Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Xalith]

So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

Islam: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

Buddhism: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Taoism: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Mormons: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Hinduism: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

What about the Christian Bible, though?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation. There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false (among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily), a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later, a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day, you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists, and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands, and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

Now, the question comes up... "You didn't mention Judaism!"

Judaism, or the Jewish faith, as many know involve the Torah. The Torah consists of several books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, plus some stuff that was added by humans later.

Obviously, the Original Torah and the Christian Bible are in perfect agreement, until Jesus comes about. The Jews who did not convert to Christianity rejected Christ and His teachings, so Who is Right?

Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

EDIT: He also correctly predicted that the Gospel would be spread all over the world, and it would be heard everywhere, which is pretty amazing considered it all started from One man and twelve of His disciples in the middle of a nation that hated the message and considered it blasphemous.

Sources for the above about other religions are taken from this video:

I also highly recommend watching Pt2 where he talks about the Bible teaching us things we wouldn't prove with Science until much later.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

Yeah, you are forgetting a few things: relativity, quantum mechanics, cell theory, germ theory, gravity, dark energy, plate tectonics, etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Hi Xalith,

Unfortunately, the trichotomy that you present above (in bold) does not exhaust the possibilities. The Bible can be imperfect (and merely representational of the world and God as some human minds have conceived it) and still be the Word of God.

Many people don't like the proposition I've given because it means the Bible is a much more complex book than what we expect or want to give time to. To which I say.....tough, that's the way it is! And this situation applies to Christians and non-christians alike.

Additionally, the theory of evolution does count as "True Science." And I have to ask, from where are you getting your definition as to what qualifies as true science?

2PhiloVoid

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Christianity claims that a man was born of a virgin. We know that can't happen so I guess that proves Christianity is false.

 

[Joshua260]

Christianity claims that a man was born of a virgin. We know that can't happen so I guess that proves Christianity is false.

Got it.

1. Miracles can't happen.
2. Therefore, a miracle did not happen.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.
4. Therefore, see#1.

I think I might make one of my own circular argument graphic to use on posts like this.

 

[True Scotsman]

So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

Islam: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

Buddhism: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Taoism: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Mormons: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Hinduism: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

What about the Christian Bible, though?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation. There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false (among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily), a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later, a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day, you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists, and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands, and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

Now, the question comes up... "You didn't mention Judaism!"

Judaism, or the Jewish faith, as many know involve the Torah. The Torah consists of several books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, plus some stuff that was added by humans later.

Obviously, the Original Torah and the Christian Bible are in perfect agreement, until Jesus comes about. The Jews who did not convert to Christianity rejected Christ and His teachings, so Who is Right?

Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

EDIT: He also correctly predicted that the Gospel would be spread all over the world, and it would be heard everywhere, which is pretty amazing considered it all started from One man and twelve of His disciples in the middle of a nation that hated the message and considered it blasphemous.

Sources for the above about other religions are taken from this video:

I also highly recommend watching Pt2 where he talks about the Bible teaching us things we wouldn't prove with Science until much later.

Your theory is falsified both by philosophy and by science. The most fundamental issue in Philosophy, the issue of metaphysical primacy, absolutely falsifies it and in science the evidence of a world wide extinction level flood is non-existent.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Got it.

1. Miracles can't happen.
2. Therefore, a miracle did not happen.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.
4. Therefore, see#1.

I think I might make one of my own circular argument graphic to use on posts like this.

There's nothing circular about it. I've never met a person who's mother never had sex. The bible claims Jesus was such a person. Since we know that's impossible, we have no reason to believe that claim. The rest of what is claimed is predicated on that one claim. I have no reason to believe the rest.

I'm only following the logic of the OP.

 

[Joshua260]

There's nothing circular about it. I've never met a person who's mother never had sex. The bible claims Jesus was such a person. Since we know that's impossible, we have no reason to believe that claim. The rest of what is claimed is predicated on that one claim. I have no reason to believe the rest.

I'm only following the logic of the OP.

totally circular dude. You start with the presupposition that miracles can't happen. Therefore, you conclude that a miracle did not happen. Therefore, you conclude Christianity is false. Therefore, you conclude that miracles can't happen. And round and round it goes.

 

[Paradoxum]

Considering how much effort God has put into showing me he is real perhaps he is. I mean, whenever I talk to him, he always replies in an obvious audible manner. Mmmm is that true? Is the original post too long?

 

[Davian]

totally circular dude. You start with the presupposition that miracles can't happen. Therefore, you conclude that a miracle did not happen. Therefore, you conclude Christianity is false. Therefore, you conclude that miracles can't happen. And round and round it goes.

Do you have an example of a "miracle" that cannot be explained as a being a hoax, a deception, have a natural explanation, or be complete work of fiction?

 

[will2425]

I say why do people argue at all whether believe one or the other you can believe everything. As how can one person christian or atheist simply say that they are right as that would mean an absolute and to say everything is an absolute would mean that the truth is stagnate. Yet every new decade or century new absolutes are established. This is a complete contradiction to what a absolute should be which is ever unchanging.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you have an example of a "miracle" that cannot be explained as a being a hoax, a deception, have a natural explanation, or be complete work of fiction?

Let's hear your argument about how Jesus rising from the dead was a hoax, a deception, had a natural explanation, or be complete work of fiction. Don't forget to include documentation to substantiate your position. Simply saying that people don't rise from the dead is not proof, btw.

 

[Davian]

Let's hear your argument about how Jesus rising from the dead was a hoax, a deception, had a natural explanation, or be complete work of fiction.

