The Only Way To Prove Scripture Wrong

[Bro]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong. Every thing else is too vague, or open to interpretion. But prophecy, whilst it too can be interpreted, is something we can do research on.

 

Any views on this?

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong. Every thing else is too vague, or open to interpretion. But prophecy, whilst it too can be interpreted, is something we can do research on.

 

Any views on this?

I disagree, try contradiction with sources outside the gospels. Or just simple contradictions.

[★ Citsonga ★]

The so-called "fulfilled prophecies" are what sealed the deal for me.

 

I first started doubting because of some contradictions between the gospels. Then I decided to check out some of the claims of prophetic fulfillments, since that is supposed to be the clincher in the bible's believability. What I found, though, when reading fulfillment claims in the gospels and checking the original OT texts was quite telling. A lot of them take the original texts completely out of context and fabricate fulfillments that have nothing to do with what the originals were about (and some are even reworded to suit NT needs). That proved to me that the bible is not trustworthy, and I didn't even have to look at outside sources like archaeology and such.

[dagnarus]

One time I saw a documentary on Hannibal. Hannibal attacked Rome and successfully managed to defeat there armies at every turn. He thought that he had beaten the Romans and he could proceed to negotiate the terms for peace. But the Romans wouldn't admit defeat, stayed within their cities and spent a few years walled up within their cities while a foreign army roamed their countryside.

 

How is this relevant. You can't prove that the bible is false to a fundamentalist, why, because, he just won't accept defeat. The bible has been proven false over and over again, but whenever this happens the inerrantist simply will not accept the prove before them, whether it take the form of contradictions or failed prophecies, run back to his fortified city of faith, until eventually the voice of reason gives up when he sees that he's not getting anywhere. There are those who see the light of course, but this isn't the general situation.

[TedGresham]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong. Every thing else is too vague, or open to interpretion. But prophecy, whilst it too can be interpreted, is something we can do research on.

 

Any views on this?

There's no way to prove the Bible uninspired to those who are positive it is. There's an answer and work-around for anything you come up with. Prophecy is that which people think happened as they mold current events to fit vague bible references.

 

Of course if the bible is "open to interpretation" that alone invalidates the book because the simple question becomes, "If god is required to help interpret why the need for the book anyway? If you're inspiration is what counts the book is merely a prop." But logical theists are not.

 

If someone is open to the possibility of the book being "uninspired" all you need to is prove the whole thing is contrived, fake and/or heavily edited. Plenty of historical evidence proves all that. That's all you need do.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

You can put certain parts to the test. Like "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain (or mulberry tree if you use the book of Luke), "Be uprooted and thrown into the sea and it will obey you." Now he could have meant that exact mulberry tree or mountain, but probably not. If the mountain is a metaphor for difficulties, was the mulberry tree a metaphor also? For what exactly?

 

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." Find sick people, or those who are blind or in wheelchairs and have them prayed for over and over and over again. How come they aren't cured? Is the Bible wrong? Was James full of shit and just made this stuff up to sound impressive?

 

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him." You say your little brother is in the hospital and you want him to be healed? Ok, let's ask God who loves us so very much.... Oh, he didn't survive? It must not have been God's will. God must have wanted him for a special purpose in Heaven. Then again God likes to kill things, especially kids. All the kids of Noah's time, the Egyptian kids, the Amalekite kids...there are others, but you get the picture. Of course the scripture is true! Just because God says NO, doesn't mean your prayer wasn't answered. He just likes to say NO a lot.

[Franko47]

I think in the end the only solution is to convince Christians that their scripture is contrived, made up by men, and there are no more Gods involved in it than any other religious writings.

 

It's going to take a long time before Bible takes it's place in history as great mythology, legend, and a book of tribal lore that is mostly fiction.

 

It is precisely because it's ancient that gives it this "mysterious power". Despite the contradictions, the hopelessly ridiculous stories, and the ludicrous "laws", believers will cling to it because of the continuity they need back through history to their Jesus and therefore their salvation.

[Tyson]

I think in the end the only solution is to convince Christians that their scripture is contrived, made up by men, and there are no more Gods involved in it than any other religious writings.

