Can You Technically Disprove the God of the Bible?

[Minimalist]

You can still refer to the original texts in their original languages. They are remarkably well-preserved in about 7000 extant copies. How much is available depends of course on which part of the bible; the gospel of John is better-attested than the book of Job. The real problem with "knowing what it says" is that ancients didn't think the way we do; their linguistic categories differ from modern ones, and they didn't see a need to "prove" everything "rationally" the way we demand today.

The modern Christian conception of God is very different from that of the 1st-century Christians; they're not exactly the same religion even.  

By 'remarkably well preserved' do you mean the oldest fragment of the NT, Papyrus P52? A credit card fragment of John dated to about 70 years after the alleged events?



If that's what you mean by 'well preserved', maybe a definition of terms is in order.


P-52 has been investigated by scholars.....dating pushed back.

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).
Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.