Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 63487

Well, if the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can we believe any of it? How do we know what is accurate or not. I believe in Adam and Eve, and we were created from dust. It was humans who wrote it, so there is bound to be misprints, but it makes sense.

DiLona Caballero, Facebook 80 Comments [6/26/2009 12:18:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 46
Submitted By: Chris Winfield
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
Trivia Jockey

The Dumb is strong with this one.

6/26/2009 12:19:24 PM

MK

Oh just... unknot your own brain!!!

6/26/2009 12:19:40 PM

Cassah

I'd say this is just Christian, not fundie.

6/26/2009 12:23:23 PM

EvoPagan



Even Sarah Palin thinks you're a dumbass.

6/26/2009 12:23:40 PM

Amanda

No it doesn't.

6/26/2009 12:29:44 PM

ModernBunny

I consider it pretty fundie. This person is going to insist on believing in something even while admitting that it is "bound to be" inaccurate.

6/26/2009 12:31:08 PM

Dr. Novakaine

It's almost funny how often I see something like this. "If the Bible isn't 100% unequivocal truth, then we can't trust any of it to be true. Now that I've said that, let me go on to completely dismiss the possibility of there being any inaccuracy in the Bible."

In some ways it's a letdown. Here you have people who sound like they might be on the verge of enlightenment (and by that I mean the "I can believe there are errors or falsehoods in the Bible and still be a Christian!" type of enlightenment - you may disagree on whether that constitutes enlightenment or not), and then in one fell swoop they drop like a rock back into fundieness.

6/26/2009 12:33:34 PM

Count Zapolai

It was humans who wrote it, so there is bound to be misprints, but it makes sense.

I...actually... can't think of a better way to put it. I'm totally at a loss as to how you can adopt a view of a text as literal and inerrant on the premise that it is neither.

In fact, that's an extremely compelling argument that a non-fundie Christian might want to adopt in forming their view.

6/26/2009 12:35:37 PM

Orestes

How the fuck can you logically make the leap that human beings came from dust? I get the sinking feeling that Santa Claus visiting every house on the 25th makes sense to you also.

6/26/2009 12:46:06 PM

Dio Fa

Heretic! True Christians believe God wrote the Bible in English with his own hands!

You will burn in hell, you atheist Muslim!

6/26/2009 12:46:27 PM

WMDKitty

Then DON'T believe any of it, because it ISN'T "100% accurate".

And it doesn't make any sense at all.

ETA: What the hell kind of "name" is "DiLona"?

6/26/2009 12:50:56 PM

dpareja

Just how close it is possible to get while still completely missing the point?

6/26/2009 12:51:50 PM

EllwyenDarwin

YOU are going to BURN IN HELL!!!

6/26/2009 12:51:53 PM

Lucilius

You judge the Biblical text on the same standard as you judge anything else. Can its statements be verified independently? If not, are they at least possible and reasonable? If so, then accept them as likely to be true, until contrary evidence emerges.

Example: Were there kings of Israel and Judah? Yes, because we've found mention of them in other countries' archives and monuments. Was there a historical Jesus? Probably, because there are numerous traditions about him from shortly after that period, and would-be Messiahs were endemic at that place and time.

If its assertions are improbable, doubt them until strong confirmation is found.

Example: Was there a mass Exodus from Egypt? Probably not, because lots of facts (contemporary accounts, geography, the archaeological record) argue against it.

In those (many, many) cases where Biblical claims are wildly improbable, disbelieve them as you would any other myth – until some extraordinary proof surfaces, grounded in physical fact rather than popular opinion.

Example: Were there talking snakes, dirt men, worldwide floods, angelic hallucinations, glowing shrubbery, pregnant virgins and flying zombies? Those claims deserve no more credence than Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Japanese, Australian Aboriginal, Mayan or Bushman mythology.

6/26/2009 12:53:50 PM

Runehawk

WMDKitty: I think DeLona = The Loner. (i.e. De' Loan-a) My guess; YMMV - r

6/26/2009 12:54:35 PM

aaa

Oh, dear. It's going to get messy.

6/26/2009 12:55:36 PM

pfft

started out OK (up to the ?)

6/26/2009 12:59:32 PM

Unbeliever

Hey, DiLona is actually right. If you demonstrate even 1 fallacy of the Bible, you cannot believe any of it.

So much for this apologetics bullsh1t some christians try to pull.

6/26/2009 1:00:34 PM

Lucilius

You judge the Biblical text on the same standard as you judge anything else. Can its statements be verified independently? If not, are they at least possible and reasonable? If so, then accept them as likely to be true, until contrary evidence emerges.

Example: Were there kings of Israel and Judah? Yes, because we've found mention of them in other countries' archives and monuments. Was there a historical Jesus? Probably, because there are numerous traditions about him from shortly after that period, and would-be Messiahs were endemic at that place and time.

If its assertions are improbable, doubt them until strong confirmation is found.

Example: Was there a mass Exodus from Egypt? Probably not, because lots of facts (contemporary accounts, geography, the archaeological record) argue against it.

In those (many, many) cases where Biblical claims are wildly improbable, disbelieve them as you would any other myth – until some extraordinary proof surfaces, grounded in physical fact rather than popular opinion.

Example: Were there talking snakes, dirt men, worldwide floods, angelic hallucinations, glowing shrubbery, pregnant virgins and flying zombies? Those claims deserve no more credence than Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Japanese, Australian Aboriginal, Mayan or Bushman mythology.

6/26/2009 1:02:12 PM

Old Viking

It is inaccurate -- historically, archeologically, scientifically, religiously, sociologically. It is wrong in every possible way. The Bible is like a badly injured animal: it would be merciful to shoot it.

6/26/2009 1:03:23 PM



Well, if the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can we believe any of it?

EXACTLY!!!

I believe in Adam and Eve

Good for you. I, however, don't.

and we were created from dust.

And here's where you totally fall on your face. We are not created from dust but rather protiens and amino acids derived from mom and dad.

It was humans who wrote it, so there is bound to be misprints,

Understatement of 2009.

but it makes sense.

Except that it doesn't.

6/26/2009 1:05:35 PM

HeathenAngel

First sentence starts off well.
Second sentence.. you're almost there.
Third sentence.. NO NO ... come back, you almost had it.
Fourth sentence... keep going, you were so close.

There may be hope for you, yet.

6/26/2009 1:21:04 PM

Mayhem

"Well, if the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can we believe any of it?"

It isn't, and we can't. There ya go.

6/26/2009 1:23:21 PM

Tiado

Oh, soooo close.

6/26/2009 1:26:48 PM

Xotan

Well, if the Bible is not 100% accurate, how can we believe any of it?


===It's not: we can't

How do we know what is accurate or not.

===Try intelligence and reason.

I believe in Adam and Eve, and we were created from dust.

===Wrong. Eve, the Bible says, was created from Adam, making Adam the first mother.


It was humans who wrote it,

===Agreed!

so there is bound to be misprints,

===Your grammar!!! But yes.

but it makes sense.

=== So does having a crap in the morning. But the Bible is for allegory or fools. Take your choice.

6/26/2009 1:29:11 PM
1 2 3 4