Argument from parsimony. In the absence of evidence for gods and the supernatural, or for Jesus being who the Bible claims him to be (or even that he existed), any of those explanations I provided would be far more parsimonious. I don't care which.

Don't forget to include documentation to substantiate your position.

Not necessary. The burden os on the religionist to substantiate the claims of his/her religion.

Simply saying that people don't rise from the dead is not proof, btw.

I don't need proof. The burden is on you. Get to it.

 

[katerinah1947]

So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

Islam: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

Buddhism: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Taoism: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Mormons: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Hinduism: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

What about the Christian Bible, though?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation. There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false (among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily), a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later, a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day, you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists, and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands, and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

Now, the question comes up... "You didn't mention Judaism!"

Judaism, or the Jewish faith, as many know involve the Torah. The Torah consists of several books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, plus some stuff that was added by humans later.

Obviously, the Original Torah and the Christian Bible are in perfect agreement, until Jesus comes about. The Jews who did not convert to Christianity rejected Christ and His teachings, so Who is Right?

Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

EDIT: He also correctly predicted that the Gospel would be spread all over the world, and it would be heard everywhere, which is pretty amazing considered it all started from One man and twelve of His disciples in the middle of a nation that hated the message and considered it blasphemous.

Sources for the above about other religions are taken from this video:

I also highly recommend watching Pt2 where he talks about the Bible teaching us things we wouldn't prove with Science until much later.

Hi,
You have said that no one has ever proven the Bible wrong. That is not quite correct. In 1999, I had two proofs that the Bible was wrong, and they lasted almost one whole year. So, there. I did it for almost a year, and after reviewing the counter claims, that I had erred on both of those points, it still took me a few months to track down those explanations and understand them. So, at least in the interim, I had two proofs, that book was wrong. Does that count?
It was true, the counter claims were true. I did make a normal, but rather large error. I love peer reviews. Only in peer review did I find my errors, and that is much less embarassing, then publishing findings as inerrant only to find out later than you needed peer review to help further the work.
So, dropping the dry humor, it is amazing that not only has no one has proven that book wrong, but the few who try, usually are introduced to The God of that book, after they are done failing.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Got it.

1. Miracles can't happen.

Well if they can they sure have a probability of 0% considering none have happened so far.

2. Therefore, a miracle did not happen.

It's actually logical to say that.

3. Therefore, Christianity is false.

That's a leap.

4. Therefore, see#1.

Why? Would would logically follow for me to have to go to #1?

I think I might make one of my own circular argument graphic to use on posts like this.

Save your time.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Alright, Just got off work and had some stale McNuggets.

So let's do this.

So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Right. It's a proposition that doesn't seem to have a right answer.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I'm a man of mythology though I have been slacking as of recent. But Religion, especially Greek, has fascinated me.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Well I guess that would be true.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue.

What if he was writing fiction? Allegory? Song? Metaphor? Poem? Epic Poem?

If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar

Strong word

or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations

Gods are not above deception as I've read. Loki, Eshu, Lucifer, Hermes. I don't see reason to count this out of his supposed character.

or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

This is the most realistic. Considering it's a book in the first place and the only thing known to write books is a human being. Not saying that the creator is not human but perhaps wasn't the author.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Something tells me I'm not going to enjoy this.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement

: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

False would be an understatement.

Islam

: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

I agree.

Buddhism

: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Buddhism is not a religion from what I've been told.

Taoism

: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Right.

Mormons

: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Mormon.

Hinduism

: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

What a fascinating observation though.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

Fundamental knowledge is a great tool is it not?

What about the Christian Bible, though?

Sure, what about it?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

What? It's wrong within the very first chapter.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now here's the next day.

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.8God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

So he made night and day before there was even a sky. But wait it gets even better.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

He makes night and day three days BEFORE THERE'S EVEN A SUN. And also believes the moon is a lesser light when really it's a big mirror reflecting the sun's light.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation.

Oh so you know about this glaringly obvious flaw in your own argument.

There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Well God sure narrated it very lousily. Almost like he knew nothing about his own creation. Telling isn't it?

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution.

No there's several more things I can bring up from genesis. But do go on.

Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law,

It is a scientific theory. Which means it's established fact already, and the Theory of Evolution is the ongoing study of the mechanisms behind it.

therefore it is not True Science,

What is this true science?

as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Yes you have. All you need to do is witness two occurrences of micro evolution and bam, macro evolution. Macro Evolution is a combination of two or more micro evolution.

Here's a video for you.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Easily. Numerous times. On several different occasions.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created),

That's a stretch that you cannot make. That statement is far too vague and can mean several things.

The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven)

Does it?

Air Currents

What primitive boat using society didn't know about air? They needed to know.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

And writings based on geography of that era are new to who? Several fictional writings can corroborate real places and reference real events. This is not special nor does it support the bible.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false

When you get one of those I'd like to take a gander at it.

(among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily)

Oh you are just a card, aren't you?

a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later

Where and what?

a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day

Which several other fictional texts do as well.

you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

No you don't. You're still at square one.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists

I find it hard that you're buying into that.

and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands

Proof of this?

and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

You're not looking are you?

Well that was interesting. But no, you didn't make a very compelling case.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Unsubstantiated claim. I'm afraid your argument fails before it even begins...

 

[Colter]

I "sped-read" the OP, it was wrong faster. The Bible books chosen by the church are mans words about Gods Word, therefore the errors within should be expected in that light.