paul30

The Bible is full of factual errors.

An easy example is its statement that rabbits chew the cud.

They don't.

Unless rabbits have changed eating habits since this was written.

These errors are not terrifically important.

What is important--though impossible to demonstrate empirically--are its horrid or sometimes just silly morals.

The book of Joshua is replete with examples of God commanding and rewarding genocide--not only of all humans but even their animals.

The book of Leviticus forbids wearing two kinds of cloth. If you are wearing cotton/poly, you're sunk. It also forbids the charging of interest--a rule commonly overlooked by Christian bankers.

Jesus quite clearly forbids divorce (What god has joined let no man put asunder) yet all but Catholic Christians suppose He was kidding.

Jesus also says (Mark 9:1 and cognates) that he will return before the death of some in his audience. Apparently he did not.

beastmaster

Here's the Skeptic's Annotated Bible compilation of biblical contradictions with science and history:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html

Some are more convincing than others.

SLD

That's hilarious. That is just the best. ROFLMAO.


:notworthy

SLD

mike_decock

Biblical literalists have been demonstrated by their critics to be the most misinformed purveyors of disinformation known to mankind.

-Mike...

Haran

I'm not saying I agree with this statement, but since there are several slamming it, how 'bout a little help for Lobstrosity...

What other ancient documents are more accurate than the Bible and why (taking into consideration volume of material, etc.)? (...since this seems to be the point of the statement.)

keyser_soze

As to similarly aged/older documents...The oddesy and the Illiad are comparable in size and content(as the bible isn't even by the same hand, but a collection of books COMBINED at some point in late centuries(meaning that they were NOT a cohesive unit in the beginning but were later made to be) which means it's actual written date would be what...700A.D.?

As I was saying, any of the older books, that are longer than the longest BOOK of the bible is more of a true argument, as a series of books that could be combined to form a crude framework, would allow EVERY ancient book in existance to be used for this measure.

keyser_soze

Which would, btw, utterly destroy the argument put forward. The bible is neither exceptional, nor even a measurably BETTER a document(and compared to works of aristotle, or plutarch, or homer...or a thousand others is it even up to SNUFF).

Haran

So, your arguments would be that the Bible should be considered as separate books (even though at least many of the OT books were known as 'the scriptures' from very early on?), and that the works of Homer, Aristotle, and Plutarch would be more accurate.

Why are the Oddesy[sic] and Illiad more accurate? Especially since most seem to feel these are mostly fictional works, even though the ancient city of Troy was supposedly found.

Why is Plutarch more accurate in his Biographies? How do you know? What independent sources confirm the details of his biographies for you?

I might be more inclined to accept Aristotle as being more accurate, but how much of his writings were metaphysics as opposed to mathematics and physics? I do not know as I have not read them.

keyser_soze

I didn't mean to imply that I found them more ACCURATE. Mythology is mythology, and they were all guilty of superstitious beliefs. In a lot of cases, the same superstitious beliefs(centuries before the "bleeding or weeping mary" statues, plutarch tells us of the minerva statues doing the exact same thing. The point is that they are more CONSISTENT, than the bible. Thoughts carry through more defined, less scattered. Does the fact that the greeks or romans believed in THEIR deities with the same surety as you believe in yours mean nothing to you? What can you extrapolate from that fact?

Haran

Maybe not, but this seems to be what the unnamed Christian was talking about. Let's keep to the issue.