Celtic Heroes

I find it funny that you disregard a book with actual historical accounts (that are true) but claim Wikipedia, that can be edited by anyone, is entirely true.

Anyone can't edit Wikipedia anymore. You have to be invited into the community to edit and entries are reviewed. All Wikipedia articles cite thier sources.

Also Wikipedia is one of the best free sites. It takes a lot of work to actually find inaccuracies. In the scientific ones I've found almost none whatsoever.

People who knee jerk claim Wikipedia is wrong are often ignorant with bogus claims and get mad Wikipedia contradicts them. At least thats true on average from my experiences.

Virtually no secular scholars view the bible as factual. In fact people have tried to show events of the bible occurring with extremely limited successes. 95%+ of the bible is pure mythology and 5% is factual tops.

I find it funny that you disregard a book with actual historical accounts (that are true) but claim Wikipedia, that can be edited by anyone, is entirely true.

Anyone can't edit Wikipedia anymore. You have to be invited into the community to edit and entries are reviewed. All Wikipedia articles cite thier sources.

Also Wikipedia is one of the best free sites. It takes a lot of work to actually find inaccuracies. In the scientific ones I've found almost none whatsoever.

People who knee jerk claim Wikipedia is wrong are often ignorant with bogus claims and get mad Wikipedia contradicts them. At least thats true on average from my experiences.

Virtually no secular scholars view the bible as factual. In fact people have tried to show events of the bible occurring with extremely limited successes. 95%+ of the bible is pure mythology and 5% is factual tops.

Actually, the bible doesn't teach stuff like math, reading ,etc,. That's why the bible isn't necessary in schools, lol.
If it a Christian school, then yeah, they teach the bible, and how to understand it, but not as much as the average themes(math,etc)

I find it funny that you disregard a book with actual historical accounts (that are true) but claim Wikipedia, that can be edited by anyone, is entirely true.

Anyone can't edit Wikipedia anymore. You have to be invited into the community to edit and entries are reviewed. All Wikipedia articles cite thier sources.

Also Wikipedia is one of the best free sites. It takes a lot of work to actually find inaccuracies. In the scientific ones I've found almost none whatsoever.

People who knee jerk claim Wikipedia is wrong are often ignorant with bogus claims and get mad Wikipedia contradicts them. At least thats true on average from my experiences.

Virtually no secular scholars view the bible as factual. In fact people have tried to show events of the bible occurring with extremely limited successes. 95%+ of the bible is pure mythology and 5% is factual tops.

And Wikipedia can be wrong, or miss informed( and most of the time misses important information). Heck, me and other people have seen grammatical errors.
Wikipedia talks about a ton of things, and some are described as just opinions by the authors, so...It Wikipedia isn't always right.

I find it funny that you disregard a book with actual historical accounts (that are true) but claim Wikipedia, that can be edited by anyone, is entirely true.

Anyone can't edit Wikipedia anymore. You have to be invited into the community to edit and entries are reviewed. All Wikipedia articles cite thier sources.

Also Wikipedia is one of the best free sites. It takes a lot of work to actually find inaccuracies. In the scientific ones I've found almost none whatsoever.

People who knee jerk claim Wikipedia is wrong are often ignorant with bogus claims and get mad Wikipedia contradicts them. At least thats true on average from my experiences.

Virtually no secular scholars view the bible as factual. In fact people have tried to show events of the bible occurring with extremely limited successes. 95%+ of the bible is pure mythology and 5% is factual tops.

Actually, the bible doesn't teach stuff like math, reading ,etc,. That's why the bible isn't necessary in schools, lol.
If it a Christian school, then yeah, they teach the bible, and how to understand it, but not as much as the average themes(math,etc)

Actually plus3, the Bible is factual. Show me one instance(other than genetic evidence, as i know almost nothing about that and even less on how to argue on it) where the Bible is wrong and why it is wrong.

Yes vrealan, magixal, and plus3. I duble dare you to prove it wrong, the way solum said.

Let's look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". Wrong since it implies simultaneously and the earth is 1/3 the age of the universe or 10 billion years younger. I guess that they could have neglected to mention the missing 10 billion years but thats agreeing the bible is incomplete and misleading. The earth was never 'formless and empty, darkness over the surface of the deep" as the earth most certainly had near its current form, albeit with much more volcanism, tidal forces, and much different weather and atmospheric gas content than today. It formed through collisions between smaller orbiting debris and its final forming moment was when it collided with a mars sized planet and blew off the moon completely destroying and reforming the earth.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light came about during the first picosecond of the big bang although it did not propagate in long straight lines untill more cooling occurred. Light came 10 billion years before the earth and darkness is the absence of light not some magical separation.
God then went on to create the sky - which in reality formed at the same time as the earth - bible fail as the early atmosphere was likely mostly the result of comet accretion and volcanism. The water was not gathered to 'one place' Seed bearing and fruit bearing plants were not even close to being first - it was highly simple single cells that we see fossils of first with a likely even simpler precursor that has yet to be discovered. Plants first is 100% wrong. Now god made wild land animals - wrong! First eyurokrotic animals evolved in the oceans and existed long before on land. Again the bible is wrong.

