SpaceMonkey

I second that motion! Magus, start from the top of the list of contradictions, and work your way down.

It'll be a good hobby for you.

Perhaps if they're reasonable comments, SAB will be interested in your suggestions.

Doctor X

It must be a most singular definition of contradiction that does not include the fact that Mt and Lk date the birth roughly ten years appart. . . .

--J.D.

mark9950

He convinced me of becoming an ex-christian.

http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/

His website will explain that God created a flat earth with a solid sky dome that is hard as a molten mirror.

Calzaer

Don't forget! The definition also has to take into account that Jesus must be a descendant of Abraham to fulfill messianic prophecy, but can't be a descendant of Jeconiah or else he's disqualified from fulfilling messianic prophecy (see Matt 1:12 and Jeremiah 22:28-30).

Jack the Bodiless

Magus actually has a very high opinion of the SAB, because he has utterly failed to refute any contradiction that any of us has selected from it.

That's why he doesn't want anyone else to think it's any good. And I doubt if any atheist on these boards has suggested that it contains "many misinterpretations". That's Magus-speak for "I don't like what the Bible says, so I'll assume it's wrong". You get used to this after a while.

As Peter Kirby points out, the SAB is supposed to be a comprehensive list. It doesn't pick out the "best" contradictions, it simply presents all of them. On this specific subject, the SAB's "Science and History" page would be a better resource than "Contradictions" (which is all about internal contradictions between different parts of the Bible, not contradictions between the Bible and reality).

Hawkingfan

There are alot, but here's three of my favorites:

Leviticus 11
20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.

Note--No birds walk around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.

Leviticus 11
6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Note-- rabbits do not chew the cud.

Daniel 4
11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Note--The above clearly implies a flat earth.

Sauron

I haven't seen "many" atheists saying the SAB has "many" misinterpretations. Care to provide three examples of such?

I think you're either reading your own wishful thinking into their comments, or you're trying to steer the original poster in the wrong direction.

No, it isn't. Even if it has some invalid conclusions, that doesn't make it useless.

Care to try again?

CX

Count me as one. I have little use for SAB. Seems like rather unscholarly atheological axe grinding.

Perhaps not, but insofar as it's preaching to the choir where nontheists are concerned and is likely to be rejected out of hand by theists who can point to silly mistakes or unfounded conclusions, I'm not sure what use it's likely to be.

Spaz

The first thing thought when I saw this thread was: How long do you want this thread to be? . But yeah, the SAB is pretty good, sometimes they take stuff out of context and have stupid things listed, but they're pretty obvious, other than that they do have a lot of legitimate contradictions and things like that.

Doctor X

Calzear:

Indeed, when debating fundamentalists, I use to use the birth narratives. I then tried the genaologies from Mt and Lk because they try to make one of the men a woman to get around the contradictions!

[He is about to pontificate. Those with more important things to do, such as watch Striperella or color code their pencil box may wish to skip on a bit.--Ed.]

What is the problem? Why the need to find science in the Bible? Leave aside some useful historical information--"we think some people believe this or they lived here and wanted to pretend they always did." When I were a lad [Cue Sounds of Winter Winds Blowing through the Dry Tree Branches.--Ed.] I recall someone placing an advertisement in the student newspaper looking for physics students to help the guy find quantum mechanics in the Bible.

I hate to quote a televangelist, but he had a point. He rhetorically asked about the "missing years" of Junior. He then proclaimed he knew the answer--"None of your business!" He then explained that the NT writers did not CARE about writing history.

Indeed . . . that is not the purpose of sacred text. If anything it is to rewrite the history in a fashion you need.

Well . . . that causes doubt. If the NT did not write "history" then why trust them? How does one know that "the message" is not a fabrication?

Hence the need to declare it "all true . . . every word of it!"

People bandy about the "power of faith" as if it is a good thing--"anyone can believe with evidence but to believe WITHOUT evidence. . . ."

Frankly, that is not a smart thing, and those proporting to support faith do not believe it either. They feel, somewhere, somehow, there exists objective evidence for their belief.

Hence, find SCIENCE! in the Bible.
Take Creationism . . . please. . . .

Currently, the creation myth--whatever "official version" you want, puts "god in his heaven and everything right in the land!" We ARE special--inherently.

Evolution seems to take all of that away.

So . . . the attempt to create a "creation science" and find "evidence" for the myth(s).

Contradictions in the Bible--particularly scientific contradictions--threaten all of that. People cannot handle that doubt.

--J.D.