Historicity of the Bible...are there any flaws?

[benjah]

Just doing a google search for "disproving the Bible" brought up a lot of sites which are aimed at proving the historicity of the Bible rather than disproving it, so I decided to come here. So what I am wondering if anyone knows of any physical evidence which can prove any historical inacuracy or flaws in the Bible? (other than the conflict between Biblical and current scientific creation accounts). And please don't give me evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible, I already know all that. I am mostly just looking for evidence against it, please.

[Darkmatic]

Originally posted by benjah Just doing a google search for "disproving the Bible" brought up a lot of sites which are aimed at proving the historicity of the Bible rather than disproving it, so I decided to come here. So what I am wondering if anyone knows of any physical evidence which can prove any historical inacuracy or flaws in the Bible? (other than the conflict between Biblical and current scientific creation accounts). And please don't give me evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible, I already know all that. I am mostly just looking for evidence against it, please. How bout the fact that constantine wrote and edited the bible back in the 4th century . see here - http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm How can you even trust a book that was edited by a guy with his own agenda for doing so , the agenda being unifying the roman empire . Just remember that even history is written by the person who wins the war , and thus a completely different story may have actually occured , but for the records it was written by the successor that it happened a certain way . Now , if your gonna live your life by a book which has gone through so many different hand and edited and changed for so many different reasons , then thats your agenda , i believe in living my life in accordance with what i truly know myself .

[benjah]

Originally posted by Darkmatic i believe in living my life in accordance with what i truly know myself . That statement summerizes why I posted this topic. I am not trying to be like "the bible is so true, and you can't prove it isn't!" I want to know because if there is any proof at all of any part at all of the Bible not being true, then I want to throw mine away. I genuinely want answers. I have recently been faced with the idea that Christianity is mostly a creation of man. I was frustraited at first because I didn't want it to be true. Then I realized that it is indeed true, and it is nothing to be fear. As much as I can't stand Christianity today and I hate calling myself a Christian, I still recognize God and his word. However, if His word can be proved to be untrue, then I will renounce Him and my faith. My main desire is to live by truth. I don't believe in relative truth, and I don't believe we create truth either. I believe truth is discovered. And that is why I am trying to find out if I am seeking after what is really truth. Secondly, this article makes a lot of interesting points, but none of them actually prove any part of the Bible being untrue. I am hoping more for specific instances of things written in the Bible which can be proven incorrect. Lastly, thank you for the time to reply, and for your input. Though we disagree on theology, I think we both are ultimately seeking after the same thing: truth. We should always be searching for truth and questioning what we believe. So then does anyone else know of anything? I am still searching myself, and finding it hard to find unbiased information. Everything I find stinks so badly of bias one way or the other that its hard to find the real facts.

[Darkmatic]

Originally posted by benjah That statement summerizes why I posted this topic. I am not trying to be like "the bible is so true, and you can't prove it isn't!" I want to know because if there is any proof at all of any part at all of the Bible not being true, then I want to throw mine away. I genuinely want answers. I have recently been faced with the idea that Christianity is mostly a creation of man. I was frustraited at first because I didn't want it to be true. Then I realized that it is indeed true, and it is nothing to be fear. As much as I can't stand Christianity today and I hate calling myself a Christian, I still recognize God and his word. However, if His word can be proved to be untrue, then I will renounce Him and my faith. My main desire is to live by truth. I don't believe in relative truth, and I don't believe we create truth either. I believe truth is discovered. And that is why I am trying to find out if I am seeking after what is really truth. Secondly, this article makes a lot of interesting points, but none of them actually prove any part of the Bible being untrue. I am hoping more for specific instances of things written in the Bible which can be proven incorrect. Lastly, thank you for the time to reply, and for your input. Though we disagree on theology, I think we both are ultimately seeking after the same thing: truth. We should always be searching for truth and questioning what we believe. So then does anyone else know of anything? I am still searching myself, and finding it hard to find unbiased information. Everything I find stinks so badly of bias one way or the other that its hard to find the real facts. Hey , i completely understand man . I am also a christian , but i never really took religion seriously when i was younger , and now that im older im more intersted in finding the truth . The thing about truth is , like you said , there is only one truth . And the one truth can never really be 100% verified , though it is possible to say that in accordance with this data or findings that said theory must be correct , it is still a theory . Even the rock solid laws of Physics are questioned , they are only an interpretation of collected data and thought . But ultimately it is us as individuals who must decide what we believe to be truth and what is faulse , if there is doubt in your mind and you know all the facts there are to know , then most likely you are correct in doubting something . I personally cant base the way i live on a book which may not be completely true , if its not 100% word of God , then whats the point . Now if God came along and struck me down and said "I am realy here i am" then i would have no trouble believing of course , but to believe in a story which has so many variations and unbelievable accounts is not possible for me without hard evidence . I dont know of anything specifically in the bible which is untrue , but no doubt there are many schools of thought on the subject . I like to focus on the beggining of the bible , Genesis . The idea that everything was created is flawed in my opinion , becasue if all things require a creator then why does God not then require a creator . If you have a universal law that all things must have been created , then you must apply that law to ALL things . I dunno , someone else come up with one .

