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?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 27 by rikuoamero]

Take a look at this

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. Afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esaus heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.

No sane person would say that this is inaccurate unless the twins were born on Isaac's birthday. It simply means that Jacob and Esau were born some time on or after Isaac turned 60 but before he turned 61.
In a similar way, the Pi = 3 argument can be shown to stem from unwarranted precision.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by JehovahsWitness]

What of the "bare rock" part of the prophecy? "I will make you a bare rock"? That doesn't make sense if it's talking about the destruction of a political entity only and not the physical destruction of the city.
In fact, verse 19 is even more damning to this idea that it's a fulfilled prophecy
"When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,"
Here it specifically states that the city WILL NOT BE INHABITED.
Verse 12 states what Nebuchadnezzar ought to have done in order to make this a valid prophecy
"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea."
That entire chapter is NOT about merely reducing the political power of the city of Tyre; it goes into great detail about the physical destruction of the city, such that NO-ONE would live there ever again, and would never be rebuilt.
Except that didn't happen. Tyre still exists as a city to this day.
Why is it you regard Chapter 26 as being accurate when it (supposedly) mentions the Greek invasion but conveniently ignore that it goes into great detail about what Nebuchadnezzar (didn't) do and that the city was supposed to be uninhabited?

I also want to respond to this point

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"

This goes against your 100% accurate claim. Even if I were to suddenly and mysteriously agree that this was prophesying the Greek invasion of Alexander...how is it accurate? All it says is "many nations".

[JehovahsWitness]

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" [...] 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?

Yes, absoutely.

The key here is understanding what the bible means when it refers to "throne" of the house of Israel. Thrones are usually used to depict royal authority, so the "throne of the house of Israel" is refering to the independent, royal kingdom of Israel. Israel only existed as a kingdom (an independent nation with it's own king) from about 1052 BCE, with the appointing of it's first king (Saul) until it's last king was removed by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it's capital destroyed in the 6th Century BCE. From that moment on the "throne of Israel" ceased to exist.

After their Babylonian exile, while the Israelites continued to exist as a people, but their territories existed as imperial provinces under foreign rulers (Persians, Greeks, Romans) with appointed governors subordinate to the ruling power. Never again did it exist as a independent Royal nation? in short there is no throne for any king to sit on. Natually, the prophecy to always have a descendent of David on the "throne" only applied as long as the throne existed.

To illustrate: If someone predicted a woman would never be without a husband, one could not reasonably conclude that the predication failed because she didn't have one after she died.

CONCLUSION Jeremiah 33:17 is refering to the rulership of Israel as an independent kingdom and predicting that a desendent of David would rule without interuption as long as that rulership existed. This was indeed the case.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 27 by rikuoamero]

Take a look at this

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. Afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esaus heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.

No sane person would say that this is inaccurate unless the twins were born on Isaac's birthday. It simply means that Jacob and Esau were born some time on or after Isaac turned 60 but before he turned 61.
In a similar way, the Pi = 3 argument can be shown to stem from unwarranted precision.

The problem I'm having is that JW describes the Bible as "100% accurate", which defies physical laws. For the 1 Kings part I mentioned earlier to be "100% accurate" then pi HAS TO equal 3. Not 3.14 or 3.12 or 3 point whatever, but 3 exactly.
If we allow reason to enter the picture, and say that the measurements given in 1 Kings were just approximations, then it's not "100% accurate". It can be close to "100%" but not actually BE "100% accurate".
In this thread, I'm not the one making demands of "unwarranted precision". JW did when s/he described the Bible as "100% accurate". That to me is a very specific phrase with a very specific meaning. When did 100% accurate mean we allow a margin for error, we allow approximations?
I wouldn't have been having this argument if JW hadn't made the claim. If JW had said "The Bible is mostly accurate" or "The Bible has some parts accurate and some parts wrong" or something like that, I would have read it, shrugged my shoulders and moved on. But no. A description of "100% accurate" was given, to which I responded.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 33 by JehovahsWitness]


