwork for his own defeat.

When you ask for "confirmed errors" in a book like the Bible you're playing a losing game. By whose standard is something an error? As Christians, we cannot even confirm, in an existential sense that would satisfy agnostics or atheists, those things we truly believe.

Christianity itself puts faith high above confirming anything to satisfy man.

The Bible says a man called Adam and a woman called Eve once lived. I can believe that with all my heart, but it isn't the confirmation of the fact they lived that gives breath and life to my belief, it's faith; who can "confirm" Adam and Eve lived?

My faith also teaches me the Bible isn't, nor has it ever been, a scientific textbook. The sooner you and others grasp that, the sooner you'll not make such fundamental and avoidable mistakes such as this thread.

You played right into the other team's hand.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would almost think that a catholic might help to defend the book his church is based on </div></div>

Ummm...the RCC was around before the Bible as we know it today.

[Larimar]

I havn't read the whole post yet, but wanted to say of course there will be errors in this holy book.
It may have had at some point a divine influence and the stories may even have happened, but you have humans writing it based on what they know of the stories and God's influence-I don't think God dictated the bible to the people who wrote it (Though there may be people who do)-So in the end the men still are writing from a certain time frame. These men were not ahead of their time and maybe God needed Science and discoveries to play out over time instead of bombarding their minds with concepts they can't yet understand-Like how the Earth works...
That's just my opinion though. Even if God did dictate the bible, he perhaps did so based on the world they knew, instead of intefering with their free will to learn and discover , he worked with the knowledge they had already. As though God needed not get involved with dishing out how everything is, besides the message he was interested in addressing-Jesus, sins and forgiveness, savings and all that. I just doubt God wanted us to have everythng layed out in front of us, done for us-We had to learn and discover the world on our own. Science and facts has never been one of humans downfalls-we are progressing very fast-I have no doubt the power behind that progress-God didn't need to do that in the book-Which was for spirituality-not science and worldly facts-so maybe the science and facts came through divine influences in the scientists-and they'll never know it /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I also think that if the bible were ahead of it's time with facts and scientific facts that it would really freak people out in that time frame too much. I don't think that's the point the bible wanted to make. Like, can you imagine knowing the world and then have someone flip it upside down on you in a day? You'd freak out lol. Maybe adjustments like that needed our progress in the timing and manner it did.
Just my point of view /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Soundbear]

Barry's thread question is absurd. There are things, as Christians, that we can all agree on that cannot be defended in the Bible in a quantitative or empirical sense; but they don't have to be defended in such a way, because faith takes center stage.

Read the thread title more carefully. It has nothing to do with faith. It's asking about errors.



"Confirmed errors". Right off the bat Barry gives the agnostics and atheists a huge gift: he lays the groundwork for his own defeat."

I haven't seen any yet, have you?? Translation errors, maybe, but nothing that affects any important doctrine.

[dancingqueen]

Confirmed error in the Bible:
"One of the most basic principals behind science is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed"

so, Adam, to my recolection was created out of the earth. Okay... I will give the Bible this, although I would be interested in knowing how earth was converted into a living organisim, but for the sake of my point, possible, if the mass of Earth used is equal to the mass of Adam. Eve was made from his Adam's right? well, I don't know of any ribs that use up the same amount of mass that would be needed to make a woman, therefore, matter must have been created we all know from one of the most basic consepts of science that this cannot be.

[Larimar]

Maybe God created or was the big bang-that forced all things into creation, and the rib is a symbolism that we all came from the same source?

[1337]

http://www.godisimaginary.com

That has alot of videos and literature on bible errors, and how to prove that the bible is a farce.

Anyway, i don't beleive in the bible. Like i said, it was written back in a day when people used religion for there own twisted use, and rewrote it.

[1337]

The Bible can be tested – historically, geographically, scientifically, etc. And it always passes the test. Its incredible accuracy can be explained only in light of its divine inspiration.


Was the last line in that link.


Now it said the bible can be tested historically, geographically and scientifically.

Now, what about Noahs Arc? Floods supposedly flooded the entire earth.

Now how many people were on board the arc? how did they reproduce? Yet another incest story? How old was Noah?

How is that all proven, and test?

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe God created or was the big bang-that forced all things into creation, and the rib is a symbolism that we all came from the same source? </div></div>

When challenged to find confirmed errors in the Bible we need to take things literaly, we cannot go looking into symbolysim or opinions. Confirmation in itself needs to be concrete, it needs to have sustanance, it needs to be there If the Bible intended for this to be a symbol, to be correct the Bible would have to say something along the lines of "to symbolise the coming to gether of man, we will use a rib" So the confirmed rumou here is that god did not reach into Adam's ribcae, pull out a rib and did ome hocus pocus to creat Eve, That defies all logic as we know it today.

[1337]

Well what about my example of the arc?
Or the Moses and the seperating of the dead sea? (forgot which sea)

[Larimar]

"When challenged to find confirmed errors in the Bible we need to take things literaly, we cannot go looking into symbolysim or opinions. Confirmation in itself needs to be concrete, it needs to have sustanance, it needs to be there If the Bible intended for this to be a symbol, to be correct the Bible would have to say something along the lines of "to symbolise the coming to gether of man, we will use a rib" So the confirmed rumou here is that god did not reach into Adam's ribcae, pull out a rib and did ome hocus pocus to creat Eve, That defies all logic as we know it today. "

Well, the bible is full of parables, and I don't find them to be literal. I also feel that It may hav ehappened where one rib was taken and used to create something for Eve..Her whole being? I don't know...But if a doctor can remove a rib, i'm sure God can. Since God is all powerful does he need to go by our understanding of logic? My understanding was like...

If you have a piece of playdoe and you role it out, you can take a tiny peice off and it's small but you can roll it out also to be longer...Maybe something like that? I obviously do not know. But I don't think it's that hard for God to create something from a bone-he probably only needed the dust from the earth-but got that from the bones..who knows,yah i'm rambling..I'm not defending the bible, I just take it as symbolic when it comes to certain stories in the OT.

Of course my own beliefs are that God created many people at one time. I have a different take on the whole Eden story to be honest, lol

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What put this bee in Barry's bonnet today anyway? If I said that in the first place I certainly don't think it was today. I don't disbelieve I said it, but it seems a bit random. </div></div>


"..or however much evidence that there is that the bible is wrong." Too Many Daves </div></div>

But that is quite different from what Barry quoted me as saying. Whilst I do believe there is evidence that the bible is wrong, "however much evidence" is a hypothetical. Read the post again.

[Soundbear]

TMD, yer nit picking.

T-pot, define scientific method and explain how to apply it to ANY historical document.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Confirmed error in the Bible:
"One of the most basic principals behind science is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed"

so, Adam, to my recolection was created out of the earth. Okay... I will give the Bible this, although I would be interested in knowing how earth was converted into a living organisim, but for the sake of my point, possible, if the mass of Earth used is equal to the mass of Adam. Eve was made from his Adam's right? well, I don't know of any ribs that use up the same amount of mass that would be needed to make a woman, therefore, matter must have been created we all know from one of the most basic consepts of science that this cannot be. </div></div>

One of the explanations of the existence of the universe is that it just began, from nothing. Another is the big bang, which also defies your "scientific principle", by putting it off a little longer.

As to "coming from the earth" where do you think most of YOUR mass comes from???

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TMD, yer nit picking.

T-pot, define scientific method and explain how to apply it to ANY historical document. </div></div>

If nit picking means complaining that you have compltelely changed the meaning of what I said by altering the words and the context, then yes I guess I am nit picking.

If you are asking me for proof that Jesus did not feed the 5K, or rise from the dead (for example), then no I cannot without the aid of a time machine prove that he did not. However, given what we know it seem (at best)improbable.

There are though details of the bible that can be verified, or rather can be proven impossible ie Noah etc. It is convenient as science diisproves these stories, or more often proves them improbable to claim they are and always have been parables or allegory, but I do not think we would accept this in any other walk of life (perhaps Bush and Blair could claim WMDs were just a metaphor).

If you are looking for innaccuracies in the bible, I believe I have already supplied a source with a list. Furthermore there are certainly huge ammounts of editting and re-interpretation that have gone on over the years. The bible is a selected group of texts that has been retranslated and copied many times. You yourself do not believe God gave us a book in a puff of smoke written in American (sorry English) and we've been photocopying it ever since. If you think there have been no revisions then you are incredibly naive. There is even some debate as to the original language of the New Testament.

[Soundbear]

I am NOT asking for proof of events that require faith. There are logical proofs of the resurrection, but certainly not scientific proofs.
You say some things are impossible, ie Noah. Yet others have said the story is possible. Can science PROVE the Noah story is a fabrication?? I doubt it.
You did indeed provide a list of innaccuracies. Most of which have alternate explanations and are NOT contradictions, and NONE of which have any bearing on the doctrines of Christianity.
All of which makes any statement like "...however much evidence that there is that the bible is wrong", misleading and insupportable.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Too Many Daves has said there are lots (of confirmed errors in the bible).

Who knows some?? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And as for no proof will ever be enough. Why? I believe lots of other things as I find there is sufficient proof. More accurately belivers choose to believe however little evidence there is FOR god, or however much evidence that there is that the bible is wrong. </div></div>

My word. You really can't see that what you claim I said and what I said are completely different things, can you? My statement is not about how much evidence there is for or against religion, but that those with faith would believe in spite of any such evidence against religion. It was in response to the previous author suggesting that non-believers would not believe however much evidence there was for religion. Which is just ridiculous. It is believers that have faith, non-belief is not a blind faith system, it is a personal judgement based on knowledge. In summary, your interpretation of what I said is plain wrong.

As for you believing there is plenty of evidence that the bible is correct, yes there is evidence that some things in the bible are correct, for instance Rome existed, we know that. But evidence FOR god? I'm not going to go there. It is a semantic debate as your definition of evidence is flawed. You have reasons for beliving I do not think they are evidence, or proof.

You would not normally make mistakes like these in a debate I am sure, but you are so hurt that your personal belief should be questioned in any way that you are thrashing about trying to argue against comment that I didn't make. I don't see why the religious get so hurt when their beliefs are questioned, why should your religious beliefs be more revered than anyone elses beliefs about anything (a common argument I know, but I haven't heard it explained yet).

"My statement is not about how much evidence there is for or against religion, but that those with faith would believe in spite of any such evidence against religion. It was in response to the previous author suggesting that non-believers would not believe however much evidence there was for religion. Which is just ridiculous."

This statement is often made on the basis of a story that Jesus told about a man who was experiencing the consequences of his profligate lifestyle in hell, who actually asked Abraham (who was on the other side) to send someone back from the dead to his five surviving brothers, thinking that if someone appeared to them from the dead, they would actually believe the good news, i.e. there is a blessed afterlife to pursue.. to which Abraham said, "They have the writings of Moses and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they will not come to faith, even though someone appears to them from the dead."

This may very well indicate that coming to faith in God is not so much an issue of the intellect and reason as it is the will.

I think there are some atheists who are like that.

I think there are others who have convereted to theism &gt; Christianity because they needed a satisfactory amount of evidence first. Therefore I cannot generalize and say that it is always a problem of submission of the will to God.

Ultimately though, the Bible does say that we will all have sufficient evidence to believe, but some will still deny God his rightful place and rebel against him. In fact there have been the odd individual over the years on Soonet, in this forum who have stated that they would shake their fist in God's face, should it all be true. That's regretful.

After all, that is what Satan did. He rebelled and he lost out. So with him it was a question of willful pride.

[adigirl]

Satan did not loose, he got his own place out of it.

[Hans]

duh, I hate it when I use this laptop while someone else is logged in.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Satan did not loose, he got his own place out of it.
</div></div>

'Winning' Hell isn't quite like winning the Lotto, is it?

I suspect adigirl meant that in jest. Theologically speaking, hell is not Satan's 'domain'. It's only the cartoons that picture him as the boss of hell, and that he will be the source of torment for all who are there. That picture simply is not a biblical one.

He does not exist in hell right now. He exists as a 'principality' of this world. He roams the world (as a spirit being) to see whom he can deceive and destroy.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He roams the world (as a spirit being) to see whom he can deceive and destroy</div></div>

So Bush is Satan!!!

you've seen the light! Finally!

[GenX]

Makes you wonder what Satan gets out of all this.

Is it because he knows he is dammned, so out of spite and hate he wants as many others as possible to suffer with him?

Is he doing it to spite God?

All of the above?


I know the theological story and all behind this...but just out of bored curiosity I'm thinking out loud, "what does he get out of this?"

Speedy, have you ever read Dialogues with the Devil, by Taylor Caldwell?

[GenX]

No.

I am a fan of "The Screwtape Letters", however.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if a doctor can remove a rib, i'm sure God can </div></div>
but can a doctor make an entire living person with that same rib?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since God is all powerful does he need to go by our understanding of logic </div></div>
it does not matter what power god has inorder to argue this point, the topic is about confirmed errors in the Bible, not about god's powers. As science can tell us now matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, we are able to confirm this part of the Bible to be an error.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you have a piece of playdoe and you role it out, you can take a tiny peice off and it's small but you can roll it out also to be longer</div></div>
This idea is really irrelivant, rolling the play-doh out simply changes the shape of the object by making it thinner and longer, no matter is being created here.

[Larimar]

You really don't know for sure what is irrelevant if you don't even believe in God to start with lol. If you are taking the power of God as an error-That to the believer IS what's the irrelevant part. The bibble is about a God-Which is(Let's stress the word) Creator) who is all powerful. We have to believe that before we can actually believe in what the bible says.
Noah parting the Red Sea-Is done by God's powers and not by science. Something like...an insect has -X legs-but is wrong-IS an error...God creating Eve, is not-b.c he could have done so out of thin air for all we know-since we are speaking of something ABOVE science. just my opinion tho. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[dancingqueen]

Quote:
Since God is all powerful does he need to go by our understanding of logic

it does not matter what power god has inorder to argue this point, the topic is about confirmed errors in the Bible, not about god's powers. As science can tell us now matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, we are able to confirm this part of the Bible to be an error.

[Larimar]

Then by that logic God would be an error also, but we know that God IS the creator of those rules for us, not itself. It's a false arguement in my opinion. It's like the philosophical "Rejected question"-You can't falsefy and error the main thing that God Can create b.c he's ALL powerful-and ignore that part.

[Larimar]

If the bible said Noah created Eve from a rib-Yeah that would be an error b.c Weee can't do that by the laws of nature lol. God can, we assume at the start-him being godly and all.

[Madmax]

I never found any errors with the wording.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the bible said Noah created Eve from a rib-Yeah that would be an error b.c Weee can't do that by the laws of nature lol. God can, we assume at the start-him being godly and all. </div></div>

If the bible said that, then it would be an error for sure, since GOD did it, not Noah!!!

[Soundbear]

DQ, we already went there:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quote:
Since God is all powerful does he need to go by our understanding of logic

it does not matter what power god has inorder to argue this point, the topic is about confirmed errors in the Bible, not about god's powers. As science can tell us now matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, we are able to confirm this part of the Bible to be an error. </div></div>

Originally Posted By: dancingqueen
Confirmed error in the Bible:
"One of the most basic principals behind science is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed"

so, Adam, to my recolection was created out of the earth. Okay... I will give the Bible this, although I would be interested in knowing how earth was converted into a living organisim, but for the sake of my point, possible, if the mass of Earth used is equal to the mass of Adam. Eve was made from his Adam's right? well, I don't know of any ribs that use up the same amount of mass that would be needed to make a woman, therefore, matter must have been created we all know from one of the most basic consepts of science that this cannot be.


One of the explanations of the existence of the universe is that it just began, from nothing. Another is the big bang, which also defies your "scientific principle", by putting it off a little longer.

As to "coming from the earth" where do you think most of YOUR mass comes from???

[Soundbear]

And something else to think about. God is "outside" the universe.
Can you think of ANYTHING that can be created by something that is part of that creation??? THAT makes no sense.

[Larimar]

Barry, maybe you should read the posts again, no one ever said Noah created Eve. I was explaining to DQ that it is NOT an error that God can create something from anything God wants too- He doesn't need to work with the natural laws like we humans do-I gave the Example that if the bible said a human -like Noah, created a human being from a rib cage, it would be errored, b.c he's human not God-PLEASE please read all the posts above b4 jumping over things.-I said the exact same thing as you only with different wording-That God is outside our laws of nature. thanks for listening.
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Soundbear]

I'm sorry DS, it just reads that way to me.

Glad we're on the same page though. Thanks for the clarification.

[Larimar]

okay good, I wouldnt want people to think i'm that bad at reading haha. Noah creating the world would make a funny story tho. Probbaly wont read that way among the rest of the posts I wrote above it.

[1337]

If you think it is safe to say god created Adam and Eve, would it be safe to say that God doesn't exist? This character was made up to explain what CAN'T be explained?

Think of it this way, back in the day when the population of the earth was just thousands.

How can you answer, why are we here? Who made the rocks, the trees the water?

Look at primitive tribes, and look at ancient people like the Mayans (spelling) they thought everything was controlled by a god, they made sacrafices inorder not to make the god angry.

Why do you think that is? Because they couldn't explain their own existence so they made up a character to explain it?


Now it is easy to beleive in the theory of God, only because we had no other means of telling how everything came about! So put your self in the primitive person point of view, and look at life and things around you, would you have an explanation except that someone had to of put it there?

There is no way to prove their is a god, and no way to prove there isn't, its strictly beleifs. But even with the most scientific advances today are starting to disprove our beleifs.

3 thousand years ago, it was easy to beleive that a "god" placed us all here, and it created the universe and everything. But it is harder to beleive it today.

To ask someone who beleives in God why there is poverty and famine, sickness and disease, they can't answer that so they say its in gods plan.

There is a scientific proof why there is poverty, famine, sickness and disease, so why do people still choose gods method?

People pray to God for removal of tumors, regain eyesight and to help walk. Some how these miracles are answered. But aren't these miracles able to cure themselves in some cases?

Tumors misdiagnosed, and could've been beneign masses?
Regained eyesight as a infection of the eye?
Walking again as in temporary paralyzed?

Why hasn't god answer other prays, and chalk it up as miracles?
Such as AMPUTEES? WAR? POVERTY? DISEASES? All this UNCURABLE stuff is taken care from science.

Science made artificial limbs to help amputees walk
Science found cures for diseases
We have answers to war and poverty but nothing is done about it.

In the bible Jesus made a blind man see, how come he doesn't regrow limbs?

So how come God doesn't tackle those issues? Just answer the prayers of stuff that is scientifically proven?

When you meet someone for the first time, and they seem a bit sketchy, and they tell you that they own a new 0 Ferarri. Would you beleive them or would you see it to beleive it?

I know its apples and oranges, but the point i'm getting at is, I see no proof of God existing anymore. Except the fact that I can't explain why we are here.

It's all hard to beleive due to the simple fact of the bible being ridiculous.

Bible saying the earth is only 5-7000 years old, but Noah and his kids lived to almost a thousand years old, but dinosaurs existing millions of years ago? They found proof of people living 30,000 years ago
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020518/2002051839.html

[Soundbear]

All kinds of assumptions there T-pot. Like the 5-7000 years.

Oddly enough, now that man knows so much more about the complexity of the universe and even his own structure, intelligent design (ie, created by someone) is making a bit of headway in science circles.
You said, "There is a scientific proof..". I ask you again, define scientific proof, and tell me if can be applied to ALL the above problems.

[Soundbear]

All kinds of assumptions there T-pot. Like the 5-7000 years.

Oddly enough, now that man knows so much more about the complexity of the universe and even his own structure, intelligent design (ie, created by someone) is making a bit of headway in science circles.
You said, "There is a scientific proof..". I ask you again, define scientific proof, and tell me if can be applied to ALL the above problems.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Exactly what scientific circles are intelligent design making headway? I have to say often when I read the religious making these claims, it is because they misuderstand the science, in particular they have misunderstood the Goldilocks theory and the anthropic priciple.

I see you have chosen to ignore the science with regard to breeding populations. Quack.

[GenX]

Quack quack

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One of the explanations of the existence of the universe is that it just began, from nothing. Another is the big bang, which also defies your "scientific principle", by putting it off a little longer.

As to "coming from the earth" where do you think most of YOUR mass comes from???</div></div>

Barry, I never claimed to belive the "scienific" explanatin, I do believe in a "creator" of some sort, do not confuse me with an athiest, I am very different....

[GenX]

"Mass"?

As in RC Mass?

[GRUMPY]

Actually its a nice work of fiction, well more of a group of short stories by a variety of writers.

[1337]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All kinds of assumptions there T-pot. Like the 5-7000 years.

Oddly enough, now that man knows so much more about the complexity of the universe and even his own structure, intelligent design (ie, created by someone) is making a bit of headway in science circles.
You said, "There is a scientific proof..". I ask you again, define scientific proof, and tell me if can be applied to ALL the above problems.</div></div>

Dude I think your off the rocker on this one.

