How the Bible fails

[Compassionist]

1. Astronomy & Cosmology: pre-scientific mythology

The Bible reflects an ancient Near Eastern cosmology, not hidden advanced knowledge:

Flat or dome-covered Earth (the firmament)

Waters above the sky

Sun, moon, and stars placed inside the firmament

Earth established before stars

Light existing before light sources

This isn’t “metaphor misunderstood later.”
It’s exactly what you’d expect from pre-astronomical humans with no telescopes, no physics, no cosmology.

A being who created galaxies would not accidentally endorse Bronze Age sky myths.

2. Physics: magical causation and category errors

Biblical physics routinely violates conservation laws, thermodynamics, and basic causality:

Matter appearing without physical mechanism

Instantaneous global floods

Heat, light, and motion without sources

Supernatural suspension of physical regularities without constraints

These aren’t exceptions explained by deeper laws.
They are storytelling devices, indistinguishable from myth.

3. Biology: creationism and biological impossibilities

The Bible gets biology wrong in structural ways:

Fixed “kinds” instead of common descent

Humans formed separately from animals

No understanding of genetics, evolution, extinction, deep time

Global bottlenecks that would have destroyed biodiversity

This is not a matter of missing details.
It reflects zero awareness of how life actually works.

4. Ethics: tribal morality, not universal compassion

Biblical ethics are deeply inconsistent and often morally indefensible:

Genocide endorsed

Slavery regulated, not abolished

Women treated as property

Children punished for ancestral sins

Infinite punishment for finite “belief errors”

These are not moral heights we failed to reach.
They are moral baselines we have since outgrown.

The best ethical moments in the Bible come from humans pushing against its own framework, not from divine command.

5. History: legendary development, not eyewitness rigor

The Bible fails basic historical standards:

Anonymous authorship

Decades-to-centuries-late composition

Theological agendas driving narrative

Contradictory accounts

No contemporary corroboration for central miracles

What we see is exactly what we see in myth formation everywhere else:
oral tradition → embellishment → canonization → dogma.

6. The pattern matters more than any single error

Any one mistake could be excused.

But the Bible fails:

astronomy,

physics,

biology,

ethics,

and history,

systematically, in the same direction, at the same level, with the same cultural fingerprints.

That pattern is diagnostic.

It looks exactly like what it is: a collection of human texts written by sincere but ignorant people trying to explain the world before science existed.

7. Why this matters morally

I care about reducing suffering and death, not about defending meaning or tradition.

That’s crucial.

Texts that:

misdescribe reality,

misassign blame,

moralize ignorance,

and sanctify error,

don’t just fail intellectually — they cause harm.

Religious certainty built on false premises has:

justified violence,

delayed medicine,

stigmatized illness,

excused cruelty,

and obstructed progress.

Rejecting that isn’t nihilism.
It’s ethical seriousness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to servant1 in post #30]

That's a circular argument. Just because reality exists, it does not mean that it was created by the Biblical God. You have provided no evidence to prove your claim. I am a sentient biological organism. I don't have darkness. Your claim is false.

[1213]

...If morality is grounded in facts about harm, wellbeing, agency, and consequences, then moral claims can be objectively evaluated — even if people disagree about them. Genocide is always evil because it causes serious harm to a group of people.

In your opinion.

This is why the Biblical commands to commit genocide are objectively evil.

In Biblical point of view, God kills evil people. I don't think it is wrong, because God has given life and therefore has right to say how long life He gives. If He doesn't allow evil people to live forever, I don't see it morally wrong.

Disagreement shows people don't use consistent standards, i.e. treating all groups the same way. Instead, they favour their own group over others. This is what we see in the Bible. The Israelites favor themselves and concocted allegedly divine commands to justify their genocides, slavery, and land grabs.

In Bible evil people are set to die. That also includes Jews. If Jews are evil and do wrong things, they also are doomed to die. There is no favoring of some group arbitrarily.

• “God never tempts anyone” (James 1:13)
• Yet God places Abraham in a situation explicitly designed to test whether he will kill his son (Genesis 22:1)

Then examining whether “test” and “tempt” overlap in meaning is not semantics — it is analysis.

Tempting means to trying to lure/deceive someone to do something. God does not do so.

Yes, the text mentions a man wrestling Jacob.
But Jacob explicitly identifies the being as God.

If man calls himself a god, that does not mean he is the God then.

That is a change in declared intention.