I asked a question, has there ALWAYS been a king on the throne of Israel, descended from David, with no breaks, no period when there were no kings
and you answer...Yes, when there was this period when there were no kings because Israel ceased to be an independent nation.
Also, this sounds to me like it's debating the literal meaning of the words rather than the intent of it. Why would God prophesy that there would always be a Davidic king ruling the nation, when he would have known and meant that there would be a 600 year long period where there were no such kings? Consider the context of it being made to Jeremiah. God is trying to reassure Jerry that the nation will always endure, always survive, and most importantly always have a king.
Why would Jerry then think that of course, there will be a period where Israel is conquered and there are no kings for several hundred years (until Jesus, except he was never crowned king).
It reads like a very weird conversation if God knows that there will be a several hundred year gap of no kings. "Don't worry Jerry, I promise you, I am God after all, that there will always be a descendant of David sitting on the throne of Israel...(mumbles underneath his breath) except for when Israel is conquered and its kings deposed"
"What was that God? I didn't quite catch that last part?"
"Nothing! Ignore it!"

[Donray]

[[url=http:// the only thing we can say for sure is that nothing in it has been proven to be untrue.

Why does not proving something not true makes it true?

Do you think unicorns are real? They are described in more books then just a single book like the bible. Bet you cannot prove unicorns are not real therefore according to you they are real.

Why do Christians come up with the ridicules "you can't prove it is not true and does not exist therefore it is true" bull?

Zeus exists because no one can prove he does not exist.

Santa Clause exists because no one can prove he does not exist.

[rikuoamero]

[[url=http:// the only thing we can say for sure is that nothing in it has been proven to be untrue.

Why does not proving something not true makes it true?

Do you think unicorns are real? They are described in more books then just a single book like the bible. Bet you cannot prove unicorns are not real therefore according to you they are real.

Why do Christians come up with the ridicules "you can't prove it is not true and does not exist therefore it is true" bull?

Zeus exists because no one can prove he does not exist.

Santa Clause exists because no one can prove he does not exist.

Or Russell's Teapot. Why didn't I mention this before? It's only now that I think about it. We can't prove that the claim "There is a teapot floating in outer space in orbit of Mars" is untrue, so going by JW's standard, there is such a teapot orbiting Mars.
I'm facepalming for not remembering Russell's Teapot.

[McCulloch]

Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward. It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

The typical defence of this passage focuses on the handbreadth thickness of the brim. If the outside diameter is 10 cubits then the outside circumference is 10 times Pi cubits. If the inside circumference is 30 cubits, then the inside diameter is 30 divided by Pi cubits. The thickness of the brim would be half the difference of the diameters: 5 - 15/Pi or about .225 cubits.

[rikuoamero]

Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward. It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

The typical defence of this passage focuses on the handbreadth thickness of the brim. If the outside diameter is 10 cubits then the outside circumference is 10 times Pi cubits. If the inside circumference is 30 cubits, then the inside diameter is 30 divided by Pi cubits. The thickness of the brim would be half the difference of the diameters: 5 - 15/Pi or about .225 cubits.

Again, this doesn't matter if it's not in the context of the Bible being 100% accurate. The 1 Kings passage doesn't elicit a mention from me unless someone tries to make the 100% accurate claim.

[hERICtic]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

JW, like all apologists, has to ignore the context of scripture to make an obvious mistake disappear.

The prophecy is quite clear. God was angry at the king of Tyre. To state Alexander the great, hundreds of years later accomplished the destruction of Tyre, fulfilling prophecy is absurd.

Nebuchadrezzar would destroy Tyre. It will never be inhabited again, never to be rebuilt, a bare rock.

None of this came to pass.

It states Nebuchadrezzar would breach its walls and slay the inhabitants.

Apologists try to claim that Nebuchadrezzar did accomplish this on the mainland, which was also Trye.

Yet I have yet to see any ancient evidence Tyre was on the mainland. Ushu was a town controlled by Tyre, on the mainland.

In fact, every ancient writing, including the Bible states Tyre was in the sea.

http://www.ancientcash.info/page-2/Tyrereferences.html

Another "out' for apologists is the claim that many nations would be against Tyre, hence many different nations throughout the ages.

But according to scripture, the many nations refers to Nebuchadrezzars army.

Second Kings 24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.
2 Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by his servants the prophets.

Jeremiah 25:8 Therefore thus says Yahweh of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words,

9 I am going to send for ALL the tribes of the north, says Yahweh, even for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring THEM against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations

around; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace.