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?

[oldbadger]

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

It looks to researchers as if little can be proved about the earliest books, but on the balance of probabilities many of the early tales such as from Exodus etc could well have been passed down by oral-tradition, gathering some hyperbolic momentum on the way.

On the side........
But archaeologists can get it wrong! All that fuss caused by the remains of only one 1st cent building at Nazareth, when the likelihood of peasants carrying mud bricks up that hillside is a complete joke....... Mud-brick buildings were built where there was mud! 2nd order peasants would have lived in goat-hair tents, methinks = no archaeology at Nazareth!

They have actually dug up a Jewish house in the Nazareth area from the first century (and note that it was dug up by Jewish archaeologists and this story is published in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/d ... very-jesus

Hello.....

Yes! Just one house was found and no others. This caused much merriment amongst bible detractors who started to claim that there had never been a Nazareth, but of course there had been a Nazareth, and a very busy one. Most 2nd-order peasants (handworkers etc) lived in tents.

Nazareth is a hill-top settlement with a most unusual high-level spring, which made it a great place for security whilst providing permanent water source. But there was little provision for materials to build permanent buildings like there was in Lakeside townbs like Capernaum.

[oldbadger]

Please cite any passage where Nazareth is mentioned in the Old Testament. How could the prophets say that "Heshall be called a Nazprean" (see Matthew)if there was yet to be a Nazareth?

Do you think that a person from Nazareth is called a Nazrean? A Nazrean might be something completely different.

Nazareth was a satellite town to the great city of Sepphoris, torn down by the Romans in 4-5BC and rebuilt by Antipas when he was given control of Galilee. Nazareth would have been a very busy place in NT times.

Strangely, I don't think that Sepphoris was mentioned in the NT or OT books which shows that a lack of biblical mention does not discount anything.

[psychdave]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

Thanks for an honest answer. This is where the problem lies... Whilst many on this forum believe that Bible is at the very least partially untrue and indeed common sense make believing of some stories near impossible, it is difficult to disprove some parts of the Bible but equally difficult to prove them..... You pay your money (and plenty of it in some organizations) and make your choice...

[polonius]

[Replying to oldbadger]

The Old Badger posted:


Do you think that a person from Nazareth is called a Nazrean? A Nazrean might be something completely different.

Nazareth was a satellite town to the great city of Sepphoris, torn down by the Romans in 4-5BC and rebuilt by Antipas when he was given control of Galilee. Nazareth would have been a very busy place in NT times.

Strangely, I don't think that Sepphoris was mentioned in the NT or OT books which shows that a lack of biblical mention does not discount anything.

RESPONSE: Sorry about the typo. The term is "Nazorean"

Matthew 2: 23 " There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.�

Please cite where the name of a town called Nazareth even is found in the Old Testament. Also the the names of the prophets who made this statement.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by polonius.advice]

If I'm remembering correctly, that prophecy wasn't about Jesus coming from a certain town. It's a mistranslation. The prophecy was supposed to be that Jesus was supposed to be like Samson - a member of a specific religious order, who had taken special vows to God.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

Thanks for an honest answer. This is where the problem lies... Whilst many on this forum believe that Bible is at the very least partially untrue and indeed common sense make believing of some stories near impossible, it is difficult to disprove some parts of the Bible but equally difficult to prove them..... You pay your money (and plenty of it in some organizations) and make your choice...

Yes, since nothing in the bible has been actually proven to be untrue, and this despite much effort, I personally feel confident to say nothing ever will and that it is 100 % accurate.


Further reading
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... rd-of-god/

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

Thanks for an honest answer. This is where the problem lies... Whilst many on this forum believe that Bible is at the very least partially untrue and indeed common sense make believing of some stories near impossible, it is difficult to disprove some parts of the Bible but equally difficult to prove them..... You pay your money (and plenty of it in some organizations) and make your choice...

Yes, since nothing in the bible has been actually proven to be untrue, and this despite much effort, I personally feel confident to say nothing ever will and that it is 100 % accurate.


Further reading
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... rd-of-god/

You just lost me there. You went from "nothing has been proven to be untrue" to "it's 100% accurate" with nary an explanation as to how you went from one to the other.

