Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[oddbird1963]

Cabbage,

 

I wouldn't trust the subjective feelings you are getting if I were you. Those feelings of joy that you are getting are just as unreliable as those feelings of personal condemnation you seem to indicate you feel from succumbing to the flesh, as you call it.

 

I think what you are really asking for is a fix that will give you an equally strong subjective feeling that the bible is not true. I'm thinking that instead of proof or disproof you may just need some sort of chemical or cognitive stabilzation aid. It sounds as if you are getting delusional. A lot of cults start out with the thinking , "The church today is corrupt, but we're going to find out what the true church really is and live the TRUE christian life." It's happened over and over all through the years. That sounds like the direction you are headed.

 

Those flashes of insight you seem to insinuate you are getting are not real. They're irrelevant and unreliable. You're just picking out which dead end road you want to go down.

 

It's easy to disprove the bible if you approach it with reason. If you want books, why not look at the little rotating book images at the top of the main blog page? Pick one.

 

To me, it sounds as if you are being disingenuous.

 

First, it seems like you are trying to pre-qualify ex-timonies. You are basically saying that unless a reader professed to have been a certain type of christian to begin with, you won't approach their experience as credible. And you seem to be building up a straw man version of christianity to judge those ex-christians' experiences. There are lots of people from this site that "really dove into the word." I don't think it will be good enough for you, but it is really true. That last statement about the nature of salvation just sounds silly. It certainly is a straw man version of christianity.

 

The statement, " Trust me, I've looked into that extensively, and I have no doubt that someone like the Jesus of the Bible existed. " makes me think you have already concluded what you want to about the "Jesus of the Bible." You may be just preparing a "wow 'em" testimonial that includes a paragraph about how those non-believers on the internet could not come up with a definitive disproof of the bible!

 

Never mind, that there is a very finite body of work to examine to determine the historicity of a Jesus of Nazareth. If there is anything about the "Jesus of the Bible" that can be ascertained from history, you must be the only one who has the information. Because, believe me, thousands of people have looked into the historicity of jesus and might be able to reasonably say, "there was a guy in the first century named Jesus who was from Nazareth. " But this is a far cry from the statement that we know that the jesus of the bible existed or that "someone like Jesus" existed. There is just insufficient historical evidence for a person who wants to come to a conclusion based on reason.

 

I may be wrong about you. If so, I'm sorry. But I find the language you are using disheartening and feel sad for you.

[Abiyoyo]

Cabbage,

 

I am confused with the OP. First he says that he has looked into 'all things' of the Bible in 5 months, then says he wants to suffer for Jesus, but also justify that the God of the Bible is not believable?. He wants to disprove the Bible, but at the same time says there are NO contradictory verses in the Bible.

 

Then challenges anyone to 'show' him the verses that is contradictory, then asks why is anyone here an EX-C if there really aren't any contradictions.

 

My friend, you are a typing contradiction. My answer though, because they haven't seen cabbages light, the great light of cabbage that will shine through their hearts piercing, going straight through the bones. You have NOT given them the 'sword' that will cut all their enemies to pieces, which is the word, or as you said, the word of the living Jesus Christ

 

Just to help you though cabbage. It is the people like you that take one or two verses and have a 'revelation' that screws Christianity up. Hence, why Christianity has as many denominations as street corners. I say that because you got it all figured out just by one verse.

 

So, question, where do you pray? With others as Paul commands, or by yourself as Jesus commands, or to the Aaronic Priesthood in Israel, as Moses commanded. Jesus obeyed the priesthood, right? Remember that verse, healed the man, then said go take this as an offering as Moses commanded?

 

Do we include Maccabees books with our Protestant views and faith? The Catholics do, and they were the original church?

 

Which books outside the Bible do you study that pertain to Christianity, that are omitted from the Protestant Bible? I say before we suggest the authoritative, direct Word from God, we first decide 'which' Word is God's? And if you say it is already decided, then maybe you should become Catholic, which means you should go to confession RIGHT away!

[mwc]

However, I have succumbed to my fleshy desires and I am looking for a way to disprove the Bible. I've even gone to such great lengths as to suppose aliens created it! The problem with being so familiar with the Bible is that I can easily find the fallacies with many of the arguments against it that I find on the web. Many of the apparent "contradictions" are not contradictory at all! Also, I often find that the argument is against modern Christians and their practices (modern Christians live no differently than non-Christians). It's true that Christians today (especially in America) live like the devil (as defined by the Bible), but that doesn't disprove the BIBLE! Can anyone point me to a good, solid rebuke of the Bible? Not something that just says that the resurrection was physically impossible (if there is a God, HE CAN DO THAT!) or anything along those lines, but something that really leaves no doubt that the Bible is false.

 

I suppose a lot of you were the typical churchgoing Christians. But if there is anyone who really dove into the word and realized that if the Bible is true then we should not associate with churchgoing Christians (what fellowship hath a temple of God with a temple of demons?) or that salvation (as depicted in the Bible) is an ongoing process and not something that just happens when you go to heaven, then I'd like to hear how you came to be an ex-christian.

 

Oh, and by the way, please don't send me to a website that tries to say there was never a historical Jesus! Trust me, I've looked into that extensively, and I have no doubt that someone like the Jesus of the Bible existed. However, perhaps he was just preaching hot air.

Yeah, yeah. The bible is true. It's modern xianity that's all fucked up. Thanks for the heads-up. My eyes have been opened.

 

Now go play with yourself to satisfy your "fleshy desires." Oh, wait, that was just your way of trying to "fit in" with us. Darn it. We've been had.

 

Now I've got to accept that I can't play with my own doodle and the bible is all true. Well played sir.

 

mwc

[Badger]

An error, is an error, is an error.

 

It doesn't matter when it was made, it's still an error.

 

Pi did not equal three then, just as it does not now.

 

The moon does not make it's own light now, just as it did not then.

 

The Earth is not flat, nor does it have corners now, nor did it then.

Those are known to be errors by modern knowledge, that authors of antiquity didn't have. When they wrote about earth having corners they probably were using the best information of the day, and it would be wrong to expect that they should have had the same knowledge we have several thousands years later. The Bible does contain aged and disproved information, that's true. Some thousands years more and the people of the future are wondering our primitive knowledge. Views we thought were true, based on our modern science, are proved to be wrong.

[Vixentrox]

An error, is an error, is an error.

 

It doesn't matter when it was made, it's still an error.

 

Pi did not equal three then, just as it does not now.

 

The moon does not make it's own light now, just as it did not then.

 

The Earth is not flat, nor does it have corners now, nor did it then.

Those are known to be errors by modern knowledge, that authors of antiquity didn't have. When they wrote about earth having corners they probably were using the best information of the day, and it would be wrong to expect that they should have had the same knowledge we have several thousands years later. The Bible does contain aged and disproved information, that's true. Some thousands years more and the people of the future are wondering our primitive knowledge. Views we thought were true, based on our modern science, are proved to be wrong.

You would think God would have inspired the writers to write more accuratly, you know, with facts instead of some bronze/iron age rubbish. Hey for all you know, maybe you are supposed to be drinking menstrual blood in remberance of the virgin birth to get to heaven. If some parts are screwed up, maybe something has been omitted too huh? Or would God inspired work only introduce falsehoods & errors but would not fail to put in things essential for being saved? How do you KNOW you are not supposed to drink menstrual blood to be saved? Bible already has you commanded to commit ritualized cannibalism with Holy Communion, is drinking period blood too far a stretch? Maybe the early church leaders decided that drinking menstrual blood shouldn't be in the Bible? How do you really know? Who knows how many OMISSIONS from the Bible there are. We do know a whole bunch of early writings and gospels were tossed, how many others might be lost to the mists of time?

