• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

10 laughably erroneous claims of the bible

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A little bit of literal and a little bit of metaphor
This is my understanding of the Bible:

MILLIONS of people accept the Bible as the basis of their faith. For thousands of years, it touched the lives of many. No other religious books can equal the influence of the Bible regarding religion, literature, and civilization.

Let us first have an introduction to this book called the Bible.


What is this Book called the Bible?

The following describe what the Bible is:

  • The Bible is a collection of sixty-six (66) books.
  • Generally, the Bible is divided into two: the Old Testament and the New Testament.
  • Others simply define the Old Testament as the collection of the biblical books written before the time of Christ or before the Christian era, and the New Testament as the collection of the biblical books written after the ascension of Christ or during the first century of the Christian era.
  • The Old Testament is composed of 39 books.
  • The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and a few parts were written in Aramaic.
  • The New Testament is composed of 27 books.
  • The New Testament was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek or “Common Greek”).
  • These biblical books were written in different places and in different times by about forty men.
  • The biblical books were written for a period of 1,500 years. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were written about 1447-1407 BC. While the last book of the Bible (the book of Revelation) was written about 90-100 AD.
  • The biblical books are divided into chapters and verses.
  • In addition, the biblical books were written in different literary form (e.g. historical narrative, biography, poetry, etc).
  • The Bible was also translated into different languages and dialects (translated into about 2,200 languages and dialects). This is the reason why we have the English Bible and the Pilipino Bible.
  • The Bible is also a book of:
    • History
    • Religion
    • Prophecy
  • However, the Bible is also not an open book, but a mystery hidden in ages.
The modern biblical criticisms regard the Bible as an ancient literature that can be understood through the studies of the oral tradition behind the document (Form Criticism); the studies of the document itself, its method, style, and purpose of the author, the written and oral sources he used (Literary Criticism); the study of the editing of Biblical books (Redaction criticism); and the comparison of manuscripts of the Bible in the original languages and versions, including quotations by ancient authors, to determine as nearly as possible the original wording (Textual Criticism).

These scholars believe that they can understand the Bible through the method they used to understand other ancient literary documents. However, unlike other books, the Holy Scriptures or the Bible is inspired by God (II Tim. 3:15-17). It contains not only moral principles but also the right doctrines that will guide one toward becoming a complete man of God. It is the only book that will lead man back to his Creator and to salvation.

But there is one thing about the Bible, which everyone must understand – that it is not an open book, as many believe it to be. This is attested by one of God’s inspired writers:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.” (Romans 16:25 NKJV)

The Bible or the word of God is a “mystery kept secret since the world began.” Thus, it is no ordinary book that could be understands or interpreted but just anybody who can read, nor even through methods of modern criticisms. This is why the apostle Paul quipped:

“Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (II Tim. 3:7 NKJV)

So, it wrong to regard the Bible as an ancient document that can be understood through the methods use to understand other ancient literature. It is also wrong to think that the Bible can be understood by themselves. Even though a person knew the ancient Biblical languages, but let us always be reminded that according to the Bible, “Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth.” How true indeed! There is only one Bible yet there are so many different and contradictory beliefs. Interpretations, and teachings spawned by these preachers and scholars.

Who then can understand the Bible? Our Lord Jesus Christ declared this to His disciples:

“And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,” (Mark 4:11 NKJV)

Without being given understanding or revelation, one can never know the truth. This compels us to ask further, “Who, then, is given understanding of God’s words and, therefore, can preach them?” The Lord Himself further clarified:

“For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.” (John 3:34, NKJV)

Those sent by God – His inspired messengers – are the ones exclusively given the understanding of His words: they speak God’s words. On the contrary, those who are not sent cannot preach the true gospel. They cannot lead man to the true understanding of God’s words and, eventually, to salvation. Apostle Paul wrote:

“And how shall they preach unless they are sent?…” (Romans 10:15, NKJV)

Only those sent by God can preach His words for to them have been revealed His mystery. Those who are not sent will only lead man to his own destruction (II Peter 3:16).
TLDR. Can you explain what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally? For example we know th a Genesis is a book of myths. How do you test it?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
@MJFlores , can you please debate properly? You have been plagiarizing lying sites. How about trying to use your own words and quoting only a sentence or two and providing links to those that you copy from. It is improper to pass off the work of others as if it were your own. At the very least avoid Christian apologetics sites. They are nothing more than liars for Jesus.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
The Bible was written a long time before 1899. The original says that the Earth is flat. Dishonest and incorrect modern (and compared to 600 BC 1899 is modern) translations may mistakenly claim a globe. But if one goes back to the Hebrew it says "circle" and circles are flat.

So what is that version which is before 1899 which says it is flat?
Showed you mine
Isaiah 40:22 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


Version Information


The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the Catholic seminary English College, Douai, France. It is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based.

It was translated principally by Gregory Martin, an Oxford-trained scholar, working in the circle of English Catholic exiles on the Continent, under the sponsorship of William (later Cardinal) Allen. The New Testament appeared at Rheims in 1582; the Old Testament at Douai in 1609.

