QRUEL

when are some infidels going to correct the wikipedia info on the bible ?

how many factual errors can you find in the paragraphs below?

The Bible and History

Main article: The Bible and history

The Biblical creation account, up to and including the Great Flood is generally regarded as mythological by most scientists. However, there is considerable opposition to this stance by creationists who view this account as factual, to varying degrees. The Patriarchs are considered by some mainstream historians to also be mythological, syncretisms of various local foundation stories, and, although supporters of Biblical inerrancy dispute this.

The accounts of the exodus are thought by most critics to have some potential basis in fact. Depending on which pharaoh is identified as the pharaoh of the story, the Israelites are identified by historians as being the Hyksos or the Apir, both mentioned prominently in Egyptian records. The account of Joshua has more difficulty vis-a-vis the archaeological record, since Jericho and other settlements do not show signs of violent disruption in the time period required for the Israelite invasion (However, the Bible tells of the rebuilding and population of Jericho, among others destroyed by the Israelites). Neither does there appear to be any systematic destruction of cities, but instead only independent events occurring at significantly different times, more in agreement with events presented in the Book of Judges.

It is however generally assumed, based on the archaeology of the period, that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if biased towards Judah. The earlier period of the United Monarchy on the other hand, is a matter of heated debate, and many mainstream academics and historians believe that the vast empire of King Solomon, the rebellion of Jeroboam, and sometimes even the United Monarchy itself, never existed but are instead a later fiction to justify Judah's political bias against, and territorial claims to, Israel, and the idea of a golden age. However, recent discoveries, such as ruins similar to the palace of King David (arguably from a different time period) and the Tel Dan Stele (from the 9th century BCE or later, and with the meaning of the inscription disputed), may encourage academics to put some of the evidence back under examination.

Most of the remainder of the tanakh/Old Testament is seen as historically reliable, since it merely presents an uncontroversial account of the sayings of various people, their poetry, and an undramatic, and largely unsupernatural, account of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Daniel, however, is seen by critical scholars as dating from much later than is traditionally credited, as a result of hellenic mysticism creeping in to Jewish thought.



more BS here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

RED DAVE

Why don't you change it. Anyone can do it. It's easy and you can work from your home.

RED DAVE

hatsoff

I don't see anything immediately apparent which is wrong, though there's quite a bit there I can't verify. What do you see as being incorrect?