Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

I feel this fits the topic of this thread.
Has anyone noticed that the Bible doesn't claim infallibility, like, at all?
That makes sense. The Bible doesn't talk about itself because not a single writer expected to have his text copied down next to the words of some other guy in a different place at a different time, bound in leather, and shaken vigorously at gay people.
Unless the Holy Spirit magically possessed each author like in some sort of horror movie, the Bible is incapable of giving a coherent opinion on quite a few things.
I just think it's weird that both Christians and atheists begin arguing from the assumption that Christianity is, or should be, dictated by the words in the Bible.

The Law (the first 5 books of the OT) and the Prophets (the second half of the OT) were stated to be inspired by writers in the NT. NT books contain historical accounts (Gospels, Acts), theological letters (from Paul, Timothy, Peter John, etc.) and the eschatology book of Revelation at the end. By the early 200s the current 27 books were treated as a group.

The writers of the NT did not claim their writings were inspired. They were given their status by others based on author having seen the risen Christ, theologically consistency, etc.

Most Christians believe that the various books of the Bible were inspired as well as inerrant in their original form.

Christian does mean follower of Christ. Christ is pretty much the centerpiece of the Bible. It follows that Christians pretty much have to follow the Bible to claim the title.

You are right. The Bible does not give an opinion on many things. It is however useful for instruction in a number of areas including history, religious, ethics, nature of God, nature of man, plan of salvation, how should we live, and where we are going.

Before the very clever comments come flooding in, I would like to make an observation. For all the massive amount of time you people take to bash Christianity, most you know so little of what it actually means or teaches (there are probably some exceptions). Your concepts of Christianity do not come from its source (or even people that will explain it properly), but through anti-religious forums, books or articles. You accuse me of only looking at articles that have a Christian biased toward evolution. It seems most of you have done the same when it comes to Christianity.

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

"You guys just don't understand Christianity". Actually atheists consistently score the highest on any sort of religious awareness and knowledge study given, and you do realize that many, if not most, of atheists used to be Christians, right? If you think that we're unfairly biased against what your bibble says, fine, you can think that, but you know how you would convince us that it is in fact useful and true? Provide some evidence. That's the bottom line, and its something that you haven't even come close to approaching.

And yes, to respond to your cheap point, I've read the entire Bible cover to cover several times, without a pastor or priest over my shoulder telling me how I am supposed to interpret every passage.

---

You know, Steve - rather than plagiarizing an entire article, it's customary to provide excepts and a link, and attribute the source.

Plagiarism is a no-no around here.

It was a small part of a huge article. I have posted the link several times, but if you want to increase its search rankings, here it is again:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Oh wow. Another site that starts with the premise that Evolution is false. YOu really haven't read anything we've been saying about sources, have you.