[Chris the Chees]

ok... could i have something to back this up?

Very well, there is the relatively famous example of Jesus supposedly predicting the Roman's destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Mark 13:1-2)

"1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The argument by christians is that this passage proves that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, which would later occur in 70 C.E. However, modern historians largely accept that Mark was written at around 70 C.E. as a nationalistic tract providing history and hope to the Jews living under a destructive period of Roman occupation. The passage does not prove the fruition of a prophecy, but rather that Mark was at least part written after the destruction of the temple; but christians ignore this salient point and choose to take the utterly illogical and supernatural explaination that it must have been divine knowledge.

just because some dude somewhere made up stuff in a story doesn't mean the bible is made up.

It is a prime example of a work of fiction written in the past which was passed off as true and largely believed for a considerable period of time. It was eventually rejected as fiction because historians looked at it critically, attempted to find evidence that confirmed the claims made or anything that corroborated many of the claims in Geoffrey's work. If the same is applied to the bible, you will see that like Geoffrey, some is true, but a vast chunk is unsubstanciated by other available evidence and sources. If one, therefore rejects, Geoffrey (as everyone does) then by the exact same logic and methodology they should reject the bible. faith in the bible, is in my mind the complete rejection of logic and Rankean methodology.