The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
There are no historical errors in the bible, it's just your taking things out of their context and trying to imply them to fit your agenda.
.......what the Bible actually does say and actually does confirms, So there is no Contradictions nor anything else that your trying to imply.

What the bible "actually does say".

Everyone has their own idea of that.

The flood is as gross an historical inaccuracy as one
could possibly ask for.

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
Who is claiming Frost or Yeats are God?

Are you claiming "god" is?
Frost and Yeats are at least real.

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

Audie said:
Are you claiming "god" is?
Frost and Yeats are at least real.

Ah, Scoda, that was not intended to be funny.
Why are you saying it is funny?

sooda · Mar 18, 2019

Audie said:
Ah, Scoda, that was not intended to be funny.
Why are you saying it is funny?

I didn't claim Yeats was God.. Follow the thread.

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
That's the way it is with poetry, isn't it?

Well, I dont know that many people claim
that god supervises their interpretations
of poetry.

Also, I dont think anyone would say the
bible is poetry, howe'er it may
betimes lapse thereto

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
I didn't claim Yeats was God.. Follow the thread.

follow the question ya swabette!

I wondered if you think god is god.

Thief · Mar 18, 2019

well maybe the Carpenter walked on water.....
maybe He didn't

given the climate of the scheme of things as described.....
any speech of His would be as tricky as....
walking on water

always suspected the event was a metaphor that wasn't properly
set into script

Faithofchristian · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
Sorry there were no Chaldeans at the time of Abraham. Nobody lived there at the time . "Chaldea" or mat Kaldi generally referred to the low, marshy, alluvial land around the estuaries of the Tigris and Euphrates, which at the time discharged their waters through separate mouths into the sea.

Chaldea was a marsh.

Maybe you should re-read Genesis
chapter 11 again, the land of the Chaldeans was there.

In what year was that map from, it sure wasn't from 3000 or 5000 years ago.

The land of the Chaldeans we're dry land and a wet land or a marshy, as your trying to say it is.

Faithofchristian · Mar 18, 2019

Audie said:
What the bible "actually does say".
Everyone has their own idea of that.

The flood is as gross an historical inaccuracy as one
could possibly ask for.

As to who's talking about any flood, As the Thread it's self doesn't saying anything about a flood.
So how is it your bringing a flood that the Thread it's self doesn't speak of.

Maybe you should start up a Thread about a flood, if you want to talk about a flood, so seeing the Thread is not about a flood or says anything about a flood.

So as I'm not going off script, but stay with what the Thread is actually about

james dixon · Mar 18, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
So how is it your bringing a flood that the Thread it's self doesn't speak of.

POST #42: Audie said: The flood is as gross an historical inaccuracy as one
could possibly ask for.

I was responding to Audie's post but you are right, I will delete my response.

-

A Vestigial Mote · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
Who is claiming Frost or Yeats are God?

What the hell is going on here? Why are you making my point back to me? Are you attempting to kill me with irony here?

Here's the original post you replied to from @Audie:

Audie said:
As mentioned before, everyone finds what
it suits them to believe in, and as a rule,
they get their interpretation via god's inspiration.

You replied with:

sooda said:
That's the way it is with poetry, isn't it?

Which is you attempting to equate how The Bible attempts to convey information with poetry and how it attempts to convey information. Isn't it? Or am I completely missing something here? This is you attempting to say "Well, we interpret poetry, don't we? So why not interpret The Bible?"

And the point I tried (and apparently failed) to make was that interpretation of poetry is a completely harmless exercise, because plain ol' poetry does not attempt to govern your entire life and outlook on the world. Which is another way of saying that it is fine if we all read a poem and come to different interpretations as to what it means, because "who cares?" However, it is decidedly LESS FINE for people who are reading a text supposedly put forth to instruct all of humanity how to live their lives to come to drastically different conclusions.

So, as you can see... my entire point was that no, neither Frost nor Yeats are anywhere near "God". Nothing they wrote should be treated anywhere near as important. And the fact that interpretation is left as a part of The Bible is an inexcusable flaw due to the very same importance that should be placed on it IF it is "the truth." You, on the other hand, apparently want to put "poetry" on par with The Bible, or reduce The Bible to the realm of "poetry" (an idea I am actually 100% on board with!) And if this isn't what you meant, then I'd stay away from funny little statements that equate to "Since poetry is open to interpretation, so too is The Bible!"

MJFlores · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
These are just a few historical errors in the Bible.

Really few, so what is many to you?
And your religion is - Christian....wow
Just remember Trump saying

What do you want me to resolve from A to Z?

Seen some and checked some - and I found out that they are just using an obscure bible translation and misunderstanding of some historical facts. Needs to be fact checked.

Most are dud, unworthy of attention.
Which among those are what you call "very very serious"?

BilliardsBall · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia and encompass Ethiopia (Gen 2:13)

B. The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra. (Gen 11:9)

C. Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham (Gen 11:28, 15:7)

D. Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan' (Gen 14:14). That name was not used geographically until after the conquest (Judge 18:29)

E. Gen 36:31, telling of Jacob and Esau, lists kings of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This must have been written hundreds of years later, after Israel had kings.

F. Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). There was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.

G. The Egyptian princess names the baby she finds "Moses" because she "drew him out" of the water (Heb meshethi). Why would she make a pun in Hebrew (Ex 2:10)?

H. No Egyptian record exists mentioning Moses or his devastation of Egypt.

I. Moses refers to "Palestine" (Ex 15:14). No such name was in use then.

J. Law of Moses is the "statutes of God and his laws" (Ex 18:26), but it closely mirrors the Code of Hammurabi, which was penned 1800 BC, hundreds of years before Moses.

K. Priests are mentioned at Ex 19:22-24, but they are not provided for until Ex 28:1.

L. Moses mentions Rabbath, where Og's bedstead is located (Deut3:11). Moses could not have any knowledge of Rabbath,which was not captured by the Hebrews until David's time,500 years later (2 Sam 12:26).

M. Jericho and Ai (Josh 8) were both ancient ruins at the time of the conquest of Canaan, according to archaeologists. Jericho's walls were destroyed centuries before Joshua.

N. Kings are referred to at Deut 17:17-19, before Israel had kings.

O. The Wilderness is viewed as history at Num 15:32, showing that Numbers was written later.

P. The Sabbath law was unknown when the man gathered sticks at Num 15:32-34.

Q. Book of Joshua refers to Book of Jasher in the past, mentioned at 2 Sam 1:18, therefore Joshua must be post-David.

R. Captivity is mentioned at Judg 18:30, making it post-Exile.

S. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54). But Jerusalem was not captured until 7 years after David became king (2 Sam 5).

T. David paid 600 shekels of gold for the threshing floor (1 Chron21:22-25). But shekels of gold were not yet used in business transactions (this is the only use of the term in the OT).

U. Psalm 18:6 mentions the temple, thus cannot be by David.

V. Defeat of Sennacherib did not happen at Jerusalem, but at Pelusium, near Egypt, and Jews were not involved, contrary to 2 Kings 19.

W. Ninevah was so large it took three days to cross, i.e. about 60 miles (Jonah 3:3-4). Yet it had only 120,000 inhabitants, making a population density of of about 42 people per square
mile for a city.

X. Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is historically inaccurate; Nebuchadnezzar was never mad. Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus. Babylon was not conquered by Darius the Mede, but by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is unknown to history.

Y. Chronology of the empires of the Medes and Persians is historically incorrect in Isa 13:17, 21:2, Jer 51:11, 28

Z. Esther (and all the characters in the Book of Esther except Ahasuerus [= Xerxes]) is unknown to history, even though itclaims that its events are "written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Est 10:2). The Book of Esther is not quoted by any pre-Christian writer, nor mentioned in
NT, nor quoted by early Christian fathers.

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

From the Dossier of Reason

These are just a few historical errors in the Bible.

Two possibilities:

You are right, God remains unknown, I will die and become nothing, even less than the nothing I now am, a blob of chemicals (why are you at RF, go be meaningless somewhere less spiritual?).

You are wrong, and looking at even random "mistakes" you've cited, you are completely mistaken (why are you at RF, go be heretical somewhere less spiritual?).

My conclusion is clear--you belong nowhere near RF IMHO.

sooda · Mar 18, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Two possibilities:

You are right, God remains unknown, I will die and become nothing, even less than the nothing I now am, a blob of chemicals (why are you at RF, go be meaningless somewhere less spiritual?).

You are wrong, and looking at even random "mistakes" you've cited, you are completely mistaken (why are you at RF, go be heretical somewhere less spiritual?).

My conclusion is clear--you belong nowhere near RF IMHO.

Well, there are lots of Christians like you.

ManSinha · Mar 18, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Imagine a world with no pharma.
Imagine how it now costs pharma ten years and half a billion dollars to
bring out a new drug.
Imagine - three quarters of the poor in America have air conditioning in
their cars. Think about that - the poor now own cars. Until the 1950's
few rich people could afford air conditioning.
Imagine - gas was about 12 cents a liter in Iran - all subsidized. When
the govt jacked this up to 18 cents people rioted. So Iran pumped out
its oil, sent it overseas for refining, shipped it back and sold it for less
than 45 cents a gallon. And people utterly wasted it.

And best of all, imagine that the average household in Western nations
now live better lives than the European monarchs of two hundred years
ago - people's skin is soft, their clothes are soft, bright and cheap, food
is safer and vastly more varied, their entertainment is light years ahead
of what a king could summon, their medicine would be like magic to the
kings, their information is like from another planet, their mothers don't
die in childbirth, they don't suffer from plagues anymore...............
Please be grateful, and if not, at least put things in better perspective.

If you want to defend Pharma that is fine - but how does the equation square with the following:

1. Old drugs to cost more
2. The opioid crisis is driven partly by drug makers pushing drugs with addictive potential
3. CEO's of Pharma companies make millions in compensation
4. Rising prices for drugs that are not necessarily better

I could go on -

I am in the industry - there is much good - but there is also greed and it is one of the prime examples of something that could do with a little more compassion for the fellow suffering human being

I am grateful but not blind

sooda · Mar 18, 2019

MJFlores said:
View attachment 27610

Really few, so what is many to you?
And your religion is - Christian....wow
Just remember Trump saying

What do you want me to resolve from A to Z?

Seen some and checked some - and I found out that they are just using an obscure bible translation and misunderstanding of some historical facts. Needs to be fact checked.

Most are dud, unworthy of attention.
Which among those are what you call "very very serious"?

In Exodus 15 the different Bibles say something quite different. Some say Philistia some say Palestinia.

And, there's the matter of UR of the Chaldeans. Perhaps, Abraham was a Marsh Arab after all.. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

The contradictions and errors really aren't a problem unless you are a literalist or fundamentalist.

Audie · Mar 18, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
As to who's talking about any flood, As the Thread it's self doesn't saying anything about a flood.
So how is it your bringing a flood that the Thread it's self doesn't speak of.

Maybe you should start up a Thread about a flood, if you want to talk about a flood, so seeing the Thread is not about a flood or says anything about a flood.

So as I'm not going off script, but stay with what the Thread is actually about

Well! Be sure not to use any words not previously
introduced either.

Did you note any discussion of "what the bible actually
says"?
By your figurin' nobody can mention anything specific
in the bible that was not part of the OP.

By all means, though, avoid going off whatever
script you learned somewhere. I mean, how
could there be a discussion unless one or
more people are just reading from a script?

For those who actually want to discuss the
topic well,the flood is the prime exhibit.

You may, and understandably so, wish to steer
clear of it.

Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

user4578 · Mar 18, 2019

sooda said:
D. Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan' (Gen 14:14). That name was not used geographically until after the conquest (Judge 18:29)

Clearly not true, Deuteronomy 34:1. Joshua would have been a good candidate editor for things like this. Obviously Moses didn't write his own epitaph, for example(Deuteronomy 34:10).

sooda said:
E. Gen 36:31, telling of Jacob and Esau, lists kings of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This must have been written hundreds of years later, after Israel had kings.

Maybe you've already answered this with point N.

sooda said:
R. Captivity is mentioned at Judg 18:30, making it post-Exile.

The latter verses you mean, unless you would have them to be foretelling the future.

sooda said:
U. Psalm 18:6 mentions the temple, thus cannot be by David.

David had a tent in which he stored the ark before the temple was built(2 Samuel 6:17, 7:1-2).

sooda · Mar 18, 2019

Audie said:
Well! Be sure not to use any words not previously
introduced either.

Did you note any discussion of "what the bible actually
says"?
By your figurin' nobody can mention anything specific
in the bible that was not part of the OP.

By all means, though, avoid going off whatever
script you learned somewhere. I mean, how
could there be a discussion unless one or
more people are just reading from a script?

For those who actually want to discuss the
topic well,the flood is the prime exhibit.

You may, and understandably so, wish to steer
clear of it.

Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

Yes.. The flood is the prime exhibit.. You can't say oh the Bible isn't LITERAL and say the Global flood of Noah is LITERAL.

sooda · Mar 18, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
Maybe you should re-read Genesis
chapter 11 again, the land of the Chaldeans was there.

In what year was that map from, it sure wasn't from 3000 or 5000 years ago.

The land of the Chaldeans we're dry land and a wet land or a marshy, as your trying to say it is.

The two rivers had separate runs into the Persian Gulf.. Chaldea was an uninhabitable marsh.... but, It is absolutely possible that Abraham was a Marsh Arab.

Sir Wilfred Patrick Thesiger spent decades with the Marsh Arabs of Iraq and used to come to Arabia to speak from time to time. You know who he is, don't you?

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member