How To Prove The Bible Is A Fairytale


originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Where does the bible say anything about the Ark being buried below where Jesus was crucified? Seems like you just pulled that out of thin air.

It would be great if, as said, the Ark was buried beneath the very place where Chris the saviour was executed.

originally posted by: frostie
Two of every animal....

*Winces*

8.7 Million species

*Winces*

Your point?

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible can indeed be proved to be a fairytale, ..a bunch of overthinking oddness.

ok, but my way is much, much faster:


Step 1)
discuss the story of Jonah and the whale


Step 2) go for pizza because either they admit its all a bit silly, or they are brain damaged and you're not meant to make fun of those types.






a couple minor defenses:
claim: "but jonah is just a story..a allegory!!"ok cool..so is the resurrection, virgin birth, and everything else. After all, Jesus believed it.
claim: "actually it says giant sea fish/monster..meaning it could be anything, including alien submarines". -ok, then so was jesus/god/etc..just aliens

I don't remember reading tales about fairies in the bible.

I think you may have the wrong book

a reply to: newnature1

You defend your ridiculous religion with incoherent twaddle.

YOU must prove that your messiah was crucified or even existed.

Theists.Pffft.

I believe the OP is referring to the discredited theories of pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt's full Ark of the Covenant/"Jesus' blood" fabrication:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

And his claims about the recovered blood of "Jesus":


LOL

Where did this whole Jesus blod on the Ark thing come from again in the Bible? Which verse?

"'The bible is the greatest piece of art ever created, it will remain in style as long as we do" .

- me

The roots of that Ark begin in this concept.

Yahweh’s salvation of his people from Egypt, not the Christian sense of personal salvation from sin; that’s anachronistically read back into the Hebrew Bible. It’s not there. Salvation in the Hebrew Bible does not refer to an individual's deliverance from a sinful nature. This is not a concept that is found in the Hebrew Bible. Salvation refers instead, to the concrete, collective, communal salvation from national suffering and oppression, particularly in the form of foreign rule of enslavement. Yahweh as Israel’s redeemer and savior, is Yahweh’s physical deliverance of the nation from the hands of her foes. But the physical redemption of the Israelites is going to reach its climax in the covenant that will be concluded at Sinai.

originally posted by: newnature1
The roots of that Ark begin in this concept.

So you think the bible can be proven/disproven by seeing whether something that is not even in the Bible is possible?

a reply to: newnature1


yeah and the whole woman made from the rib of adam vs slow evolution is nice too.

We all start developing with a female "blueprint"

The differentiation of the male sex organ canals is influenced by the testosterone hormone that is produced from the 8th week in the fetal testis by Leydig's interstitial cells.

21.4 Development of the internal genital organs

this proves that all female and male share a common beginning.
somehow the sexless organism evolved and began to develop a "simple" way to reproduce itself differently than its counterparts...

this modification made it "stronger" and it prevailed over the sexless ones.
(there are still organisms that don't need males to reproduce)
somewhere in its development this "simple" modification started to infuse a bit of someone else its "info"

(the first "simple modification" could have been started off because some external "info" insertion happened, imagine the "soup" getting more acidic (evaporation of water) and weakening the cell wall/membrane, less water less space so they got "pushed" against each other, the weakening of the cells wall made it possible to fuse some cells together.)

it survived ("female") and the ones that got infused("male") into the other didn't.
(i know they are not female or male, its just easier to imagine it this way)
a long long developing path began and we can still see this in embryos , we start with the "female blueprint" and in week 8th a male forms because of the influence of testosterone, and it rejects some female "blueprint info" the female follows its original "blueprint"

the clitoris will become a penis.
imagine that the initial modification that infused external "info" now developed to have a "sensor" to spot the best candidate to infuse.

and there you go, this "sensor" became the clitoris.
now imagine a cell desperately looking for sensor input, or feeling around for a better candidate, and enlarging its "sensor" .
now it has the "info" to pass on to its offspring and with that these offspring has better surviving options than the ones without it.
somewhere on the line of evolution it started to "specialize" this modification.
and there you go this, specialization became the penis.

with that said...
what came first the chicken or the egg?
"the chicken was the egg."

What is interesting about that rib is, the great usurper was watching as Yahweh did that rib thing. The great usurper used animal DNA and mixed it with human DNA and what happened? The Nephilim. Cool stuff that DNA. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: newnature1

you're missing thee point i made mate.

first there was an eve, than later an adam...

so there you go, right at the beginning they got it massively wrong.

isn't it great to finally know the truth?

originally posted by: TheBwaap
a reply to: newnature1

you're missing thee point i made mate.

first there was an eve, than later an adam...

so there you go, right at the beginning they got it massively wrong.

isn't it great to finally know the truth?

I would say the chicken came first. No chicken, no egg. That DNA is a trip.

a reply to: angus1745

So you're saying a Christian is a Trump supporter sums up Christianity? I know an atheist who's voting for Trump...

You speaking in such absolutes kinda sums up the whole atheist movement. No God, No Jesus, Manipulation, they're all uneducated, control

blah, blah, blah

The reason why I can't call myself an atheist is because the majority are freaking hypocrites and are just as thin skinned as the religious

a reply to: newnature1
Flawed argument for a few reasons, likely all already addressed.

You seem to be drawing from Ron Wyatt's claims about the hidden chamber under Golgotha. I've personally never come across anything leading this any credence.

My money is on the Ark being in Axum Ethiopia in lines with the work by Hancock.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: newnature1
Flawed argument for a few reasons, likely all already addressed.

You seem to be drawing from Ron Wyatt's claims about the hidden chamber under Golgotha. I've personally never come across anything leading this any credence.

My money is on the Ark being in Axum Ethiopia in lines with the work by Hancock.

It's not about Ron Wyatt. You can prove the bible is a fairytale, it should be a piece of pie.

a reply to: newnature1
It appears you entirely missed my point. Proving blood didn't fall down cracks on to the Ark has little of anything to do with it either way.

Now, some recommendations I could make - find some further way to falsify or disprove the historical and archeological discoveries we've made so far - some directly as a result of the bible itself; disprove the historical facts provided in the bible - which we already knew about otherwise; or...simply come up with some what to factually evidences every event that has happaned in the history of the world to demonstrably show that claims in the bible are simply false on the face of it.

Failing that, we're dealing with a thousands-year span of reported accounts - some directly appealing to the "supernatural" - so about the best we can hope is to dig dig dig and hope to find evidences to support or deny said claims with some degree of certainty one way or the other.

And for some of the mentioned topics, even that won't be enough until some minds simply experience the odd and "unnatural" for themselves to realize 'Hey, maybe my paradigm doesn't actually account for all possibilities, after all...'

Cheers!

Look, it is quite simple.

The Bible can easily...EASILY be proven to be a fairy story...IF one assumes that 19th Century physics is 100%, that Daltons Theory of the Atom is correct, that the Theory of Evolution is correct, that Newtonian Physics is correct.

|Only problem is that they are actually, provably, by science, all INCORRECT.

a reply to: newnature1
All writings are fairy stories - all words arising, tell fairy stories.
There has never been a story which is true.
What is true?
The ever present space in which all words arise and disappear.

The bible and scriptures all point to the one - they are not really telling stories - just pointing to the only one - there is no other. So weird that it is missed.