How much of the Bible can actually be proven true??

[psychdave]

According to internet resources only around 19% of the Bible can be verified via external sources (i.e. non Bible). Christians say that the Bible is 66 independent books so it proves itself..... However, in reality nobody can say with 100% certainty that the books of the Bible are true as clearly they were written down many years after actual events took place... If we were to take Deuteronomy literally for example, we would have a Christian terrorist organisation as we'd be killing non Christians, homosexuals, adulterers and rebellious teens.... If we were to take the new testament literally we'd poke out our eyes, cut off our hands etc if they caused us to sin and also literally believe if several people agree in something in prayer it would be done..... (NB, it doesn't happen!!)

Whilst Christians will argue that things in the old testament came to pass in the new testament, how can anyone prove that the new testament wasn't purposely written in a way to ensure it verified the old testament?

[JehovahsWitness]

There is at least one example of something in the Bible being proven to be untrue. Ezekiel 26:14

" I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. "

....

Tyre as a city is still inhabited? There's still buildings and stuff? What gives

QUESTION: Did the bible wrongly predict the permenent destruction of the city of Tyre?

No, Firstly, note the scripture does not say "you will never be inhabited" it says "you willl never be rebuilt". (The bible does contain some prophecies of perpectual or temporary desolation but this is not one of them). Further, the "you" in the bible's pronouncements is the Phoenician Empire, her dynasty ("you"), (Ez 28:13-18 ) and her capital. Though Tyre would exist as a under Grecian dominance, as a Roman provence and latter a Lebanese city, Alexander's conquest brought a permanent end the Phoenecian city of Tyre guilty in God's eyes, of mistreatment of His people. She would never again regain her former position.

To illustrate: If a revolutionary stood up in Westminister (the location where the UK Government meets) and pronounced a condemnation on the place saying "The people will rise up and destroy YOU, smash you to to pièces forever, never to be restored"

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the "YOU" might rightly be interpreted as the government (the seat of power) as symbolized by the building itself And that even if 100 years after revolutionaries overthrew the government, killed its leaders and pulled the building to the ground, travelling scandenavians rebuilt the structure and used it as a Headquarters for IKEA the prediction would still stand true. Since the power symbolized by the physical structure at the time no longer existed.

CONCLUSION: Ezekiels prophecy in Chap 26:14 was fulfilled when the city of Tyre as a Phenecian centre of power came to a permenent end.

[rikuoamero]

There is at least one example of something in the Bible being proven to be untrue. Ezekiel 26:14

" I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. "

....

Tyre as a city is still inhabited? There's still buildings and stuff? What gives

The bible's pronouncements were against the Phoenician Empire, her dynasty, (Ez 28:13-18 ) and her capital. Though Tyre would exist as a under Grecian dominance, as a Roman provence and latter a Lebanese, city, Alexander's conquest brought a permanent end the Phoenecian city of Tyre guilty in God's eyes, of mistreatment of His people. She would never again regain her former position.

Ezekiel had written regarding this final wave of destructive forces "And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag."(Eze 26:4)

Complete fulfillment of this prophetic pronouncements eventually came, nearly two hundred years after Zechariah said it, nearly three hundred years after Jeremiah and Ezekiel said it, and more than four hundred years after Isaiah said it with the destruction of Tyre in 332 at the hands of Alexander.

And yet, that Wikipedia link I gave shows photographs of a modern city, it has a map, it says that this city is called Tyre, it says that this city is in the same location as the Tyre mentioned in Ezekiel. I can go to other sources, I can Google Image search for photos of Tyre, I can look up on Youtube videos shot in Tyre...the list goes on.
You're ignoring the bold part. WILL NEVER BE REBUILT. If the prophecy is a true prophecy, then there ought not to be a city there. There should never have been a Tyre that was rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar's conquest, for Alexander the Great to then himself conquer and sack.

[rikuoamero]

JW, here's another one.

1 Kings 7:23-26
" He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits[a] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.[c]"

Now what's the significance of this you might ask? Simple mathematics. For that to be true, for it to be 100% accurate, it would mean that pi (you know, that one with this symbol π ) is equal to exactly 3.
However, anyone who's gone through high school mathematics knows that pi is NEVER equal to 3. It is physically impossible for an object to exist where pi = 3.

