Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

Only problem is there, is only in the translation dept. and understanding or perceptions.

Is this to claim that the Bible is without error except for translation, understanding, perception?

Where is that perfect / error free Bible kept? Can it only be read 'properly' by those who are fluent in the original Koine Greek (used 4th to 6th centuries CE)? Or must one also be fluent in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic?

Are English language Bibles not trustworthy " translated wrong " undependable?

And science has not gotten its act right.

Is this an attempt to argue that it is okay for the Bible to be wrong because science has not gotten its act right? Is it an attempt to argue that if there is a conflict between the Bible and science, the Bible is right and science is wrong?

Tu quoque [You did it too!] is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

In what ways, specifically and exactly, is science wrong related to biblical criticism?

Note: it doesn't take 'science' to understand that long dead bodies don't come back to life, that people don't survive for days 'in the belly of a fish', that praying to gods cannot be trusted to avoid or alleviate storms, floods, droughts, that the Sun and Moon do not 'stay', that mountains do not move themselves on command from people who have 'faith', etc.