Changing the action on basis of changing conditions is not the same as change of mind. For example, God's thought can be to kill evil people. If people change and become non evil, then there is no reason to kill them. That has not changed the idea of killing evil people, only the situation is changed and there is no reason to do what would be done to evil people.

When multiple passages require reinterpretation, contextual filtering, and theological scaffolding to avoid surface contradiction —

Actually you would need only honesty to see that there is no meaningful contradictions in the Bible.

Pointing out textual inaccuracies and contradictions

At the moment you have shown only dishonest reading and and lack of own understanding.

...
How many gods are there?
...

By what is said in the Bible, there is only one true God. But, as the scriptures show, humans have kept many things as their gods. For example a golden calf was kept as a god. No doubt it existed, it just is not the true God. And there has been also many powerful beings that were called gods. They were not as high as the Bible God, therefore they are not true god(s). They are lesser and therefore there is only one true God.

… we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:4-6

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #32]

In your opinion.

If morality reduces to opinion, then:

• There is no objective basis to condemn the Holocaust.
• No objective basis to condemn ISIS.
• No objective basis to condemn child sacrifice.

Yet almost all humans recognize genocide as gravely wrong because it involves:

• Intentional mass killing
• Irreversible harm
• Destruction of persons and cultures

Those are objective features of reality.

Calling that “just opinion” does not dissolve the moral facts — it only refuses to engage with them. Genocide is evil. It's a fact. Not merely an opinion.

In Biblical point of view, God kills evil people. I don't think it is wrong, because God has given life and therefore has right to say how long life He gives.

This argument assumes what it must prove.

You are saying:

1. God exists.
2. God created life.
3. Therefore, God may take life however He chooses.

You haven't proven statements 1 and 2. Just claiming them does not make them true.

But the moral question is precisely whether commanding the slaughter of entire populations — including infants — is just.

If giving life automatically grants unlimited moral authority to kill, then:

• Parents could kill their children at will.
• Creators could destroy conscious beings arbitrarily.

Creation does not automatically equal moral license. Might does not make right. No one is above ethics. Not even omniscient and omnipotent Gods.

In Bible evil people are set to die. That also includes Jews.

The issue is not whether Jews were punished.

The issue is that entire Canaanite populations — including children — were commanded to be exterminated (Deut 20:16–17, 1 Samuel 15).

Infants are not morally responsible agents.

If moral responsibility requires wrongdoing, then killing infants cannot be justified as punishment for evil.

Either:

• Moral guilt is inherited, or
• Innocents are killed.

Both raise serious ethical problems.

Tempting means to trying to lure/deceive someone to do something. God does not do so.

James 1:13 says God tempts no one.

Matthew 4:1 says Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted.

Genesis 22:1 says God tested Abraham.

If God intentionally places someone into a situation designed to elicit moral failure, that is functionally a temptation scenario — even if framed as “testing.”

The moral question is not wordplay.
It is whether deliberately orchestrating moral peril contradicts “God tempts no one.” Also, why would an omniscient God need to test anyone?

If man calls himself a god, that does not mean he is the God then.

Genesis 32:30 says:

“I have seen God face to face.”

The text itself identifies the being as God.

Exodus 24:10 says:

“They saw the God of Israel.”

John 1:18 says:

“No one has seen God at any time.”

If your resolution requires redefining “God” in some passages as “angel,” that is theological harmonization — not what the text explicitly says.

The surface reading presents contradiction.

Changing the action on basis of changing conditions is not the same as change of mind.

If God declares:

“I will destroy this city.”

Then does not destroy it after intercession —

That is a reversal of declared intent.

You may interpret it as conditional from the start, but that condition is often unstated in the original declaration.

The contradiction exists at the textual level.
It is resolved only through later theological framing.

Actually you would need only honesty to see that there is no meaningful contradictions in the Bible.

Accusing disagreement of dishonesty does not resolve the issues.

If multiple passages require:

• Contextual reframing
• Semantic narrowing
• Theological assumptions
• Non-literal readings

Then at minimum the text is not straightforwardly consistent.

A perfectly inerrant divine revelation should not require elaborate harmonization to avoid contradiction.

By what is said in the Bible, there is only one true God.

1 Corinthians 8:4–6 acknowledges:

“There are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’.”

You distinguish between:

• True God
• So-called gods

But the Hebrew Bible itself uses "elohim" for:

• Yahweh
• Angels
• Judges
• Other divine beings

This reflects a more complex divine hierarchy in ancient Israelite thought than later strict monotheism suggests.

