Shame on Me

...for not spotting the glaring flaw in this whole Bible-as-evidence argument sooner.  Think of the time and energy I could have saved.

The argument hinges on one of three premises:
1) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, it must be true.
or
2) Since the Bible says a few things that can be shown to be true, the whole thing must be.
or, a combination of the two:
3) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, then it's possible.  Since the Bible says a few things that are true, anything it says that is possible must also be true.

The trouble is, all of these are false premises.

Whether or not something cannot be disproven is irrelevant to its veracity.  Consider the following claims:
a) My first name is Billy.
b) My first name is Bob.

Since I don't reveal my true identity, you cannot disprove either claim.  However, either one could be true.  It's possible that neither are true.  It's possible that both are true, if my name is Billy Bob.

So who cares if a claim can't be disproven?  The fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

As for both of the other premises, the fact that Bible might get one thing right doesn't mean that it's right on anything else. Jerusalem exists, but that doesn't mean that God does.  Athens exists, but that doesn't mean that Zeus does (even though Homer mentions both).

The fact remains that in all of the above cases, there's still no positive support provided for any claims.

So you know what, I'll play along...  I concede that it's possible that every single thing the Bible says is true.  I'll even go further:  I concede that it's possible that every single story ever told about all of the gods humanity has ever believed in (over two thousand in all) is true.

But the fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

So, with that in mind, when someone can show me why I should believe anything in the Bible is true (and not just possible), I'll be happy to do so.