1. Insult the stupid Christian
I've been reading your nonsense, and I must tell you. Go get an education.
I have a PhD in organic chemistry from UCSD. Do you consider that education? What higher degree could I have gotten?
2. Make a broad statement via the "begging the question" methodology
The entire source material of the bible is suspect, and is full of translation errors, etc since well, it was first translated.
We were discussing about whether the content of the Bible had been altered and whether any of the content have been proven wrong. So let's just use the desired conclusion as the starting point for the discussion: logical fallacy (beg the question).
3. Use lies when useful
Then it was translated some more, and then some of the "original" source documents were destroyed, so all of the "new" versions were then based on the original faulty translations....
A big plus if you can figure this out: Which books of the bible weren't mistranslated from Aramaic to Greek, and then into Latin, and then further mangled by "scribes" attempting to appease a few Roman Emperors and their view on what was and was not heresy as it applied to their divine right to rule.
All of the modern translations of the Bible (I only can testify about English and Japanese translations) were translated directly from Greek manuscripts for NT (possibly with an excpetion of parts of Matthew, which may have been written in Aramaic) and directly from Hebrew manuscripts for OT. I do keep hearing from skeptics that the Bible was translated many times successively, which is not true. I suspect that they get this idea from the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. If the modern English translations come from those only, that accusation is partially true, but they don't. Besides, as I've stated, many Bible teachers consult the original Greek manuscripts before teaching so that any misguided English translation will not get in the way of teaching the Bible, and modern translations are very rarely off.
4. Switch the subject if you don't know the answer
As to which historical accounts in the bible have been proven wrong? That's the wrong question to ask. The better question is, "Given what we know of world history, exactly which historical events in the bible have ever been proven true?"
For starters, archeological evidence:
-Joshua in Egypt, Israel in wilderness, Jericho, king David, Solomon and their descendants who were kings, king Xerxes, king Cyrus, Babylonian conquer of Judah, Herod(s), Pilate, Mary & Martha, Churches mentioned in Acts.... I can't list them all
Scientific evidence
Although the Bible doesn't address scientific issues, there are somethings that are mentioned that we didn't know from science until the last few centuries: currents in the ocean, the earth being a sphere, water cycle in climate, mountain formations, origin of fossils, the earth suspended in space, material made of invisible particles, etc etc
There are tons more that I don't have time for. These are evidences in support of the authenticity of the Bible. Not proofs.
So, what part of the Bible has been PROVEN wrong? Especially the historical stuff. I'd love to know! Don't switch the Q!
If you plant to hate stupid Christians, these lessons in logical fallacy tactics should be helpful to you
Yes, I've heard about the Q doc. Just the fact that Luke admits to being a late comer in the gospel writing business alone puts that whole theory in doubt. There is nothing concrete that you've put forth here. Nice try tho
The bible is a suspect source for several reasons. One is that is known to have been changed over the centuries, another is that reference to events in it aren't referenced in other historical works of the era, yet another that the events it contains are "fantastical" (break natural law), etc. So is the Iliad, which is why historians don't accept it as anything other than fiction that was possibly inspired by actual events lost to history.
Really. When and what part of the Bible was changed? And WHO knows this? That's news to me. The AC above said that there are 1000 manuscripts of the NT, but that's inaccurate. there are ~25,000 manuscripts found to date of the NT. Except for some minor spelling errors, they're virtually totally identical. These manuscripts are found all over the world. If there was any error or change introduced in the past, that should have been reflected in some of the manuscripts, leaving the 25,000 manuscripts differing from each other. However, that's not the case. So it's one thing to say you don't believe the Bible was directly inspired by God, but it'd be disingenuous to believe that the Bible, especially the NT has been altered.
Also, the so-called "Q source" is most likely nothing more than the gospel of Mark, which was the earliest gospel of the four. I'm sure that the gospel of Mark inspired the others ones. In fact, here's how the gospel of Luke begins "Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught." (Luke 1:1-4, NLT)
So please do your homework. I'm not sure a quick search in Wikipedia really counts
I want to see when something's sucking the CPU without having to run the full System Monitor.
Just type in "top" in a terminal. When done, hold Ctrl and press c. It's the best way to see what's using CPU w/out impacting the CPU usage.
"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather