in order to be fair, this was a web post. To actually critique the Bible you would have to write a book (another one), and even that won't change the faith people have in the Dogma of the Church which most of them think come from the text, when it does not.

So what was the poster to do to make the point, write a book on a web post?

@Davesnothere I don't see where it was on the web, only that the poster wrote it. And my only point is that picking and choosing is what most people do- on both sides of the fence.

There have been books written to put context to that mans life and the myths that surround it. Do people here read to understand and shore up their beliefs (and non beliefs)? I'm not asking to be rude, but I hear a lot of opinion here. Where are facts that back up the feelings?

@BrightLeigh This right here is the web. Here, in such a small forum, is not the place for a full out disection of the base text is it?
As such I would never expect someone to even attempt that.
Thusly the poster (whomever that is) simply pointed out a couple of things which stick out to them as an illustration of an overall problem.

What facts are you talking about? That the Bible is a compilation of books by unknown authors? That the council of Nicea consolidated and endorsed the Dogma of the narrative, both in what it read and in what that meant?
Those are documented.

That elements of the text do not match scientific reality?

@Davesnothere ok gotcha. In reflection, the points the original poster posted are not ones I would use to disprove the accuracy/ truth/ validity / whatever of the Bible.

The question of what books, sources have you (or others) read or found to be interesting?

Star Wars doesn't match with scientific reality. Most of art does not either. It's still worthwhile material. Why is the Bible any different? It's got some good stuff in it. Throw the baby out with the bath water?

@BrightLeigh I would say the Bible is different because there are a large contingent of people who do not see it either allegoricaly or methphorically, but literally, and seek to impose legislation based upon their dogmatic interpretation of that reading (which is most often not done themselves, but adopted wholesale from an authority)

I would also say it is not on you or me or the poster or anyone to disprove the veracity of the text, that would be on a person who is insisting it is both valid and true.

I certainly am not, I have read it.

@Davesnothere yes to your first paragraph.

If that was the case, all ancient texts (500+ years) would not be deemed valid or true.

What kind if a "loving God" requires human sacrifice to forgive sin?
Or makes laws commanding you to stone your offspring to death for being rebellious, or for picking up sticks on the sabbath, or for being from another religion (yes, there is a Bible equivalent to "kill all infidels" )? Loving?

@Agamic Just what I said..the Hebrew god is based on "Anu," the Sumerian leader of an alien race who say they genetically engineered humans by combining their own DNA with that of human apes.

@birdingnut
yeah, i was referencing the "law" and just how evil they are in and of themselves.
People dreamt this crap up.

@birdingnut I’ve seen you refer to this Sumerian theory in several places, do you have some partly reputable source for it other than ancient-origins.net? Even a Wikipedia page?

@Denker I've read about it in numerous places, but saved that link. You can google it yourself, you know.

Fallacies indeed. The whole gamut of literary devices. Why does that surprise people?