[Barbizzle]

I just read an amazing book that clearly and simply points out the historical flaw of the bible through archelogical evidence. It also talk alot how many of the stories are just alterd versions of Egyption and Babelyoian myths. The book is called 101 myths of the bible. Here the link to it in the Barns and Noble Store. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...760769656&itm=2

[spoon]

Originally posted by benjah That statement summerizes why I posted this topic. I am not trying to be like "the bible is so true, and you can't prove it isn't!" I want to know because if there is any proof at all of any part at all of the Bible not being true, then I want to throw mine away. I genuinely want answers. ... So then does anyone else know of anything? I am still searching myself, and finding it hard to find unbiased information. Everything I find stinks so badly of bias one way or the other that its hard to find the real facts. Hell, if anything is worth coming out of lurking for it'd be this . You're right that it's hard to find unbiased information, on this topic as more than anything else. Archaeology/history is notorious for scholars starting out with a belief and working the evidence around to fit it. Well actually everything is notorious for that, it's just that it's so much easier in archaeology. A great book which examines the historical context of the bible, without an agenda, would be The bible Unearthed. I've seen this recommended more than anything else. But anyway, to try and answer the question without just referring you to a book. Some errors of the OT which I can remember. Noah's ark is just wrong. On so many levels. Geologically, archaeologically, mathematically, scientifically, logically, etc. linky The whole of exodus would be a good area to research the false claims of the bible. From what I can remember: There was never a mass death of firstborns recorded (and the Egyptians kept good records, even of defeats); so many slaves legging at it once would have left an impact on the economy of which there is no evidence; so many people wandering in the desert would have left some (I'd say lots of) evidence - yet there is none. Lots of little things are wrong: for example the walls of Jericho had been in complete disrepair for centuries before they were supposedly knocked down (by a trumpet?). Most of the historical/archaeological errors you'll find will be in the OT, as the NT has very little in the way of verifiable information. There are still errors in the NT, but they're in the details (as the events themselves aren't something archaeology can verify). Errors in the NT are things like impossible geography (lakes not being where they should be, people taking incorrect routes between cities); or incorrect observal of Jewish laws in the trial/execution of jesus (Shouldn't be on the passover, or at night, shouldn't pronounce a death sentence before 24 hours, etc). Lots of information (but probably a bit too biased ) on another forum. It's a great place though, especially if you're asking these questions. Plus, didn't some guy come back from being 3 days dead? I'm pretty sure that cant't happen Hope I was helpful -spoon (back to lurking)

[VoltÆre]

Being a Christian myself, I think it would be naive to simply believe every event and story in the Bible. Obviously, the Bible has been translated and revised over thousands of years, and every small fact will not remain intact. However, I read the Bible for it's lessons and ideals, and not as a history book.

[Howie]

Any Doctrine that is that old would be almost impossible for it not to have been altered in some form or another. But if you do believe in God, then God either intervened and in fact never did have it altered or to the opposite effect, any alterations that took place he had meant for that to happen.

[AirRick101]

The problem with either intending to prove or disprove the Bible is that the person on such a task on either side is going to unconsciously try to add more to his or her point, sometimes to the point that it's not about truth anymore, but moreso about being right in the midst of disagreements. The bible has, you can say, a lot of technical errors. Some believers dismiss them, and some interpret the Bible in what they claim a holistic way to keep their main interpretation intact. The human mind can find countless rationalizations. E.g. New Testament says at some point that if you curse someone and call them a fool, you are surely risking going to hell for eternity. But Jesus calls people "fool" all the time in the gospels. To the atheist, this is great news, it shows a linguistic fallacy in the Bible. But for the Christian, they may interpret it as the anger one has while calling someone a fool will hinder their spiritual growth and working out their salvation, and that when Jesus used such a "curse" against someone, it was merely to make a point, without the emotional or spiritual hostility. There are many more cases similar to this, but depending mainly on your upbringing will influence how you'd see it.

[wombing]

flaws? those are almost impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. inconsistencies?...i would hope any reasonable, openminded, truth-seeking individual could easily see the absurdity of certain humans placing the old testament and new testament together and claiming each and every word of each and every book in both testaments is inspired by the same divine entity. I still recognize God and his word. However, if His word can be proved to be untrue, then I will renounce Him and my faith. My main desire is to live by truth. I don't believe in relative truth, and I don't believe we create truth either. I believe truth is discovered. And that is why I am trying to find out if I am seeking after what is really truth. [/b] i was raised a christian, and spent the greater part of my adolescence trying to prove its legitimacy...eventually i rejected jehovah completely (rather a pathetic, petty, human-like "god" IMHO), and most of the new testament, including the letters of paul. why trust words, when you can go straight to the Living Word (the spirit of christ)? if you wish to follow a christ you can be proud of in this modern age which has shown the uselessness of superstition, let christ prove himself to you. i now detest organized christianity, threw away my bible, and will never attend church again...but i still consider the spirit of jesus to be one of the main guiding influences in my life. go straight to the source... perhaps this thought will be of help: if christ is truly the Word (Logos-John 1:1) his spirit cannot be fully captured by dilution and division into thousands of words written by various individuals. seek in silence and earnestness, and see what you find...

