Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea.

Two events subject to universal assent from the life of Jesus are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Those two events being acknowledged as true are remarkable, as the person (Jesus) was a peasant and not a ruler or military leader.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.

Scholars consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be "pure" history. Luke is considered the greatest historian in the genre of history.



Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a British archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor, and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

At the time first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts were without defined location. Later in life he stated, "Further study… showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement",[9]: p.85  also stating that one "may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's".[9]: p.89 

Specifically, Ramsay's studies in Asia Minor led him to accept the trustworthiness of Luke's account in the Book of Acts. He wrote:
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

It is remarkable that Luke is considered pure history.


The historical trustworthiness of Luke has indeed been acknowledged by many biblical critics.

No archeological finding has disproved the New Testament, and Luke’s gospel has proven especially accurate, with references to geographical and cultural landmarks later confirmed by archaeological digs in the Middle East.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

So you can cite George Carlin, but not the authors of the pages you link to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea.

Two events subject to universal assent from the life of Jesus are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Those two events being acknowledged as true are remarkable, as the person (Jesus) was a peasant and not a ruler or military leader.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.

Scholars consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be "pure" history. Luke is considered the greatest historian in the genre of history.



Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a British archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor, and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

At the time first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts were without defined location. Later in life he stated, "Further study… showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement",[9]: p.85  also stating that one "may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's".[9]: p.89 

Specifically, Ramsay's studies in Asia Minor led him to accept the trustworthiness of Luke's account in the Book of Acts. He wrote:
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

It is remarkable that Luke is considered pure history.


The historical trustworthiness of Luke has indeed been acknowledged by many biblical critics.

No archeological finding has disproved the New Testament, and Luke’s gospel has proven especially accurate, with references to geographical and cultural landmarks later confirmed by archaeological digs in the Middle East.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Nor has any archaeological discovery has ever controverted The Book of Mormon. Or Harry Potter. Does that mean they are true?

Loads of scientific evidence has controverted the bible. Here's the link again for easy reference! Citations within!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Homophobia” literally means “fear of homosexuality/homosexuals”.

I don’t know a single person who fears them, or their lifestyle.

But the Bible is quite clear that it is a Sin. All peoples are deserving of love and are able to receive the mercy of God if they seek it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners.

Homosexuals are sinners. But I don’t know anyone who fears them.

See the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that being homosexual and loving another adult of the sane sex is a sin.

Lust is a sin, regardless of the sex of the subject of the attraction. Sex between men, between women, or between people and animals, are all explicitly defined as sin in the Book of Leviticus.

This really isn’t subject to argument or interpretation.

You can choose to agree or not, but the text itself is perfectly unambiguous.

So then just as "sinful" as sex between men and women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Homophobia” literally means “fear of homosexuality/homosexuals”.

I don’t know a single person who fears them, or their lifestyle.

But the Bible is quite clear that it is a Sin. All peoples are deserving of love and are able to receive the mercy of God if they seek it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners.

Homosexuals are sinners. But I don’t know anyone who fears them.

Maybe haters is a better word. Or bigot.

As long as it’s also applied equally to the militant atheists who hate people of faith, and to the members of the LGBTVQIA+ community who revel in the desecration and sexualization of religion (Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and other similar groups). As long as those people are also called “haters” and “bigots”, I can accept it.

But we all know they won’t be, don’t we? Of course. Such derision is a one-way street.


And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

You'll have to let us know how it goes for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

What has possibly convinced you that everyone must respond to you in a way you think is acceptable? And that you qualify every interaction as a attack or philosophical argument is just weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

What has possibly convinced you that everyone must respond to you in a way you think is acceptable? And that you qualify every interaction as a attack or philosophical argument is just weird.

Do you see the irony in your post? Of course people can respond however they like. As can I.

You're still a horrible person for wishing people to suffer for eternity simply because they have different beliefs than you. Don't you see that? Don't you ever question that position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea.

Two events subject to universal assent from the life of Jesus are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Those two events being acknowledged as true are remarkable, as the person (Jesus) was a peasant and not a ruler or military leader.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.

Scholars consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be "pure" history. Luke is considered the greatest historian in the genre of history.



Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a British archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor, and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

At the time first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts were without defined location. Later in life he stated, "Further study… showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement",[9]: p.85  also stating that one "may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's".[9]: p.89 

Specifically, Ramsay's studies in Asia Minor led him to accept the trustworthiness of Luke's account in the Book of Acts. He wrote:
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

It is remarkable that Luke is considered pure history.


The historical trustworthiness of Luke has indeed been acknowledged by many biblical critics.

No archeological finding has disproved the New Testament, and Luke’s gospel has proven especially accurate, with references to geographical and cultural landmarks later confirmed by archaeological digs in the Middle East.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Nor has any archaeological discovery has ever controverted The Book of Mormon. Or Harry Potter. Does that mean they are true?

Loads of scientific evidence has controverted the bible. Here's the link again for easy reference! Citations within!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

Your link does not provide an author.

None of your links do. You don’t even know who you are citing. You are taking anonymous webpages as truth without even knowing the identity of the person or people who wrote the information.

Let’s pretend every single point in your sources are factual- the author has committed plagiarism by not citing the work of the people who they are quoting.

That might not be applicable to your sources (maybe? possibly? spin the wheel!) because it seems the information is written by a (we are guessing but no one knows, could be chat gpt or a bot) single author, who is anonymous and doesn’t cite sources so he or she can claim authorship. (yet they do not put their name to their “work”)

However, since they remain anonymous, anonymous “facts” are unverifiable and not accepted by any reputable person or organization or institution.

You like them though. Good for you. You live your life on the edge- no sources or authors, just raw, unverified data and anonymous ramblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

What has possibly convinced you that everyone must respond to you in a way you think is acceptable? And that you qualify every interaction as a attack or philosophical argument is just weird.

Do you see the irony in your post? Of course people can respond however they like. As can I.

You're still a horrible person for wishing people to suffer for eternity simply because they have different beliefs than you. Don't you see that? Don't you ever question that position?

There’s more than one person posting in this thread and you have chosen the wrong one to question because I didn’t write the post about hell.

See? This is why authorship is so critical.

Unless any written piece-even a post online- is identified and has an author, no one can know the truth of the information and data.

Lesson learned, possibly. Hopefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

This is perhaps the most ironic post in the history of DCUM.

PP, look at the title of the thread. THIS thread.

If people weren't trying to make other people live according to their religion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's YOU that wants what you claim is unacceptable.