[Guest Marty]

An error, is an error, is an error.

 

It doesn't matter when it was made, it's still an error.

 

Pi did not equal three then, just as it does not now.

 

The moon does not make it's own light now, just as it did not then.

 

The Earth is not flat, nor does it have corners now, nor did it then.

Those are known to be errors by modern knowledge, that authors of antiquity didn't have. When they wrote about earth having corners they probably were using the best information of the day, and it would be wrong to expect that they should have had the same knowledge we have several thousands years later. The Bible does contain aged and disproved information, that's true. Some thousands years more and the people of the future are wondering our primitive knowledge. Views we thought were true, based on our modern science, are proved to be wrong.

 

So your god is so short sighted he didn't think to inspire the writers of the bible with some information that wasn't already known (and wrong) to first century peoples? Your god is so powerful he spoke the universe into existence yet somehow allowed errors of any magnitude to enter the only form of communication to his creation he allows?

 

The bible is supposed to be from god, yet throughout we only find the words and thoughts of primitive peoples.

[chefranden]

So your god is so short sighted...

 

Hey, God was only an ignorant goat herder himself back in the day. Why do you think that he had to have Adam name the animals? Sure he made a bunch of stuff, but he didn't know what it was. And Adam, not having modern taxonomy, did the best he could with names.

 

This is why things are fucked up today: God cannot be more sophisticated than his most sophisticated creation. When Feynman said that no one understood quantum mechanics, he meant No One. Combine that with the fact that only schizophrenics can hear the voice of God and you get some weird books that are still the word of God.

[Neon Genesis]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction. The commandment "You shall not murder" had specific meaning, that left the way open for the killing in war or as capital punishment.

Whatever broadening of application it may have had in later years, its basic prohibition was against killing, for whatever cause, under whatever circumstances, and by whatever method, a fellow-member of the covenant community. - - What is certain is that רצח describes a killing of human beings forbidden by Yahweh to those who are in covenant with him. The use of such a specialized term in the specific context of the Decalogue leaves the way open for the killing of the Yahweh-war or capital punishment, both of which are of course permitted by the OT, and also sets apart other uses of רצח by relating them inevitably to the obligations of the covenant with Yahweh. (John Durham, World Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus)

And how is this supposed to make murdering babies justified again? Ignoring the whole debate about the morality of the death penalty, that's like saying since the death penalty is legal in the U.S., that means that the actions at Guantánamo Bay should be legalized too. Actually, this makes your god even more immoral because you admit that the murder of these innocent babies in 1st Samuel was something God premeditated on and was something that he planned to do a long time ago. If your god was unable to create a scenario where he couldn't have a war with the Amalekites that did not require God to speciifcally command the murder of innocent babies, for a being that's supposedly all-powerul, your god frankly sounds limited and powerless to me, if not downright immoral. But God can do whatever his dictatorship pleases, right? All hail the Fuhrer and stuff, right? Or how about Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

 

29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Or is thou shalt not rape just metaphorical? Wait, does God even prohibit rape in the bible? Isn't he supposed to be justice and stuff?

 

Those are known to be errors by modern knowledge, that authors of antiquity didn't have.

So, the facts that are wrong are metaphors and the facts that are right are true? I think this video says it all:

[Badger]

And how is this supposed to make murdering babies justified again?

I just said. Exodus 20:13 ("You shall not murder") prohibited individuals from killing a fellow-members. The verb רָצַח is a specific term for murder and includes any unauthorized killing. It is never used of killing in war. Therefore, as I said, there is no contradiction.

 

So, the facts that are wrong are metaphors and the facts that are right are true?

You said that, not me.

[mwc]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction. The commandment "You shall not murder" had specific meaning, that left the way open for the killing in war or as capital punishment.