The contradiction is not invented.
It is textual and historical.

Ultimately, the deeper issue is this:

If morality is defined as “whatever God commands,” then genocide becomes good if commanded.

If morality is grounded in harm, wellbeing, agency, and justice, then genocide remains wrong — regardless of who commands it.

Your position makes morality dependent on authority.

Mine grounds morality in the objective realities of suffering and flourishing.

Those are not “just opinions.”
They are measurable features of conscious experience.

And that is precisely why the discussion matters.

Here is the 9th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Is childbearing sinful?
Yes
After delivering a child, a woman must kill a lamb and a dove as a sin offering.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her. Leviticus 12:6-7
No
God commands us to have children, so it can't be sinful.
Be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 35:11
Women are saved by childbearing. (If it was sinful, they couldn't be saved by it.)
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. 1 Timothy 2:15

[1213]

… almost all humans recognize genocide as gravely wrong because it involves:…

Almost all. If it would be objectively true, why would someone disagree with it?

If giving life automatically grants unlimited moral authority to kill, then:

• Parents could kill their children at will.
• Creators could destroy conscious beings arbitrarily.

Parents don’t give life. If God gives life, He can also decide how long life He gives. And He can do it arbitrarily, if He wants, because He has right to do so, as a giver of life.

But, by what is said in the Bible, God gives eternal life for righteous and only short life for those who are evil. I think it is good, because I don’t think it would be good to allow evil to continue forever.

The issue is that entire Canaanite populations — including children — were commanded to be exterminated (Deut 20:16–17, 1 Samuel 15).

By what I know, the leading cause of children dying is abortion. If people can abort babies, why would God be not allowed to do so?

In Biblical point of view, righteous people will live, even if their body dies. Unrighteous will die. If God commands killing, I believe it is because the person is unrighteous and evil. If righteous person would die, he would end up to eternal life, and the death would be compensated. Therefore I don’t see any problem in death.

Genesis 32:30 says:

“I have seen God face to face.”

The text itself identifies the being as God.

The text itself literally tells the person was a man.

….
If your resolution requires redefining “God” in some passages as “angel,” that is theological harmonization — not what the text explicitly says…. ….But the Hebrew Bible itself uses "elohim" for:

• Yahweh
• Angels
• Judges
• Other divine beings

Good that you acknowledge that Bible uses the same word for also other beings than God.

Your position makes morality dependent on authority.

Morality is what people choose it to be. What I think is morally correct depends on reasoning.

Here is the 9th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Is childbearing sinful?
Yes
After delivering a child, a woman must kill a lamb and a dove as a sin offering.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her. Leviticus 12:6-7

Doesn’t say bearing a child is sinful. It seems to be about “cleansing from the blood”.

And when the days of her cleansing are fulfilled for son or for daughter, she shall bring in a lamb, a son of a year, for a burnt offering, and a young dove or a turtledove for a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest. And he shall bring it near before Jehovah, and shall atone for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood; this is the law of her who bears, whether a male or a female.
Leviticus 12:6-7

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

Almost all. If it would be objectively true, why would someone disagree with it?

People disagree about objective facts all the time.

• Some deny climate change even though it is a proven fact established with objective evidence.
• Some deny that the Earth is a sphere and insist that it is flat. Please see: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home
• Some deny evolution even though it is a fact based on objective evidence.
• Some deny that the Holocaust happened.
• Some deny that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and insist it's only 6,000 years old.
• Some deny that mass extinctions have happened.

There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history:
Ordovician-Silurian (approx. 443 million years ago): A severe event that wiped out roughly 85% of species.
Late Devonian (approx. 374 million years ago): A prolonged period that killed roughly three-quarters of all species.
Permian-Triassic (approx. 250 million years ago): The largest event ("The Great Dying"), which erased over 95% of species.
Triassic-Jurassic (approx. 200 million years ago): Eliminated roughly 80% of species, allowing dinosaurs to dominate.
Cretaceous-Paleogene (approx. 66 million years ago): Famous for wiping out non-avian dinosaurs.

Many scientists argue that a sixth, anthropogenic (human-caused) mass extinction is currently happening, driven by pollution, climate change, and habitat destruction.