[JehovahsWitness]

1 Kings 7:23-26
It took a line of thirty cubits[a] to measure around it.

For that to be true, for it to be 100% accurate, it would mean that pi (you know, that one with this symbol π ) is equal to exactly 3.

Firstly, the word "exactly" is not in the text, there is no statement that the number has NOT been rounded* so in the absence of such an explicit statement, any presumption that the number had not been rounded is, given the contextual circumstances (see extract below), quesionable.

*ROUNDING a numerical value means replacing it by another value that is approximately equal but has a shorter, simpler, or more explicit representation [...] Rounding is often done to obtain a value that is easier to report and communicate than the original. Rounding can also be important to avoid misleadingly precise reporting of a computed number, measurement or estimate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding

Anyway, without wanting to re-invent the Wheel (no pun intended) please consider the extract below.


� QUESTION/ At 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 we are told that the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon’s temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that “it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it.� Is this not incorrect, since it is impossible to have a circle with these two values?—H.S., U.S.A.

Today, in mathematical calculations, it is customary to use pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. According to general practice, it is a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. However, in ancient times persons did not give decimals down to the last fraction. For that matter, pi itself is not just 3.1416. Persons who insist on scrupulous accuracy and consider the Bible to be in error in giving the measurements of the molten sea would do well to realize that, to be more accurate themselves, it would be appropriate to carry pi to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even a figure in excess of 3.1415926535 could be used.

Bible commentator Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie, who made this interesting observation regarding the measurements of the molten sea: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semidiameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.�


According to 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the molten sea was ten cubits, or fifteen feet, in diameter and it took a line of thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, to encompass it. That is a ratio of one to three, which, for practical purposes, was quite adequate for the sake of a record. Jeremiah and Ezra, therefore, gave approximate figures.

Adapted from Watchtower, QR May 15th 1966

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 24 by JehovahsWitness]

I knew that this would be your response to the 1 Kings pi=3 thing. So to boil it down, you're saying that the author of that particular piece used an approximation...is that right?
Given that...how then do you square it with your prior assertion that the Bible is "100% accurate"? It seems to me that pointing to a book and saying these two things "100% accurate" and "they rounded it" would be contradictions.
So which is it, in the case of 1 Kings? Is it 100% accurate, (in other words, does pi = 3) or is it not 100% accurate and they rounded it off (in other words, pi = 3.14....) as we know it to be?
You can't have both. You can't have both 100% accurate and approximations/rounding happening.

I also have to remind you about my challenges from earlier, the one about the dragon in my garage and the six day old universe. Can you prove them to be untrue?

[JehovahsWitness]

So to boil it down, you're saying that the author of that particular piece used an approximation...is that right?
Given that...how then do you square it with your prior assertion that the Bible is "100% accurate"?

Because it's a 100% accurate "approximation".

An approximation is a perfectly viable mathematical and/or linguistic vehicle, it is not an "inaccuracy". To say that A lives approximately 2 kilometers from B if that is true, is not an error, of course it is entirely subjective as to whether one believes the approximation is reasonable or not. Had the bible writer implied "pi" were approximately 19 we might have something to talk about but as it stands the number is more than reasonable given the context and purpose of the passage. Even if he had, we would still be in the grey area of defining what he meant by "approximately".

In short, given how open such things are to personal values and interprétations, to present "approximations" as proof positive of "errors" is unconvincing.

JW

[rikuoamero]

So to boil it down, you're saying that the author of that particular piece used an approximation...is that right?
Given that...how then do you square it with your prior assertion that the Bible is "100% accurate"?

Because it's a 100% accurate approximation.

An approximation is a perfectly viable mathematical vehicle, it is not an "inaccuracy" to say that A lives approximately 2 kilometers from B. It is entirely subjective as to whether one believes the approximation is reasonable or not but, as I originally pointed out, it would be highly questionable, given how open such things are to personal values and interprétations, to present "approximations" as proof positive of "errors".

JW

You're literally the first person to say that to me. That you can have a 100% accurate approximation. The statement is nonsensical to me. If a thing is measured and the measurement given is an approximation, then it is not a 100% accurate value. If House A is approximately 2 kilometres from House B, then it is not 100% accurate to say that it IS 2 kilometres. It is about 2 kilometres, give or take e.g. 10 metres.
It seems that when you think of the term "100% accurate" you think something completely different to me. When I think the term, I think it to mean no approximations, no rounding off, completely accurate down to the final detail.

it would be highly questionable, given how open such things are to personal values and interprétations, to present "approximations" as proof positive of "errors".