We haven't gotten to even 1:24 and every single thing god said is provably false - obviously false to anyone with intellectual honesty and who dosent deny the facts of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, not to mention DNA evidence which you said not to include and I did not include.

That's not even all the untruth on a single page of the bible.

In fact earlier this year science proved that load bearing domesticated camels didn't come untill 200 years after Jesus making all references to camels in the bible fake. But it's not like the 100,000 th fact proven wrong really makes a difference at this point.

Let's look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". Wrong since it implies simultaneously and the earth is 1/3 the age of the universe or 10 billion years younger. I guess that they could have neglected to mention the missing 10 billion years but thats agreeing the bible is incomplete and misleading. The earth was never 'formless and empty, darkness over the surface of the deep" as the earth most certainly had near its current form, albeit with much more volcanism, tidal forces, and much different weather and atmospheric gas content than today. It formed through collisions between smaller orbiting debris and its final forming moment was when it collided with a mars sized planet and blew off the moon completely destroying and reforming the earth.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light came about during the first picosecond of the big bang although it did not propagate in long straight lines untill more cooling occurred. Light came 10 billion years before the earth and darkness is the absence of light not some magical separation.
God then went on to create the sky - which in reality formed at the same time as the earth - bible fail as the early atmosphere was likely mostly the result of comet accretion and volcanism. The water was not gathered to 'one place' Seed bearing and fruit bearing plants were not even close to being first - it was highly simple single cells that we see fossils of first with a likely even simpler precursor that has yet to be discovered. Plants first is 100% wrong. Now god made wild land animals - wrong! First eyurokrotic animals evolved in the oceans and existed long before on land. Again the bible is wrong.

We haven't gotten to even 1:24 and every single thing god said is provably false - obviously false to anyone with intellectual honesty and who dosent deny the facts of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, not to mention DNA evidence which you said not to include and I did not include.

That's not even all the untruth on a single page of the bible.

Ok, the way you did this...its the same thing as me taking Darwin's notes and saying they are wrong because they are against creationism. I meant things like: does it contradict itself? Does it contradict science in any way in any way unrelated to evolution? Stuff like that. Does it contradict history? And if it does pls say why. I didnt post specifics at first so maybe u misunderstood. I apologize.

In fact earlier this year science proved that load bearing domesticated camels didn't come untill 200 years after Jesus making all references to camels in the bible fake. But it's not like the 100,000 th fact proven wrong really makes a difference at this point.

How exactly did it prove this? It doesn't make sense that no one before 200 A.D. would have thought of using camels for beasts of burden. I mean they are strong, can go far, and have horrible tempers.

Let's look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". Wrong since it implies simultaneously and the earth is 1/3 the age of the universe or 10 billion years younger. I guess that they could have neglected to mention the missing 10 billion years but thats agreeing the bible is incomplete and misleading. The earth was never 'formless and empty, darkness over the surface of the deep" as the earth most certainly had near its current form, albeit with much more volcanism, tidal forces, and much different weather and atmospheric gas content than today. It formed through collisions between smaller orbiting debris and its final forming moment was when it collided with a mars sized planet and blew off the moon completely destroying and reforming the earth.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light came about during the first picosecond of the big bang although it did not propagate in long straight lines untill more cooling occurred. Light came 10 billion years before the earth and darkness is the absence of light not some magical separation.
God then went on to create the sky - which in reality formed at the same time as the earth - bible fail as the early atmosphere was likely mostly the result of comet accretion and volcanism. The water was not gathered to 'one place' Seed bearing and fruit bearing plants were not even close to being first - it was highly simple single cells that we see fossils of first with a likely even simpler precursor that has yet to be discovered. Plants first is 100% wrong. Now god made wild land animals - wrong! First eyurokrotic animals evolved in the oceans and existed long before on land. Again the bible is wrong.

We haven't gotten to even 1:24 and every single thing god said is provably false - obviously false to anyone with intellectual honesty and who dosent deny the facts of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, not to mention DNA evidence which you said not to include and I did not include.

That's not even all the untruth on a single page of the bible.

Ok, the way you did this...its the same thing as me taking Darwin's notes and saying they are wrong because they are against creationism. I meant things like: does it contradict itself? Does it contradict science in any way in any way unrelated to evolution? Stuff like that. Does it contradict history? And if it does pls say why. I didnt post specifics at first so maybe u misunderstood. I apologize.

Much of the stuff in the bible like specific conversations or trivial events have no possible way to disprove though given the rest of the tome, the fact the whole bible is just plagiarized from previous religious stories, and written 20-100 years after the fact makes it extremely unlikely to be true.

Other falsifiable claims like in genesis are easily shown to be false. Every single thing I said is high school level science knowledge and accepted the world over. If you or anyone could show even a single detail of that to be incorrect you would be an overnight science celebrity and get a Nobel prize and millions of dollars not to mention fame and hot chicks.

Disprove any of it I double dare you lol.