Quote# 77275

The Bible is the most exact "Holy Book" of any of the world's widely-practiced religions. The Qu'ran is mostly a collection of high-flying oratory; the writings of Buddha are a collection of essays on how to live ("Noble Eightfold Paths," etc.). But the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals, including genealogical annals (like the Annals of Adam and the Annals of Noah), royal annals (the Books of the Kings), and more specific historical documents (like the Annals of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which include the Log of Noah's Ark). Contrary to Giberson's dismissal of them, these records make the most highly specific claims of historical events of any "holy book," and indeed closely rival contemporary "secular" histories in the specificity of the claims they make. And unlike those other records, the Bible is scrupulously honest about the causes of the rise, and fall, of the military and mercantile empire known initially as the United Kingdom of Israel and then as the Kingdom of Judah, as well as of the breakaway "Kingdom of Israel" to Judah's north.

Terry Hurlbut, Examiner.com 54 Comments [11/5/2010 5:06:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 56
Submitted By: Nitsua
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 | bottom

Tolpuddle Martyr

So the bible is the best because of all the "begats?" Way to sell your religion! The bible's begat's have to be the most mind numbingly boring and pointless lists ever put to paper!

11/5/2010 5:13:29 AM

Bachalon

You do realize the tripitaka encompasses material many times the size of your bible, yes?

11/5/2010 5:38:06 AM

nutbunny

Thats a lot of annal

"Contrary to Giberson's dismissal of them, these records make the most highly specific claims of historical events of any "holy book," and indeed closely rival contemporary "secular" histories in the specificity of the claims they make."

Yes, they are very specific and wrong

11/5/2010 5:38:36 AM



The Log of Noah's Ark? Very exciting.

Day 1: wet.
Day 2: wet.
....
Day 40: ooh, a little bit of sunshine!

11/5/2010 5:38:40 AM

TGRwulf

You know, except for the fact that the bible has been proven to be historically innacurate on multiple accounts

11/5/2010 5:39:09 AM



Hurlbut? Hurlbut? You're shitting me, right?

11/5/2010 5:42:39 AM



Except....

- pi does not equal three exactly
- bats are not birds
- insects have six legs, not four
- rabbits, cud, yada yada yada...

Do I even need to bring up Genesis 1?

11/5/2010 5:42:41 AM



TerryH of Conservapedia. No surprise, really.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TerryH

11/5/2010 5:53:20 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Hey, Hurlbut's back!

Mr. Hurlbut, why is the Bible so much better just because it has "genealogical annals"? Doesn't the Bible say not to care about genealogies?

And the Bible isn't honest about the reason for Isreal and Judah's fall. The writers of the Bible blamed it all on those "wicked polytheists", when it was really due to the fact that Mesopotamia was gaining power at the time. A small country like Israel or Judah could not stand a chance.

11/5/2010 6:08:21 AM

Arctic Knight

Yes, the Bible is so accurate it states;

1) Rabbits chew their cud (they do not)
2) The mustard seed is the smallest seed in all the world (there are several seeds smaller than mustard)
3) Salt can lose it's flavor (a chemical impossibility)
4) It is forbidden to eat four legged winged creatures (there is no such thing)

Wow, what that is a lot of fail for the "most exact holy book"

11/5/2010 6:23:02 AM

Mister Spak

The bible is full of errors. It says so in the Qu'ran. And the Qu'ran has never been proven wrong, in spite of hundreds of years of effort from the infidels.

11/5/2010 6:33:29 AM

Dr. Shrinker

So the mind numbingly long lists of lineages are a selling point for the bible, huh Terry? Okay then, check out the lineages for Jesus that Matthew and Luke give. They do not agree: one or both of them has to be wrong.

And please, spare me the tired old apology that one is listing Mary's lineage and the other is listing Joseph's. There is nothing in the bible to support that assertion. Besides, the ancient Hebrews did not record lineages for both parents. And don't tell me that one or the other list includes names that have changed or nicknames unless you have some solid documentation (or even a bible verse or two) to support this claim.

