1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 14:53
    http://allanturner.com/bibleproofs.html

    http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php

    http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
  2. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    20 Aug '11 15:24
    If it is proved, does that not debase your faith?
  3. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86724
    20 Aug '11 15:28
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    If it is proved, does that not debase your faith?
    The guy is running out of ideas; at least he makes Dasa look on-it though.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Aug '11 15:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://allanturner.com/bibleproofs.html

    http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php

    http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
    Proving the bible says things that are true does not make everything in the bible true.

    Also claiming you had an idea or made a discovery first, while potentially laudable does
    not mean that other claims you make are true.

    The problem for theologian as opposed to a historian, is that you have to prove the existence
    of the divine, of the supernatural, of god. Showing that people a few thousand years ago
    had a very basic understanding of the world around them does not prove the existence of a
    supernatural entity, it proves they had a limited understanding of the world around them.

    I could point out a list of things the Bible gets wrong, except I and others have already done
    this and you have ignored it as not fitting into your world view.

    Also a lot of the claims are subjective. The claim the bible knew the world was a sphere for
    example, as I understand it the word used could mean both sphere or circle (which is flat)
    and given the common use at the time, plus the repeated statements that you can see the
    entire earth from a high enough standpoint (possible on a disc, not on a sphere) the likely
    most period accurate interpretation is that they believed the world was flat.

    However even if you are right and that they said that it was a sphere, that still puts them
    behind the Greeks who had already worked it out, and even if it didn't, it is a really simple
    and obvious observation to make. And even come up with a first order approximation of the
    globes size.

    What you are demonstrating is not proof that the bible is the word of god, or that god exists.

    What you are demonstrating is that the bible didn't get everything wrong, depending on what
    translation you chose to interpret.

    If it was really the word of god, why does it get Anything wrong?

    Plus some of those facts those sites are claiming the bible "proves" are not actually true.

    basically what's the point of your post?
    What do you think it demonstrates?
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Aug '11 15:49
    for example Leviticus Chapter 11 states that

    "And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is]
    unclean unto you."


    Rabbits don't chew the cud... neither do hares.

    Thus this chapter that is being interpreted and put forward as advanced divine
    knowledge contains factual errors.

    Surely if it was written by god he could have not only avoided making such elementary
    mistakes but also written it clearly so that it could be easily understood without
    fallible humans having to interpret and translate it?
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 15:59
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    for example Leviticus Chapter 11 states that

    "And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is]
    unclean unto you."


    Rabbits don't chew the cud... neither do hares.

    Thus this chapter that is being interpreted and put forward as advanced divine
    knowledge contains factual errors.

    Surely if it was written by god h ...[text shortened]... it could be easily understood without
    fallible humans having to interpret and translate it?
    http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 16:01
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Proving the bible says things that are true does not make everything in the bible true.

    Also claiming you had an idea or made a discovery first, while potentially laudable does
    not mean that other claims you make are true.

    The problem for theologian as opposed to a historian, is that you have to prove the existence
    of the divine, of the supernat ...[text shortened]... ually true.

    basically what's the point of your post?
    What do you think it demonstrates?
    What did I title this thread? No need for your question.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Aug '11 16:02
    The basic problem with any claim that "The Bible" is true (or false), lies in the fact that "The Bible" is non-existent. There is no single text with a single interpretation that can be tested for 'truth value'. There are instead a whole range of texts in various languages whose interpretation is debatable.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 16:171 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    for example Leviticus Chapter 11 states that

    "And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is]
    unclean unto you."


    Rabbits don't chew the cud... neither do hares.

    Thus this chapter that is being interpreted and put forward as advanced divine
    knowledge contains factual errors.

    Surely if it was written by god h ...[text shortened]... it could be easily understood without
    fallible humans having to interpret and translate it?
    coney - any of several small ungulate mammals of Africa and Asia with rodent-like incisors and feet with hooflike toes

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coney
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Aug '11 16:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
    So the translators got it wrong?
    Thus your translated bible is wrong?
    This is a defence of your argument the bible is true?
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Aug '11 16:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    coney - any of several small ungulate mammals of Africa and Asia with rodent-like incisors and feet with hooflike toes

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coney
    and do ANY of them chew the cud? plus the relevant definition is the one used
    at the time of the translation, not the modern one.
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Aug '11 16:331 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    What did I title this thread? No need for your question.
    Well as I stated in my original post...

    So what?

    The relevant issue is 'is there a god?' is the bible divine inspiration?

    Whether it contains things that are true or not is irrelevant.

    Heck even some of the morals in it aren't bad (although you have to
    cherry pick which makes it less than useful as a moral guide as it relies
    on you picking the right ones.)

    There will inevitably be things in it that are true, but there are also things
    that are manifestly false.

    Your problem is that your position requires that EVERYTHING in the bible
    is literally true. One single mistake or contradiction and you're screwed.

    Unfortunately for you there are countless mistakes and contradictions.

    None of those sites concoct a solid argument for the 'truth' of the bible,
    and combined they also fail.

    So I ask again, what's the point?

    The bible (so you say, but have not demonstrated) is true.... and?



    EDIT: btw way to go and pick up the least significant point I make, focus
    on it, and still fail to make any sensible argument.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 16:36
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    and do ANY of them chew the cud? plus the relevant definition is the one used
    at the time of the translation, not the modern one.
    The point is you jump to conclusions without making any attempt to
    study what the Holy Bible is saying. The writers of the Holy Bible
    were inspired to write what they did according to the Holy Bible. Who
    has ever said translators are inspired by God? If coney is the correct
    translation, then the Bible writer may not have meant the rabbit or
    hare. You can not say it is not true without knowing all the facts.
    That is the way we lose a lot of chess games.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 16:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The point is you jump to conclusions without making any attempt to
    study what the Holy Bible is saying. The writers of the Holy Bible
    were inspired to write what they did according to the Holy Bible. Who
    has ever said translators are inspired by God? If coney is the correct
    translation, then the Bible writer may not have meant the rabbit or
    hare. Yo ...[text shortened]... say it is not true without knowing all the facts.
    That is the way we lose a lot of chess games.
    The comment at the bottom of my Holy Bible on Lev. 11:6 is follows:

    Hebrew - amebeth is an unidentified animal, apparently not equivalent
    to the English - rabbit.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12733
    20 Aug '11 16:521 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The basic problem with any claim that "The Bible" is true (or false), lies in the fact that "The Bible" is non-existent. There is no single text with a single interpretation that can be tested for 'truth value'. There are instead a whole range of texts in various languages whose interpretation is debatable.
    I believe one of the references I gave for the proofs states that although
    the Holy Bible is known to be written over hundreds of years by many
    writers it contains the same theme from Genesis to Revelation. Reread
    carefully the referenced links if you wish to learn the truth.
Back to Top