Alan H wrote:Does your bible:
1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.
Mark 14:35-36 portrays Jesus in agony and distress before his death, yet John 16:32-33 says he was calm and in total control. These are mutually exclusive. How can they both be correct? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.
Matthew and Luke both correct Mark's geography. If Mark was accurate, then entire locations (including their archaeology) must have magically moved. Is this what happened? If not, how can the gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew all be correct? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.
I suppose you are aware, Pahu, that both St Augustine of Hippo (4th Cent CE) and St Thomas Aquinas (13th Cent CE) acknowledged not only that there were factual errors in the Bible, but that those who insisted that these errors were facts were guilty of "bringing our faith into ridicule". Were they wrong? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.