Things In The Bible That Cannot Possibly Be True

[jasonwhatever]

I don't see how the story of the creation of man could literally be true, and that it could have happened within just the past six or seven thousand years. There are cave paintings dated through various means to over 35000 years ago. So who painted them if not human beings? Were they painted by rogue alien artists? There are multitudes of fossilized hominid remains dating from various stages of millions of years of history showing that evolution occured. What about dinosaurs? Those who say that the earth is 6-7000 years old are very seriously mistaken. It just can't be so. The Bible also talks about giants who were the offsping of fallen angels having children with women. Does anyone believe this? Wouldn't there be fossil remains found of 12-foot men?

The ages of the first human men all the way up until Noah or so, and then past that, are given and it tells at what ages they had their children, at what age their child had their child, etc down the line. If you follow the Bible timeline, the time from the creation of Adam to the coming of Jesus was only about 4-5000 years. This would put the total time of man's existence at about 6-7000 years. It doesn't seem possible to me. Also the theory goes that all people were originally of one race since all men were direct descendents of Adam and Eve. How, then, in 6-7000 years of human existence did we get such a huge variation in the body types, skin types, etc of humans? From the 4-foot black pygmies of African forests, to the short, stocky pasty-skinned Eskimos, etc. There is a huge variation that seems like it would be more indicative of the forces of evolution, because these skin types and builds help people live in that climage. For example, the tall people of the Serengeti are extremely thin and dark. This helps them to release heat from their body and to be protected from the sun. The eskimos light skin, stocky shorter build help them to retain heat. If the Bible is true, all this came about within 6 or 7000 years, all this variation?

 

My question is not asking about things that we know SEEM unlikely (like walking on water, healing, etc) but things that actually are DISPROVEN by evidence that we see and have today. For if you believe in God, then of course with God all things are possible; that is the definition of a God. However, if The Bible is not true, then either the Bible is not of God, or God is a deceiver

in leaving overwhelming scientific evidence that disproves His Word. ( In which case God is still seemingly a liar since His Word says that he deceives no one and cannot lie, and that He wills for all to be saved.)

 

If the book of Genesis is not true, at least not literally true, then how can the rest of The Bible be taken as Truth? If the first book is meant figuratively in some places and literally in others, then how could concepts like heaven and hell be taken as literal truth? Maybe they are figurative as well?

[Taphophilia]

Hi Jason,

 

Wow! I'm impressed. You are thinking for yourself. You sound like an Ex-Christian, and I mean that as a compliment.

 

Taph

[mwc]

It appears you've found yourself quite a few puzzles to work on Jason. I've done similar ones myself so I know it just takes a little time.

 

mwc

[GraphicsGuy]

Adam is Biblically timed at 4000 BC or so, but there is physical evidence of civilization as far back as 9500 BC.

 

Today there are only 1.4 million species of BIRDS named (out of a possible 10 million). It would have taken Adam six months, non-stop (no breaks, no sleeping), with only 10 seconds to name each bird if he was to name 1.4 million species.

 

I doubt the ark housed 20 million birds.

 

Biblical timelines place the flood around 2344 BC.

 

Biblical timelines generally place the tower of Babel somewhere around 2215 BC. (universal language split)

 

BUT, there are five DIFFERING WRITTEN languages dated older than the tower of Babel:

 

2250 BC - Elamite

2300 BC - Akkadian

2400 BC - Eblaite

2230 BC - Egyptian

3450 BC - Sumerian

 

Oldest known source of Hebrew writing (the Gezer calendar) is only dated to 1000 BC. Moses is dated around 1415 BC and the Exodus around 1335 BC. Seems like the original five books and the stone tablets may have been written in Egyptian...???

[Ouroboros]

If the book of Genesis is not true, at least not literally true, then how can the rest of The Bible be taken as Truth? If the first book is meant figuratively in some places and literally in others, then how could concepts like heaven and hell be taken as literal truth? Maybe they are figurative as well?

Oh Holy Bunny, you've come a long way Jason. You've awaken from the deep sleep and the dreams slowly are replaced by reality. Welcome to the light.

[pandora]

Hi jasonwhatever! Welcome back. Seems like you're slowly starting to understand where we're coming from. You'll get lots of support here.

[Everglaze]

The simple answer is that before the Bible tries to sound 'truthful,' it fails in its first account with a talking serpent. Then there are the parallel comparisons between the Noah's flood story and other myth stories such as the flood myth of Incas and one of two Hawaiian flood myths involving the genealogy of Kumuhonua that preceded the Noah myth. That means the Noah's flood is not a part of the absolute truth at all, which excludes its essential place in the Bible, unless people believe it as a myth. If that's the case, Christianity would have no original purpose and foundation to exist. The Bible also mentions Nephilims, the offspring of angels(?) and human women. Did god destroy them? There's no mentioning of what became of them. They were supposed to be gigantic? Do angels still have sex with women in this modern day and age? There's another obvious myth. Do I have to elaborate on Daniel and the lion's den?

[freeman]

" God cannot lie, Heb 6:18 God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive, 2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9"

 

Who created the people from the land of Nod?

Cain took his wife from the land of Nod!

 

If the bath water is rotten, the baby made it that way! Either the bible is 100% the literal word of god or it is 100% the work of man! No in betweens!

 

Throw the baby out!

[GraphicsGuy]

Either the bible is 100% the literal word of god or it is 100% the work of man! No in betweens!

 

That's exactly how I feel about it freeman. Pointing out the contradictions to some believers gets them to shut up, but then there are these "fringe" believers who keep saying that the "message behind the words" is what is important, not the words themselves.

 

Okay, fine, so the Bible says some good things if you look at the underlying message. No matter what, the words are in error and most demon-ations say the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It is neither. It actually claims that God is not the author of confusion and the Bible causes nothing but confusion because no one can agree as to what it really says.

[Everglaze]

The problem is that people don't take what it says in the Bible for what it is and instead try to interpret it in their own ways. I mean, if a verse said that god let a concubine be raped, that shows how evil god is. There should be no buts about it. Instead, believers will argue to defend their god and contort a bunch of explanations that sound like they come from the far regions of their imaginative writer's work shop. It leaves me wondering if they're just improvising to continue verses that make their god look like a tyrant, so that the verses sound reasonable, righteous and just.

 

If the Bible was 100% by god and not by man, we'd have to question his temperamentally fucked up logic. If the Bible was 100% by man (which I believe it is), then all the more reason not to believe such unreliable bullshit rendering on the accounts of a bunch of gullible loons with historical locations and names thrown in here and there.

 

Sorry, I could not refrain from ranting a bit more.