This...defeats your claim again. If a claim is NOT accurate and indeed many different subjective interpretations about a claim can be made, then how does it make sense to say that the claim is "100% accurate"?
Let's take an example of two types of claims.
"I have some change in my trouser pocket". Now, any number can be given and it would fit the description. Do I have 1 euro and 64 cents? 87 cents? Three euros exactly? A ten euro note?
Now take a look at this
"I have three €1 coins in my trouser pocket". That is a definitive statement. If you or anyone else were to say that that means I have €4 in my pocket, you would be wrong. I make no mention of an additional euro coin, I am specifically saying I have 3 of them. To not make mention of a possible fourth coin would be a lie of omission.

The author of the 1 Kings article made specific mention of an object with specific measurements. If we take the statement as he wrote, then pi = 3. If we say that he rounded off and gave approximations, then pi = 3.14... But this then means that the statement as given can be interpreted any number of ways and thus cannot be "100% accurate" as you claimed the Bible to be before.
So now there's a new choice before you. Can a piece of writing be "100% accurate" while also being wildly open to interpretation? Can "I have some change in my pocket" be "100% accurate" as to exactly how much money I have in there?


Fellow readers, I ask you to chime in please. Can something that is "100% accurate" have a margin of error, an approximation?

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I beleve the prophecy clerarly states that Tyre will never be rebuilt. Who owned it and when isn't the issue. Going by the plain meaning of words, this is an error if Tyre was ever rebuilt. Was it?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I beleve the prophecy clerarly states that Tyre will never be rebuilt. Who owned it and when isn't the issue. Going by the plain meaning of words, this is an error if Tyre was ever rebuilt. Was it?

There's the other problem with that prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed Tyre. There was a 13 year siege, and then it surrendered to him. I wonder why I didn't point that out when I first mentioned the Tyre prophecy.
The prophecy is wrong on its two main points. It prophecies that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it (he didn't) and it prophecies that it will never be rebuilt (it was, and still exists to this day with a population of about 60,000 people).

How about Jeremiah 33:17?
"For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel"
Even if one is a Christian, this is a headscratcher. The last Davidic king was Zedekiah in 586 BC. That leaves about a 600 year gap between him and Jesus (if one wants to consider Jesus to be a Davidic king).
Is the Bible 100% accurate still? Has there always been a member of the line of David sitting on the throne of Israel, with no breaks, no periods where there were no kings?

[JehovahsWitness]

Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed Tyre. There was a 13 year siege, and then it surrendered to him [...]

Did the bible predict utter destrction at the hand of the Babylonians?

Absolutely not. Althhough great, the bible does not say that Nebuchanezzars seige would have total success. Ezekiel states "King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre [...]. But he and his army received no wages for the labor he expended on Tyre." (Ez 29: 18)

Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, Tyre itself, which was on an island just off shore, and an associated settlement on the adjacent mainland. Although the mainland city did eventually capitulates, lacking a fleet the Babylonians fail to take the island (where the bulk of the treasures of Tyres had been transfered). According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the siege lasted 13 years (Against Apion, I, 156 [21]), and it cost the Babylonians a great deal exactly as the bible states.

Ezekiel predicts that Nebuchadnezzar would thereafter turn to the more profitable prize of the wealth of Egypt, stating [...] Here I am giving to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon the land of Egypt, and he must carry off its wealth and make a big spoil of it and do a great deal of plundering of it; and it must become wages for his military force. -- Ez 29:19. The fulfillment of this prophecy came was fulfilled when Nebuchanzzer moved on Egypt in 588.



Ezekiel 26 - Does the bible say Nebuchanezzar would be Tyre's last conquerer?

In 591 BCE Ezekiel is reporting on the Babylonian siege mentioned Nebuchanezzar by name. However in verse 12 of his prophecy in chapter 26 there is a shift and Ezekiel speaks not of one King ("he") to a number of conquerers ("they"). That chapter 26 is highlighting a number of different invasions, starting with Nebuchanezzar but not limited to him, is clear from the introduction to the passage which says "and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves" so Ezekiel highlights the fact that "many nations" would crash against Tyre like a series of "waves", culminating in the Grecian invasion that would forever end Tyres material dominance in the region (Ezekiel 26:4, 5, 12).