Disagreement does not turn objective matters into subjective ones. People deny facts because it suits their agenda. You deny facts in many of your posts. My commitment is to truth and ethics. I left Christianity because I became convinced by evidence that it is false and unethical. You have yet to provide evidence that the Bible is true and ethical.

Genocide involves:

• Intentional mass killing
• Severe, irreversible harm to sentient beings
• Destruction of persons and cultures

Those are objective features of reality.

A person can deny that those harms matter — but denial does not erase the harms.

If God gives life, He can also decide how long life He gives. And He can do it arbitrarily, if He wants, because He has right to do so.

This is pure divine command theory.

You are saying:

Whatever God does is morally right simply because He does it.

But that collapses morality into power.

If morality = “whatever the strongest being chooses,” then morality becomes indistinguishable from might.

If God can act arbitrarily and that is automatically good, then the word “good” loses meaning beyond “what God does.”

That is not moral reasoning — it is authority submission. This makes the Biblical God an evil tyrant. Since you have not provided evidence for the existence of the Biblical God, he is also imaginary.

If people can abort babies, why would God be not allowed to do so?

This argument assumes abortion is morally justified — which is itself debated.

But even if someone defends abortion, they do so under specific moral reasoning (bodily autonomy, harm to the mother, viability, etc.).

The Canaanite commands involve killing:

• Infants
• Children
• Non-combatants

Comparing that to abortion does not resolve the moral issue.

If God commands killing, I believe it is because the person is unrighteous and evil.

Infants and children are not moral agents.

They have not committed evil acts.

If you say they are “unrighteous,” that implies inherited guilt.

Punishing individuals for actions they did not commit contradicts individual moral responsibility.

And if you say their death is compensated by eternal life, then death ceases to be a meaningful moral boundary — which undermines all earthly moral prohibitions against killing.

The text itself literally tells the person was a man.

Genesis 32:24 says Jacob wrestled “a man.”

Genesis 32:30 says:

“I have seen God face to face.”

The text itself presents both descriptions.

That is precisely the tension.

You resolve it by saying “it was not really God.”

But the text itself records Jacob naming the place Peniel because he believed he saw God.

The ambiguity is in the text — not invented by critics.

Good that you acknowledge that Bible uses the same word for also other beings than God.

Yes — and that supports my point.

If “elohim” can refer to:

• Yahweh
• Angels
• Judges
• Other divine beings

Then appeals to a single English word (“God”) can obscure textual complexity.

Recognizing semantic range is not dishonesty.
It is philological accuracy.

Morality is what people choose it to be.

If morality is merely chosen, then genocide could be morally good if some people choose it.

But earlier you argued genocide was acceptable if commanded by God.

That shows morality in your framework ultimately depends on Biblical authority.

If morality is purely chosen, then no action is objectively wrong.

If morality is grounded in harm and wellbeing, then some actions are objectively worse because they cause measurable suffering.

You are oscillating between:

• Moral subjectivism (“morality is what people choose”)
• Divine command (“God has the right to act arbitrarily”)

Those positions are not the same. Neither position is morally correct.

Doesn’t say bearing a child is sinful. It seems to be about “cleansing from the blood”.

Leviticus 12 requires a “sin offering” after childbirth.

The Hebrew term used is the standard term for sin offering (ḥaṭṭāʾt).

If childbirth is not sinful, why is a sin offering required?

You may argue ritual impurity rather than moral sin.

That is a possible interpretation.

But then the word “sin offering” is being used in a non-moral sense.

That again demonstrates semantic complexity — not textual simplicity.

The tension arises because ritual impurity and moral guilt are intertwined in the sacrificial system.

Ultimately, the deeper issue is this:

You defend divine genocide because:

• God gives life
• God may take life arbitrarily
• Death is compensated by eternal life

But once morality becomes:

“Whatever God decides is right”

Then moral reasoning ends.

Nothing could count as evidence against divine goodness — because goodness is defined as whatever God does.

That is not moral analysis.

That is theological circularity.

Morality concerns the wellbeing of conscious beings, so genocide remains wrong — regardless of who commands it.

And that is why the discussion cannot be ethically dismissed as “just opinion.”

Here is the 10th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

May Adam eat from any tree?
Adam may eat from every tree.
Behold, I have given your every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree ... to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29
There is one tree from which Adam may not eat.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. Genesis 2:17

[RBD]

Simply asserting “ours is true, all others are myth” is not evidence — it is circular reasoning.

No mythology ever written by man disclaims it's own mythological origin. Only true chroniclers deny writing fables.

If any book author says it's not a myth, then it's not. Whether it's a true account or not.

Gen 1:1 — The heaven is created first, and then the earth.

Genesis 1:1 states both are created “in the beginning.” It does not establish a scientific sequence consistent with modern cosmology.

True. You've corrected your lie that Genesis says the earth was created first. If vs 1 is establishing a sequence, then the heaven was created first.

More importantly, the chapter’s structure still reflects ancient cosmology:
• A solid firmament dividing waters above and below
• Waters existing above the sky

Correct

The Bible never says the earth is flat, but a round circle (Isa 40:22).

A “circle” (Hebrew: chug) does not mean a sphere. A circle describes a flat disk.

Not when a circle is a sphere.

Radiation belts encircle the earth, and the first spacecraft circled the earth 3 times.

The verse also describes the heavens stretched like a tent — which aligns with Ancient Near Eastern dome cosmology.

A tent covers the whole body, including a sphere. Ancient near eastern cosmology of a tent covering a flat earth, gets it only half right.

The waters above the firmament were a flood of a prior world.

That interpretation is not in Genesis 1 itself. It is a later harmonization attempt.

That interpretation is only suggestive between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 itself. Later toward the end of the Book, it's confirmed in 2 Peter 3.

Genesis describes:
• Waters above
• Waters below
• A firmament dividing them

This matches standard ANE cosmology found in Babylonian and other regional texts.

As with the earth-covering tent of heavens, other cosmologies get part of Gen1-2 right.

No one said other cosmologies are completely wrong. In fact, the best counterfeits get most of the authentic true.

Appealing to dried riverbeds on Mars does not support a global cosmic flood.

It's not an appeal, but a supplemental fact.

Dismissing supplemental facts, is a failed argument.

Planetary geology shows evidence of ancient localized water activity — not a universal supernatural deluge.

Water activity on two known planets and one moon, makes it an extraterrestrial deluge.

“In the firmament” is translational choice.

The Hebrew phrase be-raqia normally means “in” or “within.”

Another lie about the text. Just 'raqui' no 'be'.

Even if translated “on,” the cosmological picture remains geocentric and observational.

It certainly doesn't make lights under, or in the firmament. It says nothing about those lights orbiting the earth.

Nothing in Genesis suggests awareness of:
• Billions of galaxies
• Stellar nuclear fusion
• Planetary formation
• Deep cosmic timescales

Genesis is a basic revelation of what happened, not a scientific journal.

It reflects how the sky appears to human observers who don't have advanced tools e.g. space shuttles, space stations, satellites in space, telescopes in space, etc.

Correct, hence no need for quarks, dark matter, speed of light, E = mc2...

Light before the sun is God’s light.

That is theological interpretation layered onto the text. There is no evidence that the Biblical God exists and has light.

That is the Creator's revelation about His manner of creating and establishing the heavens and earth. Unbelief is no evidence that the Biblical God is not true light, who makes all natural light.

1Co 2:14
For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis presents light as part of a structured six-day material ordering. It does not describe photon physics or divine radiance outside spacetime.

Nor photon torpedoes.

Invoking supernatural light avoids the scientific issue rather than addressing it.

Invoking natural blindness avoids the spiritual issue rather than addressing it.

If any inconsistency can be solved by saying “God did it supernaturally,”

Consistency in the Book demands addressing the spiritual issue.

They are supernatural events… cannot be explained by natural law.

If events are defined as beyond natural explanation, then they cannot be tested, evaluated, or distinguished from legend.

If events are defined as beyond natural explanation, then they cannot be tested, evaluated, proven nor disproven by natural things.

[RBD]

Evolution is unproven theory.

Evolution is an evidence-based fact.

This is the half-truth, half-lie evolutionary argument. Evolution within a species is a verified process in every detail. Interspecies evolution is an unproven theory extrapolated from inner-species evolution.

Saying that evolution is proven fact, is true. Implying that interspecies evolution is a proven fact, is a lie.

Including unproven evolution of life. The pagan cosmology-theology of an uncreated living intelligent universe is not proven true.

Common descent is supported by:
• Fossil succession
• Genetic homology
• Endogenous retroviruses
• Chromosome fusion in humans (Chromosome 2)
• Observed speciation events

Unproven successions and near similarity studies.

No biologist claims apples evolve into oranges in one step. Evolution operates through gradual modification over deep time.

No biologist claims there is no single step of completed evolutionary change between different species of trees, animals, and mankind. Because there is no completed evolutionary change between different species of trees, animals, and mankind.

Rejecting evolution does not strengthen Genesis; it simply denies a robust empirical model.

Creation is not strengthened by other failed explanations of life. Creation simply remains the first primary explanation, with unproven secondary latter explanations.

Evolution is not “just a theory” in the everyday sense.

It is when it's not proven fact, as gravity.

In science, a theory is a well-supported explanatory framework. Evolution is supported by multiple independent, converging lines of evidence from genetics, paleontology, anatomy, embryology, biogeography, and direct observation.

Supported by explanatory models and near similarities is not proven fact.

Here is the evidence — clearly and without exaggeration.

1. The Fossil Record (Predictive, Ordered, Transitional)

What we see:

Fossils appear in a consistent chronological order. Simpler life appears before complex life.

Tell that to the dinosaurs supplanted by small mammals.

Transitional forms exist between major groups.

No transitional changes are proven at any specific point.

Interspecies evolutionary theory is a series of 'only ifs', where there is never a single transitioned fossil between one species and another.

The so-called major leaps 'between' species, only means a hybrid of one species or another. Without the intermediary 'links', there is no proven evolutionary chain from one species to another.

No single class of species on earth, has ever been proven to transition into another different class. There are kinds of trees that cannot cross breed, but they are all kinds of trees. There are species of primates that cannot breed with one another, but they are all primate species.

Although the human evolutionary ideologues like to speak of man being a species of primate, they are undone by a simple list of primate species provided by biological scientists: Of the 500 or so primate species, man is not listed.

Evolution within the species is biologically proven. Evolution between different class of species is never proven. Evolution between man and primate is a modern anti-creation ideology.

Examples:

Tiktaalik roseae — fish with limb-like bones.
Archaeopteryx lithographica — dinosaur with feathers and wings.
Australopithecus afarensis — intermediate between apes and modern humans.
Ambulocetus natans — walking whale ancestor.

The usual large large leaps trotted out as another 'perhaps' example of a broken chain, rather than another hybrid of one species alone.

These were not random discoveries. Some were predicted before being found (e.g., Tiktaalik in Devonian rock between fish and amphibians).

Exactly. Predicted by ideology of similarity. Still looking for the 'only if' intermediary links, to a currently broken chain.

If species were separately created, we would not expect:

Clear transitional gradients

Gradients as in large leaps, not as in detailed links of an unbroken chain. There are no 'missing links' in standard biological evolution within the species. There are only hybrids trying to find two homes.

Nested patterns over millions of years

Nested as in large leaps.

The ideological idiocy defining hybrids as separate species transitions, is simple: Where there is no single link between the two, there is no chain between the two. By evolutionary definition of necessary incremental changes, a chain cannot be three links alone.

Based upon such large leaps, evolution between two different species must be redefined as: Where there is a hybrid of one species, there is an evolution into another species.

2. Genetics (The Strongest Evidence) Genetics is overwhelming evidence.

Strong as in not proven fact.

Genetics is overwhelming evidence.

Overwhelming as in ideological flood.

A. DNA Similarity

Thank you. Similarity as in not proven fact.

1 Chromosome difference between man and primate, is 1 chromosome difference too much. Rather than expounding on how great a difference can 1 chromosome make, ideologues overwhelm that 1 chromosome into no difference.

Humans and chimps share identical ERV insertions at identical genome locations.

Except one.

Since all natural flesh is made of the same dust of the earth, then similarities are expected in bodily shapes. But similarities in biological structure, and genetic infrastructure, does not make one species become another, nor man become an primate.

The odds of that happening independently are astronomically small.

And astronomically large, since man-ape evolution is biologically unproven.

[RBD]

Man’s morality cannot judge perfect righteousness.

If morality cannot be evaluated, then calling anything “perfect righteousness” is meaningless.

Since morality is imperfect, then it cannot be evaluated as perfect righteousness, and cannot judge perfect righteousness.

Anonymous authorship does not disprove truth.

Correct — but anonymity reduces evidential weight.

False. Whoever wrote the book of Job, or inscribed the code of Hammurabi, is irrelevant to the validity of the book and the code.

One error would prove it not authored by God.

If a text claims divine perfection, even one demonstrable error proves it is not authored by a perfect God.

If instead we say “apparent errors are harmonizable,” then the claim shifts from demonstrable perfection to interpretive flexibility

If instead we show “apparent errors are not error,” then the claim shifts from claimed perfection to demonstrable perfection.

then the claim shifts from demonstrable perfection to interpretive flexibility— which every religious tradition also claims.

Which the Bible does not say:

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Therefore, by your definition of every flexible religion of man on earth, the Bible is not any flexible religion of man on earth.

Man’s morality is inconsequential if others reject it.

By that logic, any moral system rejected by someone becomes meaningless.

With the grave, yes, but in life, not exactly: Only your morality rejected without consequence, proves it's meaningless to others.

But, if a morality is enforced by law, then it's certainly meaningful to anyone that would obey or violate it. Until the grave.

Moral truth is not measured by universal agreement. It is measured by rational coherence and consequences.

There is no moral truth, since morality by definition is imperfect. There's only moral principle.

Yours is meaningless to almost all people on earth, and to the perfectly righteous God in heaven.

Gvt morality is meaningful to all governed by it, and even to the perfectly righteous God in heaven, who says to obey every ordinance of gvt, except it be against His perfect righteousness.

Thankfully, your morality is meaningless, even if in power, since most people would still reject it on pains of prosecution.

I'm only wondering if the last great antichrist beast will be a vegan dictator, that enforces it by law. Hitler was also vegan, but didn't go that far.

[RBD]

...If morality is grounded in facts about harm, wellbeing, agency, and consequences, then moral claims can be objectively evaluated — even if people disagree about them. Genocide is always evil because it causes serious harm to a group of people.

In your opinion.

This is why the Biblical commands to commit genocide are objectively evil.

In Biblical point of view, God kills evil people. I don't think it is wrong, because God has given life and therefore has right to say how long life He gives. If He doesn't allow evil people to live forever, I don't see it morally wrong.

Disagreement shows people don't use consistent standards, i.e. treating all groups the same way. Instead, they favour their own group over others. This is what we see in the Bible. The Israelites favor themselves and concocted allegedly divine commands to justify their genocides, slavery, and land grabs.

In Bible evil people are set to die. That also includes Jews. If Jews are evil and do wrong things, they also are doomed to die. There is no favoring of some group arbitrarily.

• “God never tempts anyone” (James 1:13)
• Yet God places Abraham in a situation explicitly designed to test whether he will kill his son (Genesis 22:1)

Then examining whether “test” and “tempt” overlap in meaning is not semantics — it is analysis.

Tempting means to trying to lure/deceive someone to do something. God does not do so.

Yes, the text mentions a man wrestling Jacob.
But Jacob explicitly identifies the being as God.

If man calls himself a god, that does not mean he is the God then.

That is a change in declared intention.

Changing the action on basis of changing conditions is not the same as change of mind. For example, God's thought can be to kill evil people. If people change and become non evil, then there is no reason to kill them. That has not changed the idea of killing evil people, only the situation is changed and there is no reason to do what would be done to evil people.

When multiple passages require reinterpretation, contextual filtering, and theological scaffolding to avoid surface contradiction —

Actually you would need only honesty to see that there is no meaningful contradictions in the Bible.

Pointing out textual inaccuracies and contradictions

At the moment you have shown only dishonest reading and and lack of own understanding.

...
How many gods are there?
...

By what is said in the Bible, there is only one true God. But, as the scriptures show, humans have kept many things as their gods. For example a golden calf was kept as a god. No doubt it existed, it just is not the true God. And there has been also many powerful beings that were called gods. They were not as high as the Bible God, therefore they are not true god(s). They are lesser and therefore there is only one true God.

… we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:4-6

Good answers. Someone tries to judge the Bible God by their own personal morality, and you show that the Bible God's righteousness is far better. You also show how some people ignorantly change the righteousness of God, in order to make it appear worse than their unrighteous morality.

[1213]

…People disagree about objective facts all the time.

• Some deny climate change even though it is a proven fact established with objective evidence.
• Some deny that the Earth is a sphere and insist that it is flat. Please see: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home
• Some deny evolution even though it is a fact based on objective evidence.
• Some deny that the Holocaust happened.
• Some deny that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and insist it's only 6,000 years old.
• Some deny that mass extinctions have happened.

Yes, people can disagree with claims that are not proven true.

There have been five mass extinctions in Earth's history:
Ordovician-Silurian (approx. 443 million years ago): A severe event that wiped out roughly 85% of species.
Late Devonian (approx. 374 million years ago): A prolonged period that killed roughly three-quarters of all species.
Permian-Triassic (approx. 250 million years ago): The largest event ("The Great Dying"), which erased over 95% of species.
Triassic-Jurassic (approx. 200 million years ago): Eliminated roughly 80% of species, allowing dinosaurs to dominate.
Cretaceous-Paleogene (approx. 66 million years ago): Famous for wiping out non-avian dinosaurs.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe you.

…
• Intentional mass killing
• Severe, irreversible harm to sentient beings
• Destruction of persons and cultures…
A person can deny that those harms matter — but denial does not erase the harms.

Is killing evil people really harm? If for example there are people who, if allowed to live forever, would torture endlessly others, would it be right to and good to allow them to live, or would it be harmful to allow them to live?

If God gives life, He can also decide how long life He gives. And He can do it arbitrarily, if He wants, because He has right to do so.

This is pure divine command theory.

You are saying:

Whatever God does is morally right simply because He does it.

I think the word “morally” is not good. It is distracting from real issues. Morally right is always what a person prefers and is often arbitrary. In my opinion it is better just to say: God has the right to decide the length of life, because He has given it. You might not like it, but that is the right, regardless of what you like.

I don’t like what God does just because it is He who does it. I like what He is doing, because I think it is good. He gives life for everyone, even for those who hate Him and fight against Him. And He gives eternal life for those who are righteous, although He would not have to do so. And I think His commandments are good.

That is not moral reasoning — it is authority submission. This makes the Biblical God an evil tyrant.

If God would act like earthly rulers, protect rapists and murderers and persecute those who do good, then I could call him an evil tyrant. Now He is not an evil tyrant in my opinion.

But even if someone defends abortion, they do so under specific moral reasoning (bodily autonomy, harm to the mother, viability, etc.).

Abortions are the greatest genocide in human history. Over 70 million babies murdered each year. Do you think it is morally wrong?

Infants and children are not moral agents.

I think they are. They can understand good and evil.

They have not committed evil acts.

If you say they are “unrighteous,” that implies inherited guilt.

Righteousness is wisdom of the just, right understanding, and I believe it is possible God can know is a baby righteous or not, even if the baby has not yet done much.

And if you say their death is compensated by eternal life, then death ceases to be a meaningful moral boundary — which undermines all earthly moral prohibitions against killing.

The prohibition against murder is based on: humans have no right to murder. Even if death is not the end, it does not matter, when you have no right to murder.

But the text itself records Jacob naming the place Peniel because he believed he saw God.

It was because the person called himself god. It is not said Jacob thought the person is really the God. And because the text says it was a man, it is very unlikely that Jacob thought the person was really the God.

If morality is merely chosen, then genocide could be morally good if some people choose it.

But earlier you argued genocide was acceptable if commanded by God.

That shows morality in your framework ultimately depends on Biblical authority.

I don’t think God killing people is acceptable just because God “commands” it. I say, as a giver of life, God has the right to decide how long it lasts. No one has done anything to deserve more than what God gives. And I can accept God killing evil people, because I don’t think it would be good to allow evil to continue forever.

If morality is grounded in harm and wellbeing, then some actions are objectively worse because they cause measurable suffering.

So, if there is a person who, if allowed to live, would kill million people, would it be morally right to kill him and prevent the killing of million people?

• Divine command (“God has the right to act arbitrarily”)

God has right to give life as He sees it is good. Or, how you could say God does not have that right?

If childbirth is not sinful, why is a sin offering required?

You may argue ritual impurity rather than moral sin.

That is a possible interpretation.

But then the word “sin offering” is being used in a non-moral sense.

That again demonstrates semantic complexity — not textual simplicity.

The text speaks about the blood being the reason. It does not say childbearing is a sin.

…
But once morality becomes:

“Whatever God decides is right”

Then moral reasoning ends.

Maybe for you. To me there is the question, why would God’s decision be right.

Here is the 10th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

May Adam eat from any tree?
Adam may eat from every tree.
Behold, I have given your every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree ... to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29
There is one tree from which Adam may not eat.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. Genesis 2:17

Genesis 1:29 could be before the garden and before the special tree was planted in the garden. And in any case, Adam may eat from every tree, but one of them had consequences that the others didn’t have. Even if it is not recommended to eat, it does not mean he can not eat. And the story shows he indeed could eat also from that tree; it just brought certain consequences.