A piece of literature can be described as not being proven to be untrue, but that doesn't mean that it automatically is 100% accurate about reality (notice the last two words there).
For example - Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings to act as a mythology for Britain, because Britain doesn't have its own mythology (at least, not in the same sense as say Greek mythology or Viking mythology). Nothing in the Lord of the Rings has been proven to be untrue - we can't say for sure there definitely was never a ring that turned you invisible.
However, it would be be grossly inept if one were to say that because of that, that LOTR is 100% accurate about reality. Well...do we have rings that turn you invisible?

Besides, there is at least one example of something in the Bible being proven to be untrue. As in, there is direct evidence from other sources that show that this thing is false and cannot possibly be true.
And that thing is...drumroll please!
Ezekiel 26:14
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+26
That chapter talks about God prophesying that because the city of Tyre had insulted Jerusalem, that foreign armies will attack and destroy it. Look at what it says in verse 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. "

Now, I've never travelled, so I'll ask Wikipedia. What's this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon
Tyre as a city is still inhabited? There's still buildings and stuff? What gives?

I do have to ask why you use this standard - if it's not proven to be untrue, then it's true. That to me is, forgive me for using the word, idiotic. It leaves you open to believing all sorts of things that haven't been proven to be untrue. We can't prove that Muhammed didn't fly to heaven on a winged horse - do you believe that?
What about the Heaven's Gate cultists - it hasn't been proven to be untrue that there was no spaceship that took the HG members. (ack, double or triple negatives here, how do I word this sentence properly?)

[JehovahsWitness]

You just lost me there. You went from "nothing has been proven to be untrue" to "it's 100% accurate" with nary an explanation as to how you went from one to the other.

I should think it would be self explicatory, if someone told you something, and you examined every aspect of their account and nothing in it could be disproven, it would not be such a leap to conclude, they are saying the truth.

Granted its not a given, especially if something is presented as a work of fiction from the go-get but but if the détails that could be verified were and that their story, presented as a factual event, held true contextually then it would not be unreasonable to conclude Mr X, as far as we can assertain, is telling the truth. This is the process by which I have concluded that the bible is "telling the truth" 100% because there is no proof in existence of a percentage of inaccuracy*.

JW


* Regarding your example, you would have to first prove that your interpretation of the said scripture is the only one possible before you could determine if the prophecy was fulfilled and the book contained an inaccuracy. Anything open to interpretation is not easily provable or disprovable since they are built on a premise that is not universally accepted.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

especially if something is presented as a work of fiction

So which shelf a book is placed on in a library is what you use to determine whether it's fact or fiction? Do you ever consider the possibility that maybe...just maybe the book has been mislabeled?

if someone told you something, and you examined every aspect of their account and nothing in it could be disproven, it would not be such a leap to conclude, they are saying the truth.

Here's a challenge. Prove the following to be untrue/false.
"I had a fire-breathing dragon in my garage last Tuesday. A real life, flesh and blood fire-breathing dragon, like Smaug from the Hobbit movies but one that could fit in my garage. However, that dragon is now gone, I know not where, I released it. I then carefully went through the garage and removed any evidence that there ever was a dragon. I spent days at it. If you were to enter my garage now, you would never suspect there had ever been a dragon, unless I told you beforehand".
You can try that or better yet, for a far simpler challenge
"All of reality only came into existence last Tuesday, with all the evidence appearing to indicate a reality older than six days".

Can you prove that I definitely did not have a dragon (that my having a dragon is untrue)? Can you prove that the universe is older than six days (a six day old universe is untrue)?
When you admit that you cannot, will you be logically consistent and say that hence, I did have a dragon, that the universe is six days old?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

Regarding your example, you would have to first prove that your interpretation of the said scripture is the only one possible before you could determine if the prophecy was fulfilled and the book contained an inaccuracy

Does the prophecy contain words stating, (yes or no) that Tyre the city will be destroyed and more importantly never be rebuilt?
Is there to this day a city called Tyre located in the same place as the Tyre mentioned in the prophecy? Yes or no?