Proofs that the Holy Bible is True

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

If it is proved, does that not debase your faith?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.