[Drifter]

hey guys, i can understand why people would question the validility of the bible, its something that is hard to accept, bassing your whole belifes on one book. But thats what the protestants bassed there faith with that one book, when you look at the early christians before constantine and before the bible was even formed they were being tortured and killed and why? For they saw the power of christ come to earth and what he had showed to the people i.e. his miracles. Even after he died and went to heaven we have the apostles who showed how the holy spirt worked through them with miraculous works, and throughout the 2000 years of christianity we have a vast history of the power of crhist working. Countless stories of the Saints and Matrys that hold to the realitly of christ, I am an eastern orthodox and i see and find that the protestantism that we all see only takes one peice of the pie (the Bible) in which there is a whole world of christianity thats been unfolding for 2000 years. The church which has been since the begining is the bible unfolding in front of our eyes, the prophisies that christ gave us on how they would treat anybody who followed him, for hundreds of years the muslims slaughtered Orthodox christians and they still stood by the cross, the orthodox even went trhough persecutions from the Catholics, the orthodox church is the one church that withstood all the persecutions christ warned us about. So yes the bible is very old and yes there were councils to help formulate the bible as we see today, it was the work of the holy spirit. But if that does not conivnce you then i urge you to read about the history of the saints and what the church went through for the past 2000 years, youll be amazed at what the people went through for the sake of truth. Heres a link on orthodox persecutions: http://www.geocities.com/umaximov/moore.htm?200519

[Leo Volont]

The Bible is a very relevant collection of Spiritual Literatures, if one can keep track of all of the exceptions. One of the largest and most glaring exceptions being that Paul is the Antichrist and he gives simply awful advice. Just think about it for a moment -- paul is saying that because he and the pharisee had voted to have Jesus murdered, that God has somehow decided that all Sinners would be forgiven their Sins, providing of course that they fall in with those who think it was a good thing to have Jesus killed. Honestly? Is that what any decent person is supposed to think? That we can murder people so that we can place our sins upon them? and then we must wonder of the moral consequences with people who think that they can sin whenever they want and that their sins are automatically forgiven because once a Messiah was murdered. Also, it might occur to any thinking person, that whereby even if the mechanism of Salvation was at play at the time -- that Jesus could take on the Sins of those he intended to die for... well, that was then and this is now. We have no indication that anybody today is having his or her sins forgiven. Simply look. There are no miracles. Protestantism has gone 500 years without its first miracle or saint. And though Catholicism does have miracles and saints, they do not occur for those Catholics who believe in Paul and rely upon the Killing of Jesus to cover for their sins. The Saints of the Catholic Church prefer to remain sinless, or they take a great deal of trouble upon themselves to atone for those sins they do commit. It would not occur to them to murder Jesus for those moral failures that would best be resolved with a measure of personal responsibility. And then we have the Old Testament, which is likely to be a very bad influence upon too naive a reader. Take the Story of Jacob. it started when an old and kindly Abraham made a terrible choice in a decision he made and sent an incompetent servant to find a wife for his son Isaac. This idiot of a servant was accosted by a prostitute at a public market place who must have addressed him with the equivalent of "Hi, Sailor. New in town?" He thought this forward girl accustomed to plying strange men would make a wonderful wife. He made no effort to find the best available young woman, recommended by the Community Leaders. he went home with the first girl he found, or rather, who found him. A whore. This whore bore two sons. The first, Esau, was honest and upright, and so she could not relate to him at all and did not like him. But he was a favorite of Isaac's. The second son was a scheming scandrel, a fraud and a cheat, and so his mother loved him as a piece of herself. Isaac found him creepy. The Bible discusses at great length how Jacob the Fraud and his scheming whore mother stole the Birthright from Esau. Then the Bible tells us God sent an Angel to take it back, and actually broke his leg doing it. And we have the Bible tell us that 'Israel' means "they who fight against all that is Holy and Good". And yet, while the Bible tells us all of these things, the stories are written by scribes who are both sympathetic to Jacob. All the Truth is just below the surface, and there is the extreme danger that young and impressionable readers might think that God loves and favors crafty and cunning schemers and frauds, and that God somehow hates the simple and the upright. Indeed, we can look upon the Jews as a Race and discern that this traditional Story of Jacob must certainly have twisted and turned their collective perceptions of what is right and wrong. One can best understand any Jewish Lawyer or salesman in the moral context where they think Jacob was a most admirable specimen of manhood. Anyway, if you want of good book, that one can trust, on morality and spirituality, then buy a copy of Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi"