50 Old Testament Inconsistencies

89 comments to 50 Old Testament Inconsistencies

• Alex

  November 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm · Reply

  Whether Christian or not, academically, this is not properly researched.
  Of course you don’t argue the finer points of the Bible, in fact you’ve taken it completely out of context. A word of warning to anyone who may come across this, logically, this work is incorrect. Read the passages for yourselves, the whole chapter, and you’ll understand what is going on in the context. Use the NIV, it is a trusted translation.
  Finding an inconsistency in the Bible is, from both a religious and academic point of view, not possible.
  Thanks for your time.

  Reply to This Comment

• Momma

  November 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm · Reply

  Definitely written by someone who has not actually studied the Bible and does not understand it at all.

  Reply to This Comment

• ben

  November 24th, 2008 at 3:07 pm · Reply

  Do you know how many have tried to debunk the Bible over the thousands of years it has been around? MANY. How many have succeeded? NONE. Nor archeological, nor geological nor historical researches have been able to. This is obviously a poor attempt.

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  November 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm · Reply

  Momma, probably somebody who understands it better than you. In fact, I guarantee it, you probably haven’t read it yet… especially since you didn’t even take the time to say WHY you think it was written by somebody who hasn’t studied the bible.

  As for you Alex, who are you to say what’s not properly researched? And no, again, I’ll say it bloody again, none of it is out of context. Quit with your BS claims that every time somebody comes around with a contradiction all you say is, “Oh, it must have been taken out of context!” No. How about you prove it? What was taken out of context? And what finer points? You mean the rape? Murder? Oh, you must mean the actual good aspects, the 1/1000 where something benevolent happens in the bible. Why argue with those? We are not here to argue with what your faith has best to offer, were here to argue against your ugly side… you know, the part where your religion wages wars in god’s name. We wage war over the fact that you follow a completely BS book literally instead of bloody thinking for one second for yourself.

  And seriously, can you back up your words? Not possible? It’s been proven possible! It is completely possible! The bible is littered with inconsistencies, the evidence is, lol, right above you. Your faced with a list of inconsistencies that you haven’t disproven, therefore, you have no right to say something like that.

  And, ben bible has been debunked constantly, for thousands of years. And people have been winning from the beginning with the biggest inconsistency:
  “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
  Then he is not omnipotent.
  Is he able, but not willing?
  Then he is malevolent.
  Is he both able, and willing?
  Then whence cometh evil?
  Is he neither able nor willing?
  Then why call him God.”
  Epicurus 33 A.D.

  The bible has been debunked for thousands of years.

  Craig and Chris are the religious ones that I can live with. Nicely put.

  Oh, by the way, for the Moses is great yet meek, it going on character. Didn’t I already say the statements are mainly placeholders and you actually have to look at it to see the contradiction? Seems many people can’t do what they are complaining about that the author supposedly did.. Moses acts completely out of character in Numbers 12, completely. It was like it wasn’t Moses. I would explain more, but I’ve got to leave at this moment, chow.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  torgeir Reply:
  May 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am

  God certainly can destroy evil, but then he must take away our free will also, something he wont do.

  to the author:
  7. God was pleased with his creation. Gen.1:31.
  God was not pleased with his creation. Gen.6:6.

  God was pleased, but then we messed up and he wasnt pleased anymore, its that easy.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 31st, 2009 at 5:34 pm

  ??? This is rather old, but I’ll give it a good shot.

  Rather out of the book answer isn’t that?

  1. God is all good.
  2. God is all powerful, so he can do whatever he likes.
  C1. Therefore God will stop evil.
  3. There is much evil in the world.
  C2. Therefore God has not stopped evil.
  C3. Therefore an all good, all powerful God does not exist.

  There is no continuation. If free will is taken away once evil is destroyed, it thusly means that free will is evil and should be abolished. It’s a sheep’s argument anyways, nobody has perfect free will. Can I fly? No. Therefore, I do not have the free will to fly. There are always constraints on such a silly thing as “free will”, even if such a paradoxical system exists. Angels don’t have free will, they seem to be getting along fine. Satan doesn’t even have free will, god made satan strictly evil.

  “God was pleased, but then we messed up and he wasnt pleased anymore, its that easy.”
  You thusly saying god is not omnipotent, he couldn’t even foresee that his creation would mess up not even a small time constraint later. That easy huh? No, it isn’t. Again, every single defense your small incapable mind thinks up will dig your grave deeper and deeper.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  Yeah, sorry, torgeir, your arguments are not logical.
  Your god is not omnipotent (too many old testament passages to quote), not omnipresent (he is only ever in the Fertile Crescent), not omniscient (if he knows all, then why didn’t he know we’d screw up? If he knew we were going to eat the apple, he wouldn’t have been pleased with our creation in the first place.)
  Read your bible instead of just taking your pastor’s word for it and relying on faith. Of course, if you really do read your bible, you’ll end up an atheist like me.

  Reply to This Comment

• Cameron

  November 24th, 2008 at 11:56 pm · Reply

  Keep in mind aithiests, Jesus Christ did not write the Bible. Mortals did, and everyone knows that we mortals are blind to the truth, thats why most of us worship Jesus. He is all seeing.

  Reply to This Comment

• Healyhatman

  November 25th, 2008 at 1:38 am · Reply

  IRON AGE!? I suppose you must be talking about the New Testament, because the Old Testament was written by even MORE ignorant BRONZE AGE (or was it copper?) nomads.

  Reply to This Comment

• Neece

  November 25th, 2008 at 1:48 am · Reply

  Healyhatman, thanks for clarifying. That’s definitely true. I was thinking Iron Age for some reason, but yeah, the OT is much older than that.

  Reply to This Comment

• Bill

  November 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm · Reply

  To the Skeptic’s Bible, I say: If you’re going to accuse people of believing illogical things, you should show at least a little care for the use of logic yourself. A common format of the stories of the Bible (and one that is used in many other similar texts) is to summarize a story and then go back and relate details. It is so patent that it is laughable to not see the pattern. This eliminates 90% of the what-happened-first “inconsistencies”.
  Then there are the ones noted above where “contradicting” statements are made widely separated in time, when there are intervening passages that note that the conditions they were describing had *changed*, and these are conveniently not mentioned.
  #17 God is recorded using “Jacob” and “Israel” purposely in the same verse many times in the Bible, the names were used to describe him or his descendants in their earthly-focused vs. heavenly-focused states. #18 it was at least 200 years between Dan’s son and the first census. Often the patriarchs had 11 or 12 sons. Even if Dan’s descendants had 10 sons each generation, it would only take 5 generations to get to 100,000. Extraordinary, but far from impossible.
  #19 it explicitly says the Hebrews’ livestock were spared. Do you think the Egyptians wouldn’t replenish their livestock from that of their slaves?

  And on, and on.

  The “argument from evil” assumes that it is wrong for the Creator to create evil, as teh Psalmist quotes, “I am good, and I create evil”. The whole point is that being limitless, nothing is wrong for the Creator (illustrated by the quote “How can the clay say to the potter, why have you made me this way?”).
  The reason that evil was created was to give the created beings a choice–the choice to reject their Creator, or not. We’re created to love, and if there is no ability to choose one way or another, you can’t call it love. If one is *paying attention*, one can see that from that point, according to the Bible, most evil comes from people who choose that way, even though often the Creator takes the credit/blame for it. The only times that evil comes from the Creator *directly* are the times when the evil that comes from people is so overwhelming as to threaten the ability of the undecided to choose, including cases where individuals closest to the small early phases of the re-revelation of knowledge of the Creator threatened to snuff it out. Then a demonstration of power, usually partially concealed so as not to force anyone to believe, would come about to balance the strength of the choices influencing the people’s minds.

  Though it is frequently intimated before, the final proof that the Creator has a benevolent purpose for the ultimate end, is that He was willing to come to the earth Himself and suffer as one of us all of the consequences of the evil wrought in the world, and suffer them more acutely than any of us.
  And after that suffering, He gave the guarantee that if we choose to follow His example for the limited, human form in doing only good and not evil, no matter how much it might endanger us, then insofar as we commit to that we will have access to His unlimited power for good and not evil in whatever ways will not contravene the ability of others to choose. Furthermore, that same guarantee promises that once all have chosen and the events of history completely vindicate Him in all of our eyes, He will completely remove all evil, repaying for it all so completely as to make it as though it never existed, and allow us to enjoy the good with Him forever.

  Reply to This Comment

• Mark

  November 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm · Reply

  More to the point: p0wned

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  November 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm · Reply

  First off I’d like to say that the new website design looks quite better than the old. And if I have any time maybe I’ll check out the other articles or take up on your offer Nancy and write something. Anyways…

  p0wned? P0wned? Really? No, I think not. I find it funny, that no matter what it is, there are so many different view points on the same passages. So many false story backups, so many sheep who take the word of preachers without doing their own work. I mean really! ‘Oh don’t listen to that guy he doesn’t know anything, listen to my pathetic attempts!’ Hmmm, can you guys get together and be consistent or something?

  You are wrong about #17. When Jacob was given the new name, that was it. There was no more Jacob, just Israel. This is the whole bloody point, of a new life. And for that matter, the slip up wasn’t in refer to a previous Jacob, it was god who did the slip up. God called Jacob Jacob, when he should have used Israel because there was no more Jacob. Did you even look at it to check your claim, or did you just defend it blindly?

  For your claim of 18, would you like to back up your statement? How about some proof for your claims? How do you know how long it was between the two references? Furthermore, you are completely wrong 11-12 sons statement. Life expectancy was incredibly low, many did not live to see puberty, and quite frankly, 11-12 children living that long was not common, nor was it for them to live to produce that many. Nor did you attribute to amount of females, and heh, notice that at 50-50 odds (the odds actually favor females slightly) that would be 22-24 children total, even a more ridicules number. Also, you forgot to attribute time for each child to be born, that would be about 22-24 years for those children to be born to each parent. Parents would need to be quite wealthy to accomplish such, and not to mention the incredible of the mother, I guess she was married at 10 each time and bore children just as soon? And of course note, that although women were sold into marriage as soon as puberty or younger, men didn’t typically marry until near their twenties. Then for the females, for there whole miserable short lives constantly pregnant and giving birth. Oh, can you please provide examples? In fact, most didn’t have that many children… Ect ect ect… really, provide some proof for your claim.

  #19 now your just being ignorant. What a pathetic defense! Restock? How much livestock do you bloody think slaves had? A ton? In fact, so much that they all could sacrifice millions after they left and still have left over–ridiculous! A better argument would be to say that a lot of the livestock died, but not all of it… but even that is weak to this inconsistency. In any case, it was only pardoned the Hebrews livestock the first time, and only the first time. Indeed, the hail made no distinction killing Hebrews as well… In any case, this inconsistency no matter how you look at it has livestock bloody everywhere just waiting to be killed, plagued, sacrificed… And then tons more to take with them. If the owners really would restock, they certainly wouldn’t have let the slaves leave with any after all of their stock died!

  And on and on right? No need to try and argue for the first ones, yeah… just move on to the next one and blindly hope that works. No no, really, all you guys do is make a quick claim and move on, because you can’t really defend it. What? How about defending your fellow religious nuts? They’ve made a mess of themselves, they certainly need it.

  Oh wait, you ended your little post with a pathetic here’s what I think about everything. Ahhh, how cute. Let’s tear it apart shall we?

  Not that it’s hard. I mean really, could you stay on track a little bit? Your basically just rambling, barely anything coherent at all and nothing connected or backed up. Well let’s start. The “argument of evil” DOES NOT come from assuming it’s wrong for a creator to make evil. In short, the argument comes from people saying that god is not evil, not neutral, but good, and only good. How can a being that is only good, without a trace of evil, create evil? Not to mention his omnipotence and all seeingness, why didn’t he just create something with infallible goodness? But here’s the kicker, is creating evil not evil? There is the real argument. And then, why does the religion then attribute evil to the devil, or people, when it is really god who created it then? ‘evil comes from the creater’… rich, just rich. You are differing quite a lot from the rest of your religion. In fact, you could be branded a heretic with your words saying god created evil and does evil… careful. I mean really, your saying that god does evil. Wow? Doesn’t that like, crumble everything you believe in? Did you even realize what you just said?

  Oh, and along that, the creator never takes the blame. Indeed, did he say oh it was my fault for putting that apple tree there and calling it the tree of knowledge! I shouldn’t punish you for my faults! NO. Your god does not take blame, he is perfect after all, he has no faults to take blame for! Where do you come up with this stuff?

  And evil is not believing in your god? Oh, that is great stuff. I don’t even know what to say really. That’s such a sad statement that shows truly, what your religion aims for. That everyone else is evil, that they are evil for not believing in your god. That all the evil in the world is from people not believing in your god. Oh, let murder, rape, those are fine, it’s just not believing in god that is evil!

  Oh yeah, you forgot something, god called us his perfect creation, and if we’re created to love, and we fail to do so, then we aren’t a perfect creation.

  And no, he didn’t come to Earth. Get it right, his incarnate came to Earth… but he still existed at the same time. And I fail to see how he suffered more acutely. Really now, how would you know? Did you see him? No, you listen to whatever that book tells you. Like, did he really die at a cross? No, he’s immortal after all, I fail to see how it was a sacrificed when he just popped back up. Oh, yes, Jesus also failed on all promises, not a single one comes to fruition. Have I seen any mountains move by prayer yet? No. And I believe a promise to remove all evil is… umm… against the rest of your statement? I mean, didn’t you just say there has to be evil so we can love him? Keep your argument together man!

  Next time, how about you check your stuff, or even make sure you paragraph is coherent. You might as well worship me for doing a miracle and actually comprehending that BS to an extent.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  torgeir Reply:
  May 31st, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  The bible tells us that every man is born evil, not just unbelievers, and it tells us that we have to be born again to be saved from eternal damnation.
  And i dont get it? why does so many people think that the bible has to be this warm, fuzzy and cozy book? Its about the human-history and our relationship with God! Of course its full of violence and things consider bad! It also contain the solution to save our eternal souls, the soul is eternal and cant die, that is why we have to choose where to spend it. I hope you choose life

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 31st, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  “The bible tells us this… and tells us this… and tells us this…”
  Yeah, your a sheep alright. If every man is born evil then god condemns every newborn that dies minutes after birth. They didn’t even get to think about being saved. Just sent to torture forever. Hmm, grand god really.

  Contains the solution? Daft boy, no it doesn’t. Any claim you’d like to make, is quickly countered by another claiming your going to hell no matter what. god just doesn’t seem to make up his mind, on whether you get to be saved or not. Slip up once in the bible, hell bound soul for eternity. The bible is full of fear mongering, it gives a bunch of examples where if people don’t follow god without question, they get murdered and sent to hell. god kills and chooses whose saved on a whim according to the bible as a whole, and not any single quote you’d like to say that you just have to believe.

  Murder, rape, kill all you want, all you have to do is believe! You’ll go to heaven! god will forgive you for killing millions, hell, he did it to Hitler! Hitler believed! Hitler even believed he was doing god’s work, did it unquestioningly. You bible, says Hitler gets in according to those one liners.

  Who are you to claim you know god anyways? Who are you to claim that god wrote that book? You seem to know an awful lot about a fellow that’s impossible to know since you MUST take him on faith (if you know, your doing something wrong according to the bible).

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm

  Exactly, GMN. I was going to reply to this comment myself, but said exactly what I would have. Thanks!

  Reply to This Comment

• Mike

  December 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm · Reply

  All of these people that are getting so angry and defensive about god are missing the point. The point of this web page isn’t to prove that god isn’t real. The point is to prove that god didn’t write the bible. People wrote the bible. Once mankind can grasp this truth, the world will be a much better place. The contradictions, errors and ridiculous passages prove that men who couldn’t grasp logic, couldn’t understand the real world (hence the need to explain it through magic and folk-tales), and had a very skewed sense of morality (hence stoning to death rebellious children, and forbidding eating shellfish) wrote the bible.

  Do you people honestly believe that a perfect being that has everything, can do anything and only seeks justice and peace would describe itself as “jealous”, “angry”, and would seek “vengeance”? NO. Would the being described above have petty human biases(homosexuality) and stupid rules (can’t wear clothes made out of two fabrics)? Those are petty human biases. The god of the bible is so human-like in temperament and personality because humans wrote the damn bible!

  Ask yourself. Did god create humans or did humans create god? Reading the bible once should be able to make you answer the question correctly. It’s probably scary for some people to think about, but it’s important to realize that the bible is flawed. Humans are flawed. The only thing on earth that matters are our human brothers and sisters. Religion teaches people that it’s not what you do in life that matters, but it’s what you believe in that matters. That’s wrong and everyone should understand that.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  December 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  Thanks, Mike, that really sums it up nicely.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Mike Reply:
  December 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  Thank you! I hope you aren’t being sarcastic…

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  December 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am

  No, Mike I really meant it. I agreed with what you said.

  Reply to This Comment

• mehmeh

  December 27th, 2008 at 1:24 am · Reply

  as some commentators before said, most of these are out of context, the timeline is confused, or things are read out of context. i’ve read parts of the skeptics bible online and i find most of it to be poking for any little flaw.
  for instance there was a reference to a sinful king, the point to the story was that the king was sinful. and the sidenotes pointed out that he was sinning and therefore the bible was wrong.

  and by the way, unless you can read ancient hebrew and that’s where you’re getting your sources, alot of these things are from mistranslations

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  December 28th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  Sorry but no, again, none of them are out of context. Ah, and the time line is confused in the bible, that’s the point, because the bible is one screwed up book. And heh, I guess you didn’t read the other comments, because your fellow theists failed at claiming “mistranslations” with Hebrew. But your ignorant anyways, a “HOLY” book wouldn’t ever be mistranslated, and everybody always takes it word for word anyways. I don’t see you claiming for ancient Hebrew text whenever the books supports whichever twisted view you wish to have…

  Oh, btw, I would need the exact example if you wish to argue the validity of something. Really, you don’t accept vague notions yet you give them and expect them to stand? Double standards? Well, I guess I really wouldn’t expect anything more from you.

  Reply to This Comment

• aaron

  January 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm · Reply

  #14 says genesis. i looked it up and found talk of moses, not noah. also, # 4 is that plants were created, man was created, and then plants sprouted. there isn’t inconsistency in that and i’m atheist. i’d read more of them but the first 14 were just bad and rely on not reading the source. no wonder people are so misconstrued about god and jesus.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  aaron Reply:
  January 8th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  my mistake on #14. what i mean to say is that there is no inconsistency either: moses enters the boat on the same day as the flood, and then the flood happens. the verses never state the flood occurs first it just says they happened on the same day.

  Reply to This Comment

• Errancy

  January 26th, 2009 at 5:34 pm · Reply

  Some alleged Bible errors stand up better than others, and this list is pretty mixed in quality. If you sift through it, you’ll find some claims of error that are easily answered and others that aren’t, but it only takes one error to undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  January 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  Thanks, Errancy. I see it this way. This is supposed to be a holy book inspired by the invisible man in the sky. So there shouldn’t be a single contradiction. Oh, and the science should be flawless as well. The morals should be impeccable too, while we’re at it.

  Reply to This Comment

• Sam

  July 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm · Reply

  I’m not going to argue with you about the validity of your claims or your logic in coming to your conclusions. I’m not a blind follower. I’ve researched like you have. I respect your request for proof when somebody rebuts your claims. I also ask that you do the same thing.

  “For your claim of 18, would you like to back up your statement? How about some proof for your claims? How do you know how long it was between the two references? Furthermore, you are completely wrong 11-12 sons statement. Life expectancy was incredibly low, many did not live to see puberty, and quite frankly…”

  If Bill needs to back his statement up, I’d like to see a reference for yours as well.

  And my last statement…

  If you want to have a logical debate about it, argue logically, not with fallacies. My favorite is your use of Ad Hominem when you attack the person who offers valid rebuttals to your claims.

  ““The bible tells us this… and tells us this… and tells us this…”
  Yeah, your a sheep alright.”

  Argue with evidence and facts. So we disagree… discuss with respect.

  I can’t defend the things done in the name of Christianity, because those things many times do conflict directly with the Bible. I believe in a God who loves you whether you love Him or not. He gave you the free will to reject him and to have this argument. If God doesn’t exist, and if you really believe that, why have this argument in the first place?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  July 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am

  Hmm… some old stuff but whatever.

  “In biblical times life expectancy was about 20 years. This figure was dragged down by an extremely high rate of infant and child mortality. A woman (and remember womanhood started with puberty) had to go through five pregnancies just to keep the population level stable. Back then all endeavors were labor intensive, and the primary source of labor was children, most families being too poor to depend on slave labor.”

  Look, anybody with an ounce of history knowledge knows that child mortality rates are very high when going over 100 years back. Just 300 years ago child mortality rates are near 27% for children under 10. Take a look at underdeveloped countries life expectancy and child mortality rates. The evidence, is bloody everywhere. It’s insurmountable amount. Just try to find low mortality rates in history and underdeveloped countries.

  Next, there was very little Ad Hominem. Quoting once doesn’t make it rampant, but I did happen to back it completely up. Do you have more than one name? What was your last statement? Are you Torgeir? I assume so.

  There is a lot of evidence and facts there, and you did very little to refute them. You still aren’t. Would you like to take a stab? I believe you said no, so I don’t see why you’re even bothering to post.

  As for the last bit… I think you’ll find that the happy nice parts are the parts that heavily conflict with the Bible many times.

  “I believe in a God who loves you whether you love Him or not.”
  Then you don’t believe in the Christian god.
  * Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
  * Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
  * Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
  * Prov. 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
  * Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”

  Free will? Nay, god didn’t give free will. If god knew the outcome of my life before he made me, then he made me to do exactly what he knew I would do. That’s not free will. Furthermore, free will isn’t free will when you have a loaded gun(hell) pointed to somebodies head.

  And for somebody who does a lot of “research”, you certainly don’t know a lot.
  “If God doesn’t exist, and if you really believe that, why have this argument in the first place?”
  http://www.alternet.org/story/140914/why_do_atheists_have_to_talk_about_atheism_because_we%27re_right./

  Reply to This Comment

• BillE

  July 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm · Reply

  To “dispel ignorance”, it is a good idea to begin with oneself.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  July 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  Making witty one liners is utterly useless and completely arbitrary.

  Back up what you say. By the way, using a quick find, ignorance is not said once on this page except by you, so I don’t see why your quoting it.

  No, ignorance is when you come across a page of information, then 83 other comments, and them make a BS one liner that is irrelevant without any backup to it at all and thinking it’s a good comment.

  Reply to This Comment

• Joe

  July 26th, 2009 at 12:31 am · Reply

  Why are you scared to this kind of critique for the Holy Quran?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  December 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

  Who’s scared of giving such critique? You’ve come to an article explicitly giving critique to the Bible, there are others doing such to the Quran.

  Possibly, because America really isn’t an area predominated by Muslim thought. Just dealing with the biggest problem.

  Reply to This Comment

• JD

  December 26th, 2009 at 4:07 am · Reply

  I’m glad that someone said earlier the true mission of this entry. True I am an Atheist, I won’t take this time to trample all over anyone beliefs or lack thereof. However, I will say that it is funny that the religious commentators are saying that the Bible is written by man and full of faults, but are still quoting passages. Doesn’t make sense to me.

  Oh, and what about the religions that are older than this one?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  December 26th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

  They think the passages they quote are the ones without fault… and it’s just everything they don’t like that’s all faulted by man.

  Reply to This Comment

Copyright © 2010 Heaving Dead Cats - All Rights Reserved

186 queries. 1.850 seconds.