It's all proven already!

My In-laws friend from downsouth was told he had lungcancer, they did an xray, it showed the lump. They prayed and prayed and prayed for the operation/biopsy to go well. He had the operation, and it turned out to be an infection, not cancer.

Now they chalk that up to god.

How can that be? It was an infection. It was always an infection. Just misdiagnosed.

SCIENCE PROVED IT WAS AN INFECTION. god had no hand in this.

[1337]

I'd like to see "Answered prayers" list, and would like to see how science didn't play a role.

Example in previous post.

Dr said Jerry had lung cancer, had to go in for an operation. He was going to lose so much of his lung, blah blah blah.

THey prayed.

Operation turned out it was an infection, not cancer, and no lung removal.

They thanked god.

For what??? A doctor who misread the xray?

[GRUMPY]

Don't you know anything? If something good happens you thank God, however if something bad happens its not his fault because he doesn't interfere in our daily life. Hell I wish I could have had that deal with my first wife.

[Larimar]

hmmm...
I thank God because I personally believe God created the world Ilive in and I'm thankful and respectful of that-and I thank God for the good things if nothing else then to be thankful in life and to focus on the positives in life-and to learn from the negatives. I also feel thankful for the hardships in life, even though at the time I would be angry or emotional, I always try to take the lesson and build on my strength and wisdom in life.
That is what I thank God for the most, the ability to appreciate every aspect of life and not just the good things. I don't hold God responsible for either side-good or bad-but on my own decisions and the way life goes.

Anyways, that's only how I personally feel. I believe in God but hav ea different take on life then do Most Christians here-Since I believe in pre birth charting. Which is creating plans for your life before birth (trials, obstacles, loves, and goals...etc.)-Many people say tht sort of destiny can steal your free will once born, but it is only a set goal your soul will have in mind to accomplish (That intuition you get) how you get there is up to you and how you react to life obstacles is up to you. For instance If I placed on my chart tht I wantto experience a disease, It's up to me if I remain a positive person or whether I wither away in a basement sulking.

Personally, I thank God for helping me through the horrible times, b.c I always survive it-and when I don't it means it's time to come home to God.
As far as praying goes I think that prayer can help a person endure times of hardship. Maybe the prayer will bring them more positive energy or love or maybe even strength to get through things-and other times it may heal the person if it is supposed to be done tht way (example, soul wants to have a life where they are healed by prayer)..Or the prayers act as a petition where God or higher souls decide whether or not a person on Earth should be allowed to change their life path (kind of like a law thing, breaking a legal agreement)-That's very unlike Christian values I suppose. I thought I'd share anyways, as the topic went around to prayers and healings concerning God. Sometimes new ideas are refreshing, other times- they are looked down on. lol. I'll try my luck.

I hope that makes a little bit of sense, I have a difficult time explaining somethings sometimes /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to see "Answered prayers" list, and would like to see how science didn't play a role.


For what??? A doctor who misread the xray?</div></div>

A woman comes crying into the church office. She tells me that the doctor said, she cannot have any children.
My secretary and I pray for her.

9 months later, she has a baby girl.

Did the doctor misdiagnose? It was science..

The more I pray, the more 'coincidences' I see.

PS. I ALWAYS pray that God's will be done, not ours.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you know anything? If something good happens you thank God, however if something bad happens its not his fault because he doesn't interfere in our daily life. Hell I wish I could have had that deal with my first wife. </div></div>

In everything give thanks, says the bible.

So we do.

[Soundbear]

Amen to that.

[GRUMPY]

I guess I should thank him for my Dad's cancer then.

[Soundbear]

Or my father dropping dead? Or other loved ones??

Perhaps it's not quite like that.

[Larimar]

"I guess I should thank him for my Dad's cancer then. "

Maybe its more like being grateful for what we are provided for.
For example Should I be thankful my grandfather died a terribly slow and often painful death? Probably not, but I should be thankful that his slow passing made me closer to him, got to know him a lot more and spend a lot more time with him then I ever did. I am thankful that it brought my family closer also and tht we got to spend a lot of time together as a group-and now continue to do so. I am thankful for the lesson of love that it brought. I am now thankful that he is in abetter place and no longer is any pain. I hope this makes sense...

[Soundbear]

Well said, DS.