Or, you can just admit that you've never actually read the bible and you are just parroting what other apologists have said. If it makes it any easier, you can start by admitting that you've never read the Qu'ran or the writings of the Buddha. Its okay, I'm willing to bet that none of the other conservapedia "experts" have read them either.

11/5/2010 6:40:03 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

"...the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals ..."

Not quite. The Bible is, first and foremost, a collaboration of anals.

11/5/2010 6:44:19 AM

John_in_Oz

The Buddha wrote essays? This must be another of the Bible's 'scrupulously honest facts' unknown to historians,

11/5/2010 6:47:22 AM

Doubting Thomas

What I'm getting from this rant is: The bible got a few things right, so it's 100% true and the eternal and infallible word of God Almighty.

11/5/2010 7:02:58 AM

Horsefeathers

"The Bible is the most exact "Holy Book" of any of the world's widely-practiced religions."

Exact in what way?

"The Qu'ran is mostly a collection of high-flying oratory; the writings of Buddha are a collection of essays on how to live ("Noble Eightfold Paths," etc.)."

And?

"But the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals, including genealogical annals (like the Annals of Adam and the Annals of Noah), royal annals (the Books of the Kings), and more specific historical documents (like the Annals of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which include the Log of Noah's Ark)."

None of which can be verified in any useful way and many of which have glaring errors that any non-biased historian of the era and cultures of the region would gladly point out to you.

"Contrary to Giberson's dismissal of them, these records make the most highly specific claims of historical events of any "holy book," and indeed closely rival contemporary "secular" histories in the specificity of the claims they make."

Yes, but it's the veracity of those claims that is important, not how specific they are.

"And unlike those other records, the Bible is scrupulously honest about the causes of the rise, and fall, of the military and mercantile empire known initially as the United Kingdom of Israel and then as the Kingdom of Judah, as well as of the breakaway "Kingdom of Israel" to Judah's north."

Except that it's fucking wrong in what it records.

11/5/2010 7:20:31 AM

dionysus

Is annals short for anally-extracted stories?

11/5/2010 8:20:36 AM

Matante

If the bible is full of anal then I'll take ten!

11/5/2010 8:25:41 AM

Prof. Bill Hill

Even now, scientists are busy studying Genesis and Leviticus, etc to bring us the next generation of scientific and technological advances. So that's one area where the Bible has the Qu'ran beat.

11/5/2010 9:09:32 AM

Prayster

Prayer For The Book Of Books

Dear God in Heaven, thanks for giving us, your poor servants, that magnificent tome of Godly inspiration, the Bible.
We thank thee O Lord for such an accurate scientific text without which we may well have floundered as a kind.
O my good dear God, it's absolutely brill, we thank thee ever so much for the wonderful Theory of Evolution without which we may have been as dim bulbs.

We also thank thee O Mighty Smiter for the world's greatest history book.
My dear Super Lord, the world's history of its tribes is laid out for all to see in a clear and precise, er ..interpretive fashion, in which it is conclusively revealed in a kind of delightfully haphazard way that ... er, ... Anyway, thanks.

Please heed our prayers O Supreme God of White Men, and let my team win on Saturday. I will know that you fully appreciate me when you let my team win. Thanks O Wonder God.

Amen

11/5/2010 9:22:38 AM

Picto

Hmm, according to the Bible's annals, all the men were shagging Eve for thousands of years. At least that's my interpretation of the lack of daughters listed.

11/5/2010 10:52:11 AM

Anon

>>Prof. Bill Hill

Even now, scientists are busy studying Genesis and Leviticus, etc to bring us the next generation of scientific and technological advances. So that's one area where the Bible has the Qu'ran beat. <<

If you are not a Poe, you are a liar.

11/5/2010 11:00:14 AM

rw23

@Arctic Knight:

> 4) It is forbidden to eat four legged winged creatures (there is no such thing)

Well of course there aren't any now -- they were absolutely delicious!

11/5/2010 11:02:26 AM



So, should we conclude that the census of 1920 is the most holy book in history?. Whatever.

11/5/2010 11:13:48 AM

Night Jaguar

hehe,

Hurlbut.

11/5/2010 11:34:12 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page