Whose events contradict science: Despite the Biblical claim, rabbits/hares do not chew cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7)
I think the issue is that the English translation "chew the cud" or "ruminate" is too precise and scientific. The Hebrew words allow for broader interpretations. Especially "cud" could mean any semi-digested food, in the form of circular or oval shapes. "Chew" also has an extendable meaning.
With inaccuracies: Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). But there was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
Joseph speaking "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:..." is exactly true, because his relatives and fellow countrymen were still living in Canaan at that time. It was "their land." Remember that Abraham had defeated Canaanite kings
- Chedorlaomer king of Elam
- Amraphel king of Shinar (Babylon)
- Arioch king of Ellasar
- Tidal king of Goiim (or king of nations)
Abraham was a mighty prince, with perhaps thousands of people under him, and no mere wandering shepherd.
Of course, as some will eagerly contend, these problems aren't god's fault but those of fallible humans who mistranslated his word somewhere along the way. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that god hasn't made any attempt to correct them, leaving them to continue to mislead and confuse the faithful reader.
I think anyone could overcome these trifles with a little circumspection.
A common answer to these difficulties is that one must understand the original intent of the authors and understand what they said in the context of the event and the times. Fine, I say. Then how about a Bible that does just that. Recast all these problematic words and passages in a way that leaves no doubt. Create a Bible that can actually be taken literally---unlikely events like the noachian flood aside perhaps---instead of one that creates misunderstanding or leaves one in doubt.
There are many "interpretetive" bibles that you can buy. There are also many commentaries. They are not all perfect but they exist.
If Jonah wasn't ". . .in the belly of the fish three days and three nights," but rather a whale, then don't use "fish.
I agree, but it could have been a whale shark (fish), or a real whale, and so we don't know whether it was a fish or a whale in the technical sense.
If Psalms 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." is wrong and Isaiah 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." is right, then either get rid of Psalms 92:12 or change it.
Both are true at once. The righteous shall flourish, if left to themselves, but if they perish, it is due to the wickedness of others.
And how about eliminating the claim that bats are fowls in Leviticus 11:19
"Bird" or "fowl" is too precise a meaning for the Hebrew to bear. International Standard Version refers to "winged creatures."
So why isn't there a Bible that says what it means? Why all this *****-footing around with translations that may be etymologically accurate, but fail to convey the real meaning? If "evil," as we understand the term, ain't what was meant in Isaiah 45:7 then don't use it. Use the correct, modern-day word that does!! And stop misleading people by telling them that rabbits chew cud, or even produce it.
It can't be all that hard, can it? Or is it that it simply not worth the effort to clean up the Bible?
.
If you're saying that bible translators make mistakes, it is without doubt true. And there has always been a vested interest in not making the bible readily intelligible, in order to further the vested interest of the clerisy.
Your critique may have validity in some aspects, but no-one could anticipate every possible issue that might arise from translation. There will always be such problems in translating ancient languages.