Whatever broadening of application it may have had in later years, its basic prohibition was against killing, for whatever cause, under whatever circumstances, and by whatever method, a fellow-member of the covenant community. - - What is certain is that רצח describes a killing of human beings forbidden by Yahweh to those who are in covenant with him. The use of such a specialized term in the specific context of the Decalogue leaves the way open for the killing of the Yahweh-war or capital punishment, both of which are of course permitted by the OT, and also sets apart other uses of רצח by relating them inevitably to the obligations of the covenant with Yahweh. (John Durham, World Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus)

That's a pretty good explanation. One I've heard quite frequently.

 

Ummm...Can you clarify one thing for me?

 

Why does Joshua say this:

20:3 that the

manslayer

who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood.

...

20:5 'Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the

manslayer

into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand.

That's the same word in Hebrew. I'm just curious why "murderer" here is defined as someone who kills "unintentionally?" Of course you should not kill unintentionally. So the injunction, in the commandments, should be against someone who kills intentionally or a premeditated murderer. But "god" does not forbid that. Does he approve premeditated murder?

 

But perhaps I'm in need of a better example? One more relevant? Deuteronomy?

4:42 that a

manslayer

might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live:

...

De 5:17 'You shall not

murder

.

...

De 19:4 "Now this is the case of the

manslayer

who may flee there and live: when he kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously--

Same rules except for that one there in the middle. Looks like that same one from Exodus...because it is.

 

The same applies throughout Numbers as well.

 

In other books the word takes on the meaning of premeditated killing. People just want to soften the blow of the word. Leave it open for old YHWH to get his way but everyone else to tow the line. The texts speak for themselves. You aren't to murder. But the same word means "unintentional" so "Thou shall not kill unintentionally." If you only desire to have people kill people that they hate, intentionally, the so be it. I think it makes YHWH out to be rather blood thirsty and would rethink this.

 

mwc

[Tabula Rasa]

Cabbage, the bible doesn't make sense, because it's god, Yahweh, doesn't make sense. As someone who still believes in some sort of supreme being, I think it can be safely said that Yahweh isn't it. An all powerful being, who can mold and shape reality to it's every fancy and whim, isn't going to care if tiny little critters like us worship it or not.

 

If I could create an entire universe by sheer force of will, I wouldn't care what anyone thought of me, because being able to create anything would trump any other joy imaginable in my humble opinion.

[BeckyJ]

I will raise my hand as another person who lost faith after actually reading the Bible. I am amazed at how easily I accepted Christianity without ever reading the freakin' book.

 

And my deep thought for the day...if God is all knowing and all powerful, what is the point of her existance? God can't learn anything. God can't experience anything new. God knows what is going to happen in advance. God can never be surprised or enraged or saddened, because God has known (since..umm..forever?) that certain things would happen. God can't relate to anyone because God is unique. No one can understand God. God has no one to talk about her day with. Its like one of those stories where someone gains all the knowledge in the universe...the question is always, "what now?"

 

It sounds like an especially cruel version of Hell to me.

[DarthOkkata]

I noticed that the huge list of contradictions that followed the errors was ignored.

 

Why?

 

After all, they're not contradictions or inconsistencies at all, so they should be easily explained away. Right?

 

Yet, the only part dealt with was the section of 'the ignorant guys who wrote it didn't know better'.

 

Which is just as easily rebutted by God would have known better, and shouldn't have allowed errors in his 'Divine word' regardless of the ignorance of the authors themselves.

 

After all, it is supposed to be his 'inspired word' and not the 'word' of the ignorant authors who wrote it down.

 

Also, the Bible is just plain immoral. Bible God commands slavery, genocide, gives rules that make rape okay, promotes incest, treats people like cattle and property, and kills children in numerous places for minor infractions or to punish the misbehavior of others.

 

Calling the Bible 'Moral' is like saying 'Mein Kamph' should be included in the Torah.

 

It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

In 1997, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released the results religious affiliation poll of those in the U.S. Federal Prison system.

