Disprove the bible to me

[iampostal]

The problem with the Bible is simple. What God says in the Bible is, in many places, quite offensive to us. As soon as we read the offensive parts of the Bible in public, we all realize that the Bible has serious problems and should have no place in our society. Whether you are a devout Christian or a casual Christian, consider the verses i've quoted. Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-knowing God wrote them? Do you support any of these verses and believe they should be applied to our society today? If God exists and if he did "inspire" the Bible as Christians believe, then when we read the Bible outloud we are hearing our all-knowing God speak. Every Christian should jump at the chance to spread God's word on national television. The problem is that much of what God says when he speaks is repulsive . It makes us so uncomfortable that we cannot bear to read it publicly. so we only quote the feel good bible verses....other religions dont escape this..muslims like to ignore the verse which plainly gives a man permission to beat his wife for not obeying...

[Selenbrant]

Common sense.

By whos common sense? Using something that is relative is pointless. And just because its common sense, it doesnt mean it is correct. Say im playing a game, the enemy Is looking at me, all of a sudden a part of him opens up, and a glowing part is revealed. What does your common sense tell you?

can you prove that its real?

but this topic isnt about proving the bible, its about DISPROVING the bible.

Regeardless of whos common sense it is, common sense will never tell you that there is a god. Common sense can only act under the worlds laws. Say im playing a game....and im not bond to laws anymore.

This topic is about disproving, but i dont start something with disproving. I start with proving and if my proof is wrong other people can disprove it later.

[Innominate]

Certain things in the Bible can be proven not to be true. For example, though the Bible insists that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, not a single Egyptian record - and, archaeologists can attest, they are meticulous - ever mentions them. The 10 plagues which apparently plagued the land are also never mentioned in any records. No record ever mentions a Pharaoh losing a massive portion of his army and all his horses to drowning in the Nile. Egypt never suffered a massive economic setback, which you would expect after losing hundreds of thousands (or millions) of slaves.

Similarly, not a single piece of archaeological evidence survives of a band of Israelites who (according to Exodus 38:26) numbered over 600,000 (that's just men over 20) and wandered the desert for 40 whole years.

No passages in any Jewish literature reflect any degree of familiarity with Egypt, no customs of the Israelites (as documented in the Bible) or later Jews bear any resemblance to those of the Egyptians, with the converse obviously being true.

Other events are less specific, or would not be expected to leave traces whether or not they occurred. I can also disprove popular falsehoods about the Bible, like that it is infallible or that the gospels are eye-witness accounts. They don't technically qualify as disproving the Bible's message however.

[BluePriest]

Ok, the old testament verses, Im not even going to touch individually, however, for all the other verses, it seems like you really dont understand.

Now, for the old testament verses, yes, they were really strict. You have to look at them in a diffedrent context though.
1) God was talking all to people that KNEW him. He wasnt talking to a group of half atheist half christian or anything like that. So yes, he was more strict, because these were people who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he was there.
2)You have to realize that in that point in time, human-kind was still newborn. Hee couldnt jump right into letting them have as much freedom as he allows them in the new testament, because they could destroy themselves. Literally. Human kind was a little kid.

If you REALLY WANT ME TO GO OVER EACH AND INDIVIDUAL VERSE, then I can, but that blanket statement pretty much sums it up.

Now for the individual verses that are new testament.

1Tim 2:11-12
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

This is talking about as far as being a pastor goes. Because whether anyone would like to admit it or not, God gave certain sexes things that they are better in. thats not sexist, its just simply the way it is. And you are missing something. The beginning where it says LET A WOMEN LEARN, is actually quite different from how it use to be. Women were never held to be worth teaching, and it is saying here as an imperetive, which is not something the 1st century Judaist, or the greek of that day would normally allow. Baby steps. God takes things 1 step at a time.

God doesnt say that women should have no say in a relationship, the bible actually does quite the opposite and stresses the importance of equality in relationships.

Col 3:22-24
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ

Yep, there WERE slaves in that day. They were NOTHING like the slaves you imagine today though.

Luke 14:26
Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple

  The point he is trying to bring up is that you need to be able to follow God fully, and love him with all your heart. My life goes like this.
1)Love God






2)Love my wife
3)Love my Family

I have a space there for comparison. Jesus is saying not that you should literally HATE your parents, He is saying that compared to your love to God, your love for your family should look like hate.

Regeardless of whos common sense it is, common sense will never tell you that there is a god. Common sense can only act under the worlds laws. Say im playing a game....and im not bond to laws anymore.

This topic is about disproving, but i dont start something with disproving. I start with proving and if my proof is wrong other people can disprove it later.

Actually, that may be how YOUR common sense works, but other peoples common sense work completely different. Many people look at the world, and say that we had to have been designed and that there is no way all of this happened by chance. And guess what, that is their common sense. This common sense argument is completely relative. It has no factual basis (because if you learn something, its not common sense, its an acquired knowledge), and doesnt prove or disprove anything in the first place.

The problem with the Bible is simple. What God says in the Bible is, in many places, quite offensive to us. As soon as we read the offensive parts of the Bible in public, we all realize that the Bible has serious problems and should have no place in our society. Whether you are a devout Christian or a casual Christian, consider the verses i've quoted. Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-knowing God wrote them? Do you support any of these verses and believe they should be applied to our society today? If God exists and if he did "inspire" the Bible as Christians believe, then when we read the Bible outloud we are hearing our all-knowing God speak. Every Christian should jump at the chance to spread God's word on national television. The problem is that much of what God says when he speaks is repulsive . It makes us so uncomfortable that we cannot bear to read it publicly. so we only quote the feel good bible verses....other religions dont escape this..muslims like to ignore the verse which plainly gives a man permission to beat his wife for not obeying...

God not being politically correct doesnt mean that the bible is disproven. In fact, I would be less likely to believe it if it had a universalism message instead.

Youve got to realize something. All the verses you point out, Christians know they are in there. So that means one of two things.

1)They agree with your interpretation, and think we should all do that (which an observation of most churches will not agree with this)
2)They have a better understanding than you of what the verses really say in context, and in respect to the time it was written.

And #2 is what it really is.

[BluePriest]

Certain things in the Bible can be proven not to be true. For example, though the Bible insists that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, not a single Egyptian record - and, archaeologists can attest, they are meticulous - ever mentions them. The 10 plagues which apparently plagued the land are also never mentioned in any records. No record ever mentions a Pharaoh losing a massive portion of his army and all his horses to drowning in the Nile. Egypt never suffered a massive economic setback, which you would expect after losing hundreds of thousands (or millions) of slaves.

Similarly, not a single piece of archaeological evidence survives of a band of Israelites who (according to Exodus 38:26) numbered over 600,000 (that's just men over 20) and wandered the desert for 40 whole years.

No passages in any Jewish literature reflect any degree of familiarity with Egypt, no customs of the Israelites (as documented in the Bible) or later Jews bear any resemblance to those of the Egyptians, with the converse obviously being true.

Other events are less specific, or would not be expected to leave traces whether or not they occurred. I can also disprove popular falsehoods about the Bible, like that it is infallible or that the gospels are eye-witness accounts. They don't technically qualify as disproving the Bible's message however.

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/

EDIT
And if you say that the evidence is biased because it is a Christian website, then I will say your sources are biased because they dont agree with the Christian view,

[Innominate]

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/

EDIT
And if you say that the evidence is biased because it is a Christian website, then I will say your sources are biased because they dont agree with the Christian view,

Which part in particular disproves what I said?

[BluePriest]

have you followed links and read? It explains it. Click where it says ANSWER.

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

[Selenbrant]

Its not my own common sense. Common sense can only do one thing... logical thinking. God isnt logical at all.

[Bactrian]

If God is all powerful, why do iron chariots > him?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html)

For a serious answer:

Let's assume that the Bible has some supporting evidence for it. Which is what you seem to be currently arguing about.

Now if it is possible that the Bible can be disproven then what criteria (i.e. under what conditions would the Bible be falsified) according to you?

However if you can't name these conditions then if it cannot be disproven (i.e., falsified) you cannot prove or disprove the Bible using the scientific method. So then my question is by which method do you suggest we try to "disprove" the Bible?

[BluePriest]

If God is all powerful, why do iron chariots > him?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html)

For a serious answer:

Let's assume that the Bible has some supporting evidence for it. Which is what you seem to be currently arguing about.

Now if it is possible that the Bible can be disproven then what criteria (i.e. under what conditions would the Bible be falsified) according to you?

However if you can't name these conditions then if it cannot be disproven (i.e., falsified) you cannot prove or disprove the Bible using the scientific method. So then my question is by which method do you suggest we try to "disprove" the Bible?

A good question, but Im leaving it open ended. I want to know what your thought process thinks is good reason for not believing it, and is a proof against it.

Its not my own common sense. Common sense can only do one thing... logical thinking. God isnt logical at all.

Im ignoring common sense arguments because they are biased, and really dont prove anything. 

[iampostal]

Thank you for validating my argument....2)They have a better understanding than you of what the verses really say in context, and in respect to the time it was written.Lucky we have you who 2000 years later a man who finally has interpreted the bible correctly where thousands of others had erred. Can you not see your fault here?You are desperately trying to rationalize utter madness perpetrated by your book.All i did was take direct quotes from the bible...word for word...as its read.....seeing how faulty it is christians come up with these outrageous rationalizations?The quot about women,......say what you will GOD IS A MYSOGINIST PIG OR MAYBE.......the men who made it all up saw a great way to keep women in their place..Slavery was different then ITS STILL MAN OWNING ANOTHER MAN...consider this...old testament or not christ in his wisdom not once speaks against it....take the ten commandments the first four are ego stroking for god...there though shalt not covet what thy neighbor has....this is the best your sky god can come up with...where is thou shalt not rape?thou shalt not abuse kids?thou shalt not own slaves?theyre not there because they are behaviors endorse by your evil sick god....or maybe its all made up by middle eastern madmen 2000 years ago desperate for order.....consider the following the people who lived in biblical times 1)thought the world was flat 2)thought disease was caused by sin 3)thought slavery was AOK...4)believed in a god who lived in the sky.......We laugh at the first 3 things listed...why are you unable to realize thy probably got the god thing wrong too...i quoted your book...and you had to twist the words to make it come out right...and failed sorry...at best your god show vast imperfection, a sick desire for suffering and death, and is generally lazy as he does nothing now.finally remember the burden of proof is on the believer to show there is somthing there when there is nothing to be seen....and all the evidence over the last 2000 years goes against the existence of your god

[BluePriest]

Actually, its pretty much every  christian that understands. Not just me. It just seems like the only people who refuse to accept it are Anti-Religioun Atheists.

1)Where does it say the world was flat?
2)Where does it say that disease comes from sin?
3)Where does it say slavery is ok?

Cite things you say. Please.

And I didnt twist anything. I read it in context. Nothing more, nothing less. You cant look at a single verse and say it defines the whole bible. You have to look at the entire thing. Reading one verse doesnt mean you understand the verse as it relates to other things in the bible.