i see one answer, can you prove the bible to be wrong? no questions or replies, i dont think you can.
My goodness John, Scott and Henry didn't leave much for me, did they?
Still, I'll do what i can. Let's be clear on your question. If you are asking us if we can prove that the bible contains false statements, then that is easy enough. Can we use the edition of the bible with the King James and New International versions in parallel? That's the one I usually use, but if you prefer one with an Imprimatur, I have the New American Bible that Sunny gave me (she didn't think that a good jewish girl should keep a catholic bible in her bedroom). Do you also agree that if the bible contains two statements that flatly contradict each other, then one or both must be false? How about statements that contradict what is normally considered to be undisputed fact?
In the second class, Lev 11:6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud" makes the hare (in the KJV and rabbit it in the NIV or either and both in the Torah) describes the hare/rabbit as a ruminant, which he clearly is not. I have read protestant exegeses (you'd be amazed how bored we sufferers from ADHD can get, sometimes!) which claim that back in them old days, "chewing the cud"was a "less restrictive" term than now, and talked learnedly about bunny poo, buit i have three modern translations that all use the phrase and it is these translations that we have to go by. More to the point, why does this sacred, infallible (to some Christians) admonition find its way into a the Christians' Book, when no Christian follows it and doesn't even know the distinction between Kosher and Traif? Pretty odd, huh?
O.K., I'll just give you the citations for the other type of error, internal contradiction. Gen 32:30 has Jacob calling the place of his famous meeting "Peniel; for I have seen God face to face." In John 1:18, the author makes an important distinction between the world before Christ's death and after it:" No one has ever seen God." For the sake of fairness, I quoted this from the catholic translation. They gloss the line without a comment on Genesis 32:30, but say "the translation above follows the earliest and best manuscripts." Seems as though there are different early versions of the material that comprises the infallibly "right" bible, doesn't it, though a true-blue fundamentalist could dismiss the last as the misinformation of a cult (Catholicism) that practises idolatory and whose members will not get to heaven, anyway.
So there you go, John. You didn't ask for an argument, merely evidence that the bible is not "true", and that is all I have given you. Philosophically, Henry is quite right, of course, when he says that the burden of proof lies not with the disbelievers but with those who claim that it s absolutely true. If I may make a suggestion, I would suggest that you embrace your simple and comforting faith tightly for your own soul's salvation and not use it as a challenge for those who know a lot more about biblical exegesis than you, even if, in your god's eyes, they are bound for everlasting fire..