The Bible is wrong and I can prove it

This topic is not directed at my fellow non-believers. With whom I have many differences of opinion but accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God is not one. They may take issue with the details of my post and probably will :grin: but none of them will argue that the Bible may be relied upon. Rather it is intended to seek out believers and have them put forward counter arguments, that make sense and may be evidenced. I am open to reason and persuasion.

Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven through archaeology or a study of contemporary literature but I want to go back to the very beginning. If Genesis is wrong, then the whole premise that the Bible is the word of God, fails and we may discount what follows as just another story.

Whichever of the two versions of creation in Genesis we choose, it is obvious that it was written not by God but by men. Men who could not see beyond the clouds and knew nothing of the universe, or indeed the laws of physics. Our current knowledge of our solar system demonstrates that Genesis is simply wrong. Not allegory, not a simplified version, not a religious account but plain wrong. More than that, it is impossible.

The Book of Genesis gives a clue that the Garden of Eden is located in southern Mesopotamia, now known as Iraq.

It references the rivers of Tigris and Euphrates, suggesting the head of the Persian Gulf could be a likely location.

Dr Magness added that this meant the Garden of Eden was actually a metaphor for the presence of God.

Now - there is of course debate amongst archeologists as to the site and meaning and mythological references (of which I have no expertise to weigh in on).

HOWEVER there are many sites that are acknowledge in general to exist and be named by the bible.

Your statement is incorrect.

A different approach maybe?

1 Like

You’re preaching only to the choir mate.

The apologist we get here have shown themselves to be impervious to reason or facts.

Christianity is in fact anti reason, anti science and anti intellectual.

Jesus is reported as saying ; John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (JKV) "

Belief in that not seen is a definition of faith, and an apt description of superstition.

Martin Luther said : “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

It is my observation that the deeply devout suffer from both cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Most are quite rational otherwise. Here in Oz it’s considered rude to ask a person bout their religious beliefs. (at least by me). I have l have always found it very hard to tell theist or atheist if religion is not mentioned.

Um… I honestly thing you missed the mark.

  1. Genesis is just a creation story and the majority of the Christians are just not that dogmatic about it. (It makes no difference if the story is correct or not.)

  2. On the other hand, a large majority of Christians do believe that if the resurrection were proved to be untrue, the very foundation of the Christian faith would be ripped away.

  3. It is a bit hyperbolic to assert that “Nothing in the Bible has ever been proved through archeology.” (Assuming we are using the colloquial definition of prove and not the mathematical definition.)

“DNA extracted from skeletons excavated from burials at the Philistine city of Ashkelon in modern-day Israel showed European ancestry. This confirms what has long been believed and what the Bible says about the Philistines. Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7 connect the Philistines with Caphtor, which has been identified as Crete, the home of the Minoan civilization. The DNA record shows that the Philistines quickly intermarried with the local population, diluting the genetic signature.”

“Archaeologists studying copper slag deposits from Timna in Israel and Faynan in Jordan (two sites south of the Dead Sea) found that Edomites used advanced, standardized techniques more than 3,000 years ago to mine copper. In light of this discovery, they concluded that the Edomite kingdom was formed by the middle of the 11th century BC, about 300 years earlier than previously thought. Genesis 36:31 says there were kings in Edom before there were any Israelite kings.”

You are just not on solid ground here…

Getting back to the main idea, “The Bible is Wrong and You can Prove it.” Well, first of all there isn’t a Bible. There is a collection of books that we call a Bible. Each of the books is wrong or right to a different degree depending on the author and what he or she is saying.

There is factual information in the Collection of books known as the bible than has been and can be validated through science and archeology. Probably not a lot of important stuff, like the existence of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Great Flood, the Exodus, or the very creation of man, but archeological stuff none the less.

While I understand your argument, this idea is simply false. In 1961, in Caesarea, archaeologists found what is called the Pontius Pilate stone. For years, many historians rejected the notion of Pontius Pilate’s existence, until this stone was found with his name inscribed on it. I’ve seen this stone with my own eyes. Then, in 1993, archaeologists found a stone that referred to the “House of David,” thus at the very least supporting the existence of King David. Beyond that, the existence of several kings of Israel have been mentioned in Babylonian and Assyrian records. Those are just a few examples.

What do you mean by this?

I wholeheartedly agree with this. If we cannot take the words of Genesis 1-11 to be true and inerrant, then how can we believe that the rest of the Bible is true? I am likely in the minority (even among believers) who still believe that the Genesis account is a depiction of what actually happened. Your comment about how the creation account in Genesis goes against the laws of physics and is impossible is well taken. Many believers have taken this argument to be detrimental to the accuracy of the Genesis 1 account and have thus rejected the account. This kind of creation story is indeed impossible from our finite perspective. But Genesis 1:1 explains how all this can happen; “In the beginning God created…” What is impossible from our finite perspective is possible for an infinite God. Because Genesis proclaims that God created the earth and God is not confined to the limits of our finite world, then we cannot just dismiss Genesis 1 as false as even our thinking is limited to the confines of finiteness. God, who is far above our understanding and power, is certainly able to do as He pleases because He is not confined to our space and time. I welcome your questions and dialogue on this topic. I cannot claim to know everything, but I can guarantee that I will study and search for answers to questions you raise.

What, in your mind, makes something written by God rather than men?

Welcome to Atheist Republic JonL, I hope your time here is positive.

How do you know that? Can you back up this assertion?

Who or what does God have to be in order to be God? He cannot be equal in power to humans because if He was, He would not be God. Even definitions of God outside of Christianity still assert that if He exists, He has to be wiser and more powerful than humans. He must be “superhuman.” A God who is only less than or equal to humans is no God at all. So in this case, if God truly exists, then He must be above our understanding and power or else He cannot be called God. The very usage of the word God suggests superior knowledge and power to us humans.



Yes - I argued also that the statement

This is false. Archeologists have found many sites that the bible mentions. However, the existence of a place, does not evidence the events claimed to have occurred at that place.

So, for instance, New York is mentioned in Spider-Man and England for Sherlock Holmes, etc. Many a fiction writer mentions or uses real places. However fiction or myth is intertwined. The existence of New York or England do not support the existence of a Spider-man (as written by the writer) or Sherlock Holmes.

But this guy… maybe this is convincing


1 Like

Is God “far above” the understanding and power of people in Australia too, or is god far below them (since they are upside down)? Or perhaps you were making a silly metaphor we shouldn’t take seriously?

Presumably you think other religions are wrong; yet you are citing their agreement with you as a reason for us to believe you? Think about that for a minute.

1 Like

Just because I think that something is wrong does not mean I cannot agree with any part of it. I’m sure there are plenty of people that you agree with in some parts of their beliefs, but disagree with in other parts.

You are correct that just because archaeology proves the existence of biblical places does not mean the events mentioned actually occurred there. The same goes for persons in the Bible.

Again, I agree. But you are saying that “fiction writers” use real places to describe unreal events. Who says that the Bible is fiction? It is the most widely attested historical document that humans have in existence. If taken as a historical document, then the events described must also be taken as historical.

Yep, but I sure as fuck wouldn’t be using the views of say Muslims (someone I disagree with about god) to argue my case to people who don’t believe Muslim claims about god. :woozy_face:

Most users here surely think the bible is almost entirely fiction.

Most user here don’t believe that either, imo.

If you think people here are going to accept those statements from you as fact, you are in for a surprise.

This is the very reason I came to this site: to hear the reasons why people do not think that the Bible is a historical document.

1 Like

At what point in history is written history accurate and truthful? For instance, talking animals, lack of sun refraction until after the flood (rainbows), incest being acceptable, lifespans that exceed hundreds of years - to just name a few. These are claims within the bible that are not demonstrable. In fact, they are outside our reality experience. These are extraordinary claims.

Should the myths of the Greeks be taken as literal history? What about the Samaritan Tablets that pre-date the bible, is this literal history too?

In order for better understanding, I need your definition of a “god”.

Are you aware of the factual and true history of the bible? Because I have not seen any yet, there are some atheists quite knowledgeable on that subject. Do your homework, be prepared if any contribute to this thread.

I will sum it up from my obviously ignorant position on this subject. Unknown authors written at unknown times. Of the many stories, some were discarded and some accepted only because they fit the narrative of the people who compiled the bible. A council decided what was sacred and what was not.

I went to open a bible to a random place to give an example of why I don’t believe it is an accurate description of the past. Turns out I don’t have one that is accessible anymore (my wife has an heirloom one, but it is sealed up to protect it). I think I threw my cheap copy I got from the US Army away when it physically deteriorated. Honestly, I can’t remember.

So instead I will just pick a verse: 2nd Kings 13:21 (NIV)

Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

I’m saying I don’t believe that happened. I’m saying I don’t believe that the bones of Elisha have the power (or whatever) to raise the dead. I’m saying I’m highly skeptical of any claim that appears in a book that claims that the bones of Elisha can raise the dead.

Honestly, it reminds me of the Greek myths (Zeus, Hercules, etc); over the top fictional events that sometimes take place in real world settings. As others have suggested; it is similar to many comic books.

Anything written or inspired by a god of infinite attributes must be perfect by definition. Genesis begins by making elementary errors in science EG calling a bat a bird, referring to creation the wrong order. Pretty sure it infers the earth is flat. In terms of the error riddled remainder of the Torah and New Testament, I refer you to Bart Ehrman***

A simple test; Get hold of four bibles, read the accounts of the resurrection side by sides. The contradictions are downright embarrassing.

It’s only the purblind ignorant literalists who claim the bible is inerrant. Christians generally accept the the Torah is mythology, most especially Genesis. Recent archaeological finds have shown Exodus is almost certainly myth, that Moses did not exist and the Exodus did not happen.*****

The reference to the House of David on the Tel Dan Stele to which you refer is not generally claimed to prove the existence of a king David. That claim is tentative and disputed and there is no consensus as far as I’m aware.

Say it is found to make likely “The House Of David” refers to a Jewish King David? So what?. What else do you think it proves? It certainly does not infer anything about the Torah or its veracity ****





**** Since 1993–1994, when the first fragment was discovered and published, the Tel Dan stele has been the object of great interest and debate among epigraphers and biblical scholars. Its significance for the biblical version of Israel’s past lies particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a “king of Israel” and possibly a “house of David”. The latter reading is accepted by a majority of scholars but not all.[30]

Dissenting scholars note that word dividers are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription and one would expect to find one between byt and dwd in bytdwd too if the intended reading was “House of David”.[31] They contend that reading dwd as “David” is not uncomplicated since the word can also mean “uncle” (dōd) (a word with a rather wider meaning in ancient times than it has today), “beloved”, or “kettle” (dūd).[32][33] Lemche and Athas suggests that bytdwd could be a place-name[34] and Athas that it refers to Jerusalem (so that the author might be claiming to have killed the son of the king of Jerusalem, rather than the son of the king from the “house of David”).[35] R.G. Lehmann and M. Reichel proposes interpreting the phrase as a reference to the name or epithet of a deity.[36]

According to Anson Rainey the presence or absence of word dividers is normally inconsequential for interpretation.[37] The majority of scholars argue that the author simply thought of “House of David” as a single word.[citation needed] Mykytiuk argues that readings other than “House of David” are unlikely.[38]

Francesca Stavrakopoulou states that even if the inscription refers to a “House of David” it testifies neither to the historicity of David nor to the existence of a 9th century BCE Judahite kingdom.[39],of%20the%20house%20of%20David.

1 Like