to clarify my statement, i hold that the Bible is completely 100% accurate in everything it speaks about, including history. it's absoluely a history book. does it expalin all of world history? of course not. no mention of ghengis kahn or easter island. but the facts of what it does mention are totally accurate.
77 comments
the facts of what it does mention are totally accurate
Technically, this is true. By definition, a 'fact' stands by its own veracity, otherwise it would not be a 'fact'. However, I don't see any facts in that particular publication. They are as absent as the capital letters at the start of ImOnStanby221's sentences.
So the facts are totally accurate? OK.
Oh, look, an ant. I think I'll count its legs.
One, two, three, four, five, six....
Wait, the Bible says insects have four legs. Why does this one have six?
The city of Tyre was never destroyed completely by Nebuchaddnezar; and it exists still today.
There was no period in egypt history where the whole country was completely uninhabited.
We have no archeological evidence at all that the exodus ever occurred. No egyptian chronicle mentions that every firstborn died in one particular night. And the egyptians were good chroniclers.
The astronomical chronicles of the greeks, the egypt, the indians, the chinese and the meso-americans have no mention at all that the sun ever stood still. Such an extraordinary event would surely be recorded, wouldn't it?
Let's see. God created humans, man and woman he made them... There are hermaphrodites.
God created all animals to be subserviant to man. Step outside and watch the animal kingdom make you it's bitch.
The biblical flood has so much wrong with it, from the impossibility of the Ark to the continued existence of every civilization on Earth.
There are no talking snakes, the sky is not filled with angels, the Earth is not the center of the universe, the stars are not glowing lights on a solid ceiling.
Fail.
"... i hold that the Bible is completely 100% accurate in everything it speaks about..."
You're wrong, and apparently very ignorant of history and science. Thanks for playing.
It doesn't mention either that ImOnStandby221 doesn't really know the use of capital letters!
And the OP doesn't know that the bible is quite wrong about many things. A prime example is that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence that there was ever an Exodus. Moreover, recent discoveries place the Thera volcano eruption, which had been seized on so eagerly to explain the Plagues of Egypt, has had to be re-dated, making it an impossible factor.
It is refreshing, however, that the human sacrifice of Jephtha's daughter is accepted as historical, as is the love story of David and Jonathan and Ruth an Naomi - not to mention the several genocides called for by Yod He Vav He.
As to 'expalin', is this akin to ex cathedra? And are we now expected to take that woman's words as biblical and binding? I think not.
"no mention of ghengis kahn or easter island"
Just as well, considering how appallingly inaccurate it is on the history of the area in which it was written.
I've never read a word of the Harry Potter series, but I'd bet that if they mention any history it's far more accurate than the Wholly Babble.
Totally accurate... except when it's not. For example, we know how and where different languages developed, and they didn't just pop into existence at once at the tower of Babel.
And I don't even want to get started on the Noah's Ark myth, I'd be here all day.
I find it amazing that god didn't seem to know ANYTHING that a man from the mid-east in the first century would not have known. Forget about Genghis Khan, how about the entire Western Hemisphere or basic cosmology? It seems that god is a real idiot, today's first graders know more about the nature of reality than your omnipotent creator.
Dumb shit.
Did God create man first and then the animals, or the animals first and then man? Both can't be 100 % accurate.
Either "Thou shalt not kill" or "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks" can be followed, not both.
no mention of ghengis kahn ..."
Sheila and Harvey's son? (Never Mind. Inside joke.)
Anyway, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the buybull that couldn't have been known or imagined by the primitive men who wrote it. And so they did.
If it actually contained anything else - say a prediction of new lands being discovered in the West or germ theory, or whatever it might be slightly more believable. But it doesn't. You lose.
So both of the lineages for Jesus are correct, despite the fact that they contradict? So Jesus died both before Passover and after? It must be so, because according to you the bible is totally historically accurate.
The very first sentence of the Bible is wrong, and it goes downhill from there. It's not such a big deal if that's where you get your history, but I suspect it's also where you get your morals and that concerns me.
So, the number of angels in the tomb according to the gospels. 1, 1, 2, 0
Since the bible is 100% true, 0=1=2. We now have 2 options. Either the bible is 100% true and the field containing all natural numbers contains only a single value, leading to mathematics and the universe breaking down, or the Bible not 100% true. Since I'm happily sitting here typing this, I believe the latter is the case.
If it's a history book why doesn't it have any proper dates in it?
EG.
I've never read any history book that doesn't include dates that important events happened and I would have supposed the birth and death of your alleged saviour would be the most important events in "history",
"i hold that the Bible is completely 100% accurate in everything it speaks about, including history."
Soooo... please explain why we all speak different languages.
Tower of Babel? Nope... according to the Bible, it was when the different Sons of Noah spread across the planet after the Flood.
Sons of Noah spreading across the planet after the Flood? Nope... according to the Bible, everyone spoke the same language until the Babel thing happened LONG after the Sons of Noah spread out and developed different languages.
Someone is completely INaccurate here... the Bible, or the Bible. Take your pick.
@Johntheatheist
Oh my God, you just gave me an awesome idea for a new game show. "Is God smarter than a 1st grader?"
Host: Ok Timmy, for all the marbles: How many legs does an insect have?
Timmy: Um....6?
Host: Congratulations Timmy, you are officially smarter than God and the people that he chose to write his holy book. You win the right to tell everyone who believes that the bible is 100% accurate to shut the fuck up. Please go to raptureready.com and begin claiming your prize.
I'm thinking Ricky Gervais should host, not sure if Foxworthy is the man for the job on this one.
With people like this, one must remember: To them, American Pi is not the same as traditional Pi.
To them, American Pi is 3. They're always a little short in adding things up. Never quite there when trying to divide things up evenly. And always have extra waste when they're all done whatever they do.
The rest of the world goes by traditional Pi. Yes, it might be a bit more complicated, but it actually works out. It's accurate, there's nothing left, and it's only incompatible with American Pi.
So, to these kind of Americans, who insist that the bible is 100%, just remember: No matter how many times they roll an idea around in their head, they can never get it all the way. There's always a little something missing from the last time, until there's such a fine speck left that they can finally understand what they think.
Funny how its history has so many obvious and profound deviations from what was recorded by other cultures. For example, nobody seemed to notice that the Sun stood still for a day and you'd think that'd be the first thing a bunch of frickin' SUN WORSHIPERS would notice. It also disagrees with Google maps as Google claims that Tyre still exists when the Bible claims it would be destroyed by the Babylonians and never be rebuilt.
This isn't even the worst of it. I this one by "Iovan" should have been submitted:
"In regards to the wiki snippet,
Old-age dating methods and naturalist presuppositions. Most of the ages they arrive at are based on criteria they presuppose, which they rework if it conflicts with other age measurements that have been "established" by much of the same biased criteria. If you assume there is no God and assume that evolution is true then old-ages become a necessity. The assumption that sediments need a long time to be set down (ignoring the very real explanation of the Flood) and many assumptions about the growth of human civilization.
While some people are quick to embrace long age dating methods (without evaluating the evidence more thoroughly) they are the antithesis of the Bible. If you assume they are correct (despite heaps of information to the contrary) then you call Jesus a liar as he both confirmed Adam and Eve were made 'in the beginning' [Mark 10:6] (i.e. not after a long process of age and evolution) and also that Noah and the global flood were real [Matthew 24:3739] (which destroys the long ages that you get by assuming slow sediment buildup). The Bible and old-ages are incompatible even though compromise is often attempted (by one group only) to mesh the two together. You can't have evolution (which is the foundation of old-age reasoning) and the Bible. If one is true then the other is not for death entered in through Adam's sin and didn't exist prior to that."
to clarify my statement, i hold that the trilogy "Lord of the Rings" is completely 100% accurate in everything it speaks about, including history. it's absoluely a history book. does it expalin all of world history? of course not. no mention of ghengis kahn or easter island. but the facts of what it does mention are totally accurate.
Middle-earth and Mordor really should be given more time in high school history courses.
@Xotan
I got all ten questions right and I'm not American. Do I get a medal, or a prize?
No, but I'd vote for you if you came to California and ran for Governor! ;) FWIW, I also got 10/10.
@Prager
I'm guessing the absence of archeological evidence to support that claim doesn't bother the poster very much.
Hence the very real fear I feel in regards to the lack of historical knowledge. Preachers and the idiot nutbaggers in this country are exacerbating the problem by keeping the sheep unlearned.
the facts of what it does mention are totally accurate.
Or you can invent some pulled-out-of-the air, non-scriptural, ad hoc explanation about why it isn't. Some of the stuff in 1 and 2 Kings, Chronicles and Jeremiah, which took place in historical times, appears to be fairly accurate. For example, the claim that Zebedaih was installed as king of Judah and later defeated by Nebuchadnezzar II is more or less confirmed in Babylonian records. But all that crap in Genesis would appear to have been pulled out of the air, just as it is for every other religion's creation myths. For example, how does one explain the genealogies that suggest a universe less that 10,000 years old vs. a supernova calculated to be 169,000 light-years away? Changes in the speed of light? Star-Trek space warps? God made the light from a non-existent event already on its way?
Interesting that archeology seems to say that almost everything prior to the combined kingdom of David is myth and the jury is still out on the combined kingdom.
After that things appear to be about as accurate as any other ancient text. Of course in all ancient texts one is better off ignoring all the supernatural stuff.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKin' A!
Whaaargarblegarblegarble!!
*incoherent rage*
Phew. Glad that's over. That's why I come here, it's a great relief valve for my vitriol and bile.
Thanks, FSTDT! Without you I would be a serial killer!
@Rabid Mathematician:
"Either the bible is 100% true and the field containing all natural numbers contains only a single value, leading to mathematics and the universe breaking down, or the Bible not 100% true."
I wouldn't have said anything if your handle didn't imply knowledge of math. The naturals do not form a field. They form a monoid. Well, maybe I misunderstood you, but, even then, there is more than one field that contains the naturals (eh, infinitely many). In that case you're just being a bit vague. :)
"no mention of ghengis kahn or easter island."
Genghis was born in the twelf--ugh, forget it. It's just easier to facepalm and walk away.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