The translation, although competent, exhibited a taste for Latinisms that was not uncommon in English writing of the time but seemed excessive in the eyes of later generations. The New Testament influenced the Authorized Version.

Between 1749 and 1752, English bishop Richard Challoner substantially revised the translation with an aim to improve readability and comprehensibility. It was first published in America in 1790 by Mathew Carey of Philadelphia. Several American editions followed in the 19th and early 20th centuries; prominent among them the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Version.

It says....
upload_2019-6-15_19-26-50.jpeg


even before NASA showed up.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So what is that version which is before 1899 which says it is flat?
Showed you mine
Isaiah 40:22 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


Version Information


The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the Catholic seminary English College, Douai, France. It is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based.

It was translated principally by Gregory Martin, an Oxford-trained scholar, working in the circle of English Catholic exiles on the Continent, under the sponsorship of William (later Cardinal) Allen. The New Testament appeared at Rheims in 1582; the Old Testament at Douai in 1609.

The translation, although competent, exhibited a taste for Latinisms that was not uncommon in English writing of the time but seemed excessive in the eyes of later generations. The New Testament influenced the Authorized Version.

Between 1749 and 1752, English bishop Richard Challoner substantially revised the translation with an aim to improve readability and comprehensibility. It was first published in America in 1790 by Mathew Carey of Philadelphia. Several American editions followed in the 19th and early 20th centuries; prominent among them the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Version.

It says....
View attachment 30017

even before NASA showed up.
Most older versions say that the Earth is flat. You have to cherry pick versions with incorrect translations. For example the most famous translation in the world, the King James Version, says that the Earth is flat. You forgot that those translators knew that the Earth was a sphere and they could not let themselves translate honestly.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
So you are confirming that the Bible is wrong.

I am confirming the Bible is right.

Leviticus 11:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

And these are the orders to the ANCIENT ISRAELITES, not for Canadians, nor Americans, nor Mexicans, nor any nationalities just for the ANCIENT ISRAELITES. And if these flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean what should they do?

Deuteronomy 14:19 New International Version (NIV)
All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them.

I believe all ISRAELITES are racially extinct, those living in Israel are Israelis far from the genetic purity of being considered an ISRAELITE. Can we eat insects? From the Bible....

Acts 10:9-15 New International Version (NIV)
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

giphy.gif
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am confirming the Bible is right.

Leviticus 11:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

And these are the orders to the ANCIENT ISRAELITES, not for Canadians, nor Americans, nor Mexicans, nor any nationalities just for the ANCIENT ISRAELITES. And if these flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean what should they do?

Deuteronomy 14:19 New International Version (NIV)
All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them.

I believe all ISRAELITES are racially extinct, those living in Israel are Israelis far from the genetic purity of being considered an ISRAELITE. Can we eat insects? From the Bible....

Acts 10:9-15 New International Version (NIV)
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

giphy.gif

No, you screwed up twice. First you were wrong about what the Bible said and then you told us that your sister proved the Bible to be wrong.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
That is a rarity. The point was you used a picture of a plant that was not a mustard plant. Or rather the dishonest source your relied upon did.

And having great faith that could move mountains is a rarity
matthew-17-20.jpg


So is a 30 feet mustard tree which are found in the Middle East and Africa

43ac8520ee60f745950a712b0ad5450e.jpg
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And having great faith that could move mountains is a rarity
matthew-17-20.jpg


So is a 30 feet mustard tree which are found in the Middle East and Africa

43ac8520ee60f745950a712b0ad5450e.jpg
Faith is only believing in something that you know is not true. And what makes you think that is a mustard bush? I bet you got the image from a dishonest site.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Good question:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

  1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
  2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
  3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
  4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
  5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.
Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Nobody asked you what a "true" prophecy was, I think we can all figure that out for ourselves.
I was asking you what you meant by a "properly written" prophecy.
Or do you not know what you meant when you said that.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
And they all fail. So why even mention prophecies?

I believe they did not.
World War 1 and World War 2 were prophesied during the time of apostle John
So it was fulfilled

giphy.gif


That is why I and the few of us believe and the rest of the world doesn't.
Anyways, people have different paths and different beliefs.
I intend to keep mine - for my salvation.

It is no wonder that from Genesis to Revelations, all pages are lies to others.
But I wonder if at the end of time if they would even have the opportunity of saying
IndelibleTangibleGermanwirehairedpointer-max-1mb.gif
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Angry bitter people thrive on goading and mocking others.

Just restricted to the non-religious?

And this occurs because they are deeply unhappy with their life and seek to gain a respite from that condition by working to create anger and bitterness in others.

Possibly, but perhaps because they think it as justifiable as many seem to think quoting scripture is - where the latter hasn't got the authority that many seem to think it has. Not think the religious irk us somewhat - when we can hardly escape from the influences of religion all around us?

There are more than just one of that type dysfunctional personality joining Christian forums.

Perhaps they are seeking aid and consolation. Are you here to give it? Christians are so humble, caring and with such humility - are they not?

What such people don't understand about the Christians they seek to provoke is that we do not rise in kind to that invitation. Rather, we learn from it.

Speaking for all Christians? No shortage of Christians defending their beliefs from attack here - from what I have seen.

The angry goading mocker personality hides behind a monitor because they'd dare not behave off line and face to face as they do on-line. The anonymity factor of the Net gives them false courage and license to exercise their demons.

Speaking as a non-believer, I have rarely ever discussed religion with my friends because they mostly think like myself and it would be a waste of time, but I would discuss with any believer as long as they didn't quote religious texts that they have studied, respected, accepted, and believed and then expect me to do so too.

And therein the Christians lesson there is to witness what we could have become before we found our Savior.

Can't argue with that but perhaps a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, etc. might.

Most importantly though is that a Christian doesn't rise to that invitation because by its very presence before us we are made aware that personality is lost and needs prayer. And so you have it.

And so you have it. A belief system in operation - one of so many. :rolleyes:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nobody asked you what a "true" prophecy was, I think we can all figure that out for ourselves.
I was asking you what you meant by a "properly written" prophecy.
Or do you not know what you meant when you said that.
A prophecy that does not meet those criteria is not properly written. Almost all Christians will deny that Nostradamus was a prophet and his prophecies tend to be excessively vague, not unexpected, etc.. They tend to violate more than one of those rules. Now while Christians will gladly apply those standards to others they tend not to do so with prophecies from their own holy book. There are clear prophecies in the Bible, such as the Tyre prophecy, those tend to fail rather spectacularly.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
@MJFlores , I did a Google search on that image. It is not the mustard bush, the one that Jesus was talking about. It was:

Salvadora persica - Wikipedia

One of the names for it is "mustard tree" but it is not a close relative of the mustard bush at all. Now perhaps your source knew that or they were merely lazy. Either way such an error makes them look incompetent at best.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Faith is what I have which atheist don't
Faith is my safety.
w0VQcN.gif
Faith is your downfall if anything. Faith is not a pathway to the truth. A Hindu, a Muslim, and a Christian can all come to their belief by faith. Aren't you interested in knowing what is true instead of believing that which is convenient?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
View attachment 30009

The term "queen" is not particularly apt, as the queen ant has very little control over the colony as a whole. She has no known authority or decision-making control; instead, her sole function is to reproduce. Therefore, the queen is best understood as the reproductive element of a colony rather than a leader. Once a colony is established, the worker ants meet the queen's needs such as giving her food and disposing of her waste. Because ant social structure is very complex and individual ants are relatively simple, an ant colony can be thought of as a single organism, and the individual ants as cells or limbs of the organism, as the individuals can rarely survive on their own. In a colony, some ants may be unrelated to the queen(s), such as when a brood is captured in a raid and raised as the colony's own.

Queen ant - Wikipedia

I believe even en.wikipedia refutes your claim - "ant colonies have a hierarchical structure with a queen (ruler) and worker ants"

This is a good example, where one could say that science got it wrong, if you play the same word game. I know of no human queen who has directly given birth to thousands of her subjects. Why did the atheist scientists call the queen ant a queen, when this ant's reproductive prowess is totally unlike any human queen in recorded history?

The short answer is the term queen ant was used as a descriptive term to help students remember the official biology cataloging, easier. It is was not intended to be taken as a literal parallel to human queens. It is good not to read too much into this.

If you ever watched a locust eat (se below) they use their two smaller front legs, like arms with hands, to grasp their food. Again you are assuming scientific cataloging standards is an objective bottom line, and therefore locust eat with their front legs and feet, even if the front legs look different and are used like arms. Before humans walked upright, did they eat with the front legs feet or with their arms? There is no real answer, other than using subjective convention.

one-locust-eating-stock-photograph_csp14519699.jpg


Another interesting insect is the praying mantis. This is another insect with four legs and two powerful arms, or six legs, depending on your cataloging POV.

Praying-Mantis-on-hierba-santa.jpg
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe they did not.
World War 1 and World War 2 were prophesied during the time of apostle John
So it was fulfilled

giphy.gif


That is why I and the few of us believe and the rest of the world doesn't.
Anyways, people have different paths and different beliefs.
I intend to keep mine - for my salvation.

It is no wonder that from Genesis to Revelations, all pages are lies to others.
But I wonder if at the end of time if they would even have the opportunity of saying
IndelibleTangibleGermanwirehairedpointer-max-1mb.gif
No, one has to retranslate the Bible to make that claim. Many of the "prophecies" were merely wishful statements against Rome. Put those so called prophecies to the test. How many times have people claimed that they have been fulfilled? You will find Christians from almost every age that have reinterpreted those prophecies and used them to claim that the end is coming soon.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
A prophecy that does not meet those criteria is not properly written.

No, according to the wall-o-text you copy & pasted, a prophecy that does not meet those criteria is not a " true" prophecy.

So in other words, you don't know what you meant when you said that.
 
Top