 

It's going to take a long time before Bible takes it's place in history as great mythology, legend, and a book of tribal lore that is mostly fiction.

 

It is precisely because it's ancient that gives it this "mysterious power". Despite the contradictions, the hopelessly ridiculous stories, and the ludicrous "laws", believers will cling to it because of the continuity they need back through history to their Jesus and therefore their salvation.

[Tyson]

Here is something I do. Most funny-mentalists will tell you that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are prophecies about the "end times." They believe it has something to do with modern-day Israel and a northern antagonist, namely Russia. In the late 70s and early 80s, driven by the nonsensical best-seller, The Late Great Planet Earth written by prophecy "expert" Hal Lindsay, funny-mentalists really believed the Soviet Union (at that) time was ready to invade Israel as per Ezekiel 38 and 39.

 

Here's the kicker. Sensible people realize that the so-called prophecy (which NEVER came to past) was meant for a time long past. The writer was NOT seeing 2,500 years (and counting) into the future as funny-mentalist would have us believe. He saw this as something happening in his immediate future. How do we know? Note carefully that he speaks of the invaders riding horses and carrying shields, swords and spears. Anyone know of any modern armies still using such weapons, especially the Russian army? Ask them about that and see what responses you get. You will hear more verbal gymnastics than a political debate.

[Franko47]

Here is something I do. Most funny-mentalists will tell you that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are prophecies about the "end times." They believe it has something to do with modern-day Israel and a northern antagonist, namely Russia. In the late 70s and early 80s, driven by the nonsensical best-seller, The Late Great Planet Earth written by prophecy "expert" Hal Lindsay, funny-mentalists really believed the Soviet Union (at that) time was ready to invade Israel as per Ezekiel 38 and 39.

 

Here's the kicker. Sensible people realize that the so-called prophecy (which NEVER came to past) was meant for a time long past. The writer was NOT seeing 2,500 years (and counting) into the future as funny-mentalist would have us believe. He saw this as something happening in his immediate future. How do we know? Note carefully that he speaks of the invaders riding horses and carrying shields, swords and spears. Anyone know of any modern armies still using such weapons, especially the Russian army? Ask them about that and see what responses you get. You will hear more verbal gymnastics than a political debate.

 

 

 

You know, the worst part of this is the amount of Christians who believe we are living in the end times, or close to it, who have young children. I've sometimes asked them about this; as in whether this is a very good idea to be slowly teaching your kids that the world doesn't have much time left ? What kind of future can they look forward to? And, is this unethical ? Maybe even a bit abusive ?

 

It seems even harming your children doesn't stand in the way for the mad dash to the Apocalypse. And I challenge any end times Christian to defend this kind of thing to my face.

[Bro]

All excellent points

[Shyone]

Here is something I do. Most funny-mentalists will tell you that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are prophecies about the "end times." They believe it has something to do with modern-day Israel and a northern antagonist, namely Russia. In the late 70s and early 80s, driven by the nonsensical best-seller, The Late Great Planet Earth written by prophecy "expert" Hal Lindsay, funny-mentalists really believed the Soviet Union (at that) time was ready to invade Israel as per Ezekiel 38 and 39.

 

Here's the kicker. Sensible people realize that the so-called prophecy (which NEVER came to past) was meant for a time long past. The writer was NOT seeing 2,500 years (and counting) into the future as funny-mentalist would have us believe. He saw this as something happening in his immediate future. How do we know? Note carefully that he speaks of the invaders riding horses and carrying shields, swords and spears. Anyone know of any modern armies still using such weapons, especially the Russian army? Ask them about that and see what responses you get. You will hear more verbal gymnastics than a political debate.