 

Christians make up about 80% of the American population -and- prison population.

 

However, Atheists make up about 8% of the American population but only 0.2% of the prison population.

 

On the flip side, only about 1-3% of Americans are Muslim, but 7.2% of inmates are Muslim.

 

What does this tell you about the idea of religion being the 'guardian of morals'?

 

Studies taken since only bolster this:

 

Two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10 of 1%

 

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

 

In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics 0 non-religious.

 

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious.

 

I could go on like this for a while.

 

Evidence does not support that claim at all.

[Overcame Faith]

However, I have succumbed to my fleshy desires and I am looking for a way to disprove the Bible.

 

Instead of "looking for a way to disprove the Bible," try searching for the truth with as open-minded an attitude as you are capable of achieving. Search, read, and study very carefully and openly and let the chips fall where they may. From your post it is obvious that you are not searching for the truth because you impose your own rules:

 

Many of the apparent "contradictions" are not contradictory at all!

 

So here, you display the fact that you have already made up your mind that contradictions do not carry any weight for you so you have a preconceived notion about them.

 

Can anyone point me to a good, solid rebuke of the Bible? Not something that just says that the resurrection was physically impossible (if there is a God, HE CAN DO THAT!) or anything along those lines, but something that really leaves no doubt that the Bible is false.

 

Here, you impose restrictions on arguments against the physical resurrection of Jesus.

 

Oh, and by the way, please don't send me to a website that tries to say there was never a historical Jesus! Trust me, I've looked into that extensively, and I have no doubt that someone like the Jesus of the Bible existed. However, perhaps he was just preaching hot air.

 

Here you disallow arguments against the historicity of Jesus because you claim that you have looked into this "extensively."

 

If you want the truth, then open up your mind and go after it. But until you have opened up your mind (which you obviously have not yet done), then don't waste your or our time by asking for help with understanding and then imposing restrictions on our ability to help you see the truth.

[Neon Genesis]

I just said. Exodus 20:13 ("You shall not murder") prohibited individuals from killing a fellow-members. The verb רָצַח is a specific term for murder and includes any unauthorized killing. It is never used of killing in war. Therefore, as I said, there is no contradiction.

So murdering babies as long as they're not a part of your religion is somehow justified because? What happened to that whole love your enemies thing Jesus preached or is that metaphorical too?

[Badger]

So murdering babies as long as they're not a part of your religion is somehow justified because? What happened to that whole love your enemies thing Jesus preached or is that metaphorical too?

I don't claim it is justified. I simply pointed out there is no contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3. That is, in my understanding Exodus 20:13 didn't forbit to slay enemies.

[Neon Genesis]

I don't claim it is justified. I simply pointed out there is no contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3. That is, in my understanding Exodus 20:13 didn't forbit to slay enemies.

But it still contradicts Jesus' teachings to love your enemies, so it's still a contradiction.

[Vixentrox]

And we all know babies/children are vile enemies and should be killed....unless they are virgin girl children, then they should be captured for raping.

[Ouroboros]

So, I guess there's no answer to my question then. Should I assume that contradiction is valid then?

[Badger]

But it still contradicts Jesus' teachings to love your enemies, so it's still a contradiction.

That's better one, especially if one believe that Jesus is God. I have no answer right now.

[mwc]

Here's one little thing in the Bible I can't figure out:

 

God told Moses, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (KJV) Ex 6:3.

 

Jehova there is the old translation of YHWH, just FYI.

 

And yet in Gen 22:14 we can read: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen." And Jehova in Jehovahjireh, is the same YHWH.

 

So obviously Abraham DID know God by the name YHWH. So why did God lie to Moses? Or is the explanation that this is a mistake by the authors?

That's one verse.

 

Here's a verse with Abram:

Genesis 15:7 And He said to him, "I am the LORD [YHWH] who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it."

 

Here he is talking to Isaac:

Genesis 26:24 The LORD [YHWH] appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear , for I am with you. I will bless you, and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My servant Abraham." 25 So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD [YHWH], and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants dug a well.

 

Here's one where he speaks to Jacob:

Genesis 28:13 And behold, the LORD [YHWH] stood above it and said, "I am the LORD [YHWH], the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants.

He spells it out pretty clearly in the same fashion he does for Moses.

 

But keep in mind that he renames Jacob to Israel something like three times. YHWH's mind is slipping by this point.

 

mwc

[white_raven23]

Cabbage,

 

I am confused with the OP. First he says that he has looked into 'all things' of the Bible in 5 months, then says he wants to suffer for Jesus, but also justify that the God of the Bible is not believable?. He wants to disprove the Bible, but at the same time says there are NO contradictory verses in the Bible.

 

Then challenges anyone to 'show' him the verses that is contradictory, then asks why is anyone here an EX-C if there really aren't any contradictions.

 

My friend, you are a typing contradiction.

 

I'm in agreement with Abiyoyo. Honestly I find the OP to be fishy...especially as he has not followed up with the discussion yet after 2 days. His reasoning for questioning the bible strikes me as fallacious. Look:

However, I have succumbed to my fleshy desires and I am looking for a way to disprove the Bible.

 

Who amonst us left an entire religion because we fucked? This looks like a christians attempt at appearing as though they are ready to leave the faith and are inviting deconverters. This looks like really bad baiting. Those of us who have done so, know damn well leaving religion behind was not to shallowly justify our sins. This stinks of christian presumption.

[mwc]

Who amonst us left an entire religion because we fucked? This looks like a christians attempt at appearing as though they are ready to leave the faith and are inviting deconverters. This looks like really bad baiting. Those of us who have done so, know damn well leaving religion behind was not to shallowly justify our sins. This stinks of christian presumption.

By "fleshy desires" I think they're a cannibal. And we all know atheists are baby eaters. This would make the OP quite sincere.

 

mwc

[chefranden]

I'm in agreement with Abiyoyo. Honestly I find the OP to be fishy...especially as he has not followed up with the discussion yet after 2 days. His reasoning for questioning the bible strikes me as fallacious. Look:

However, I have succumbed to my fleshy desires and I am looking for a way to disprove the Bible.

 

Who amonst us left an entire religion because we fucked? This looks like a christians attempt at appearing as though they are ready to leave the faith and are inviting deconverters. This looks like really bad baiting. Those of us who have done so, know damn well leaving religion behind was not to shallowly justify our sins. This stinks of christian presumption.

 

Hmm, I thought it was possible that this "verse" of the OP meant his doubt was the succumbing to fleshly desires. But perhaps he has been too busy succumbing to fleshly desires to report back.

[Ouroboros]

That's one verse.

Yes, there's plenty of verses.

 

But to give a little explanation, I picked this particular verse I on purpose, because I wanted to avoid the explanation that the authors used the name "YHWH" to reference God, whatever name he had before Moses. The apologist answer could be: Abraham had a different name on God, and it wasn't YHWH, but the author's wrote the Abraham story with the new name which was given to Moses. And other infinite made up answers ... blh blah.. So, to avoid that, I picked what I think is the most damaging one, where a city (village?) is named YHWH-ville! It's very hard to deny that the author claims to know a city with the name in it, from the old past, founded by Abe himself.

 

But keep in mind that he renames Jacob to Israel something like three times. YHWH's mind is slipping by this point.

Very true.

 

I got an explanation once for this contradiction, but it was very woo-woo It was something like: it's not the name that was new to Moses, but the meaning of the name. Abraham new God by YHWH, but it meant something else, and Moses got YHWH again, but with a new meaning... And my question is: what new meaning? That YHWH really means "Taco Tuesday at Del Taco?"

 

(And you guys have noticed I gave Yoyo a new name? It's Abiyoyo now. The giant.)