Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

It is impossible to prove you wrong, in this format, because you refuse to stay on topic. The above quote is evidence of this as is the string of your quotes previous.

How is the quote you provided off topic? I is a valid reason to why the bible could be considered false? Why are you dodging the question, riverwolf was nice enough to try and answer some of it? If you cant answer just say so, stop accusing me of being off topic when in fact im trying to stick with the thread by provinding reasons why i think the bible is false.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by darkendless

How is the quote you provided off topic? I is a valid reason to why the bible could be considered false? Why are you dodging the question, riverwolf was nice enough to try and answer some of it? If you cant answer just say so, stop accusing me of being off topic when in fact im trying to stick with the thread by provinding reasons why i think the bible is false.

I think Sandy means that by trying to use history instead of the Bible itself you are being off-topic.

I don't think so.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

I think Sandy means that by trying to use history instead of the Bible itself you are being off-topic.

I don't think so.

Oh i see, but as far as i know they've failed to back up most of the quotes in the bible historically which does it no favours. Using the bible to show how false the bible is doesn't really make sense without comparing it to something.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Oh i see, but as far as i know they've failed to back up most of the quotes in the bible historically which does it no favours. Using the bible to show how false the bible is doesn't really make sense without comparing it to something.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

No, I claim to have a very good understanding of the character and characteristics of the God of the Bible based on over 15 years of study and having gone completely through the Bible 17 times.

I very seriously doubt that anyone knows more about the character of the God of the Bible that goes beyond what is presented in the Bible. There is a deeper understanding that is gained from a closer walk with God.

Are'nt we fortunate that the only person on earth who really understand the real God consents to spend his time posting here, so that we can learn The Truth from an authoritative source?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by roli

Dispite the Historical ,Geopgraphical, Archeological and written transcripts found verifying so much of the accuracy of the bible, which many fail to fully explore,more so than any other manuscript ever found, including some of the most influential and esteemed greek writings of antiquity.

Please share it with us. Let's focus on the new testament. Shall we start with History? Please present the historical evidence that supports the events described in the NT. (OR, if you prefer, the geographical, archaelogical, or written transcripts.)

[little_monkey]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

I am certain that some parts are true and some are not, particularly if by 'true' one means 'historically accurate.' But we are a mythopoetic people and their are other standards of 'truth' that have relevance when it comes to our folk narrative. The exodus/conquest of the Torah is, to adopt Dever's phrase, "historical myth" but remains deeply true for each of us.

How does one reconcile that with those who claim the bible is the word of God?

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Please share it with us. Let's focus on the new testament. Shall we start with History? Please present the historical evidence that supports the events described in the NT. (OR, if you prefer, the geographical, archaelogical, or written transcripts.)

After all, none of the original manuscripts of the gospels or letters of Paul have survived; the oldest manuscript we have containing a part of the NT is a hand-sized piece of shredded parchment that according to scholars was originally the Gospel of John. It dates to around 100 A.D; many years after the gospel was originally written. (or at least many years before the time when we think it was written; without any original manuscripts it's difficult to say for sure)

I have also heard that during the time when Jesus supposedly lived, there wasn't a town called Nazareth.

I do think there was a Rabbi called Yeshua, son of Yosef the Carpenter, who taught (at the time) controversial things that inspired many people(such as the Sabbath being created for man, not God, so that he could rest from six days of hard work) and found favor with the scum of the land. I don't think the gospels accurately tell the narrative tale. (though I see no reason why the philosophical teachings presented in them are not actually teachings of Rabbi Yeshua.) After all, the canonical gospels disagree with each other on many seemingly minor things, such as the sequence of events. Heck, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus goes to Jerusalem only once; in John, he goes there twice.