I bought that book, and it was the first crack in the armor of my faith. I looked up the scriptures cited and compared them with the context and the prediction, and I noted how they were misuisng the text. The prophecies of Jesus did exactly the same thing, and my belief in biblical prophecy went out the window. Without that, the whole thing starts to come unraveled.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Here's the kicker. Sensible people realize that the so-called prophecy (which NEVER came to past) was meant for a time long past. The writer was NOT seeing 2,500 years (and counting) into the future as funny-mentalist would have us believe. He saw this as something happening in his immediate future. How do we know? Note carefully that he speaks of the invaders riding horses and carrying shields, swords and spears. Anyone know of any modern armies still using such weapons, especially the Russian army? Ask them about that and see what responses you get. You will hear more verbal gymnastics than a political debate.

 

I've heard pastors preach from the pulpit that stuff like that was evidence that mankind would at some point revert back to old-fashioned war methods. I was a kid back then, but now as an adult I can see how they were really stretching to get the passages to fit a futuristic prophecy interpretation.

[mwc]

You can put certain parts to the test. Like "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain (or mulberry tree if you use the book of Luke), "Be uprooted and thrown into the sea and it will obey you." Now he could have meant that exact mulberry tree or mountain, but probably not. If the mountain is a metaphor for difficulties, was the mulberry tree a metaphor also? For what exactly?

 

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." Find sick people, or those who are blind or in wheelchairs and have them prayed for over and over and over again. How come they aren't cured? Is the Bible wrong? Was James full of shit and just made this stuff up to sound impressive?

 

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him." You say your little brother is in the hospital and you want him to be healed? Ok, let's ask God who loves us so very much.... Oh, he didn't survive? It must not have been God's will. God must have wanted him for a special purpose in Heaven. Then again God likes to kill things, especially kids. All the kids of Noah's time, the Egyptian kids, the Amalekite kids...there are others, but you get the picture. Of course the scripture is true! Just because God says NO, doesn't mean your prayer wasn't answered. He just likes to say NO a lot.

Thou shalt not test the lord thy god! (even when thy god pretty much invites thou to do so)

 

mwc

[dagnarus]

Scripture has already been proven wrong. It's easy to do. The question is how do you get a fundamentalist to admit scripture is wrong.

[Mike D]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong.

Wait.... isn't this backwards?

 

Why would "we" need to "prove" the bible to be "uninspired", when the burdon of proof is upon those making the claim?

 

The only "evidence" we have that the Bible is god-inspired, is the Bible says it is.

 

This is circular reasoning and isn't valid proof of anything.

 

Where's the proof?

[Bro]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong.

Wait.... isn't this backwards?

 

Why would "we" need to "prove" the bible to be "uninspired", when the burdon of proof is upon those making the claim?

 

The only "evidence" we have that the Bible is god-inspired, is the Bible says it is.

 

This is circular reasoning and isn't valid proof of anything.

 

Where's the proof?

Not really, if there were no prophecies 'to test' then I'd agree with you. But in the bible stories we have a few prophecies, we have something substabtial and not based on stories and faith. We have somethking we can look to verify from historical records.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Not really, if there were no prophecies 'to test' then I'd agree with you. But in the bible stories we have a few prophecies, we have something substabtial and not based on stories and faith. We have somethking we can look to verify from historical records.

 

If you want to go that route, then let's look at some of the so-called prophecy fulfillments. I don't want to repost something really long, so I've linked below another thread in which I posted something I had written a while back regarding several fabricated prophetic fulfillments in the NT.

 

Click below and go to post #5:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/34768-messianic-prophecies/

[TedGresham]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong.

Wait.... isn't this backwards?

 

Why would "we" need to "prove" the bible to be "uninspired", when the burdon of proof is upon those making the claim?

 

The only "evidence" we have that the Bible is god-inspired, is the Bible says it is.

 

This is circular reasoning and isn't valid proof of anything.

 

Where's the proof?

Not really, if there were no prophecies 'to test' then I'd agree with you. But in the bible stories we have a few prophecies, we have something substabtial and not based on stories and faith. We have somethking we can look to verify from historical records.

 

Mike is right. I agree. We in the U.S. of A. are always put on the defensive by the religious majority. THEY say "this is true." Prophecy, rules, law, history, whatever. THEN they say it's true because it says it is true. Well so does Mein Kampf. Woopee. I stopped being a believer because what it said, what they said it said, what they claimed to be and be able to do according to what it supposedly says, is not true.

 

"We don't have to prove God." It's a Christian assumption, although the Bible itself says "trust me, try me, prove me says the lord...." and I'll be damned if when one really does one proves the "lord" does not exist. Shazaaam. (My best Gohmer Pyle)

 

I say, screw prophecy or anything else, prove the book is valid. Not that it exists, not even that it might be fairly accurate, which it isn't (but that's not the point), prove it is VALID. There they fall into the abyss. Bye bye.

[dagnarus]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong.

Wait.... isn't this backwards?

 

Why would "we" need to "prove" the bible to be "uninspired", when the burdon of proof is upon those making the claim?

 

The only "evidence" we have that the Bible is god-inspired, is the Bible says it is.

 

This is circular reasoning and isn't valid proof of anything.

 

Where's the proof?

Not really, if there were no prophecies 'to test' then I'd agree with you. But in the bible stories we have a few prophecies, we have something substabtial and not based on stories and faith. We have somethking we can look to verify from historical records.

 

If you'd read some of the Christian explanations for how prophecies such as the destruction of Tyre were fulfilled, and thus prove the bible, you would know the futility of your position. Mike is right, the only way to prove the bible wrong to such people, is to get them to stop thinking, how can I make the bible right.

[Bro]

I've been thinking, and in my opinion the only possible way you can prove the bible to be uninspired, is by proving prophecy wrong.

Wait.... isn't this backwards?

 

Why would "we" need to "prove" the bible to be "uninspired", when the burdon of proof is upon those making the claim?

 

The only "evidence" we have that the Bible is god-inspired, is the Bible says it is.

 

This is circular reasoning and isn't valid proof of anything.

 

Where's the proof?

Not really, if there were no prophecies 'to test' then I'd agree with you. But in the bible stories we have a few prophecies, we have something substabtial and not based on stories and faith. We have somethking we can look to verify from historical records.

 

If you'd read some of the Christian explanations for how prophecies such as the destruction of Tyre were fulfilled, and thus prove the bible, you would know the futility of your position. Mike is right, the only way to prove the bible wrong to such people, is to get them to stop thinking, how can I make the bible right.

I've actually done extensive research on Tyre, I'm still undecided, though it looks like it may have come true after all. I've now moved onto King Neb's invasion of Egypt for which there's next to no evidence at all.

 

Here: Neb/Egypt

[★ Citsonga ★]

I've actually done extensive research on Tyre, I'm still undecided, though it looks like it may have come true after all.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb6IaFPbNq0

[dagnarus]

I've actually done extensive research on Tyre, I'm still undecided, though it looks like it may have come true after all. I've now moved onto King Neb's invasion of Egypt for which there's next to no evidence at all.

 

Here: Neb/Egypt

 

If you have really been swayed on the matter of Tyre, a prophecy which the Ezekiel himself admitted didn't come to pass, then I'm fairly certain that your not going to be able to find any other prophecy which apologists won't be able to convince you, they were actually fulfilled. No offense.

[Bro]

I've actually done extensive research on Tyre, I'm still undecided, though it looks like it may have come true after all.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb6IaFPbNq0

Yes I've encountered that vid, it's good too. He raises some good points, but I've had them countered by better points.

[Bro]

I've actually done extensive research on Tyre, I'm still undecided, though it looks like it may have come true after all. I've now moved onto King Neb's invasion of Egypt for which there's next to no evidence at all.

 

Here: Neb/Egypt

 

If you have really been swayed on the matter of Tyre, a prophecy which the Ezekiel himself admitted didn't come to pass, then I'm fairly certain that your not going to be able to find any other prophecy which apologists won't be able to convince you, they were actually fulfilled. No offense.

Well, I'm not 100% convinced, but I now know why they believe Tyre came to pass. The jury is still out, but it's a 11 to 1 situation at the moment. I don't necessarily look at one prophecy and decide, but I take them all into account and weigh it up.

 

The Neb/Egypt one is interesting, as I can find next to nothing that proves it. Of course theists counter with 'well that doesn't mean it didn't occur'.