Dear god, don't.
I had to read the entire gospel of Mark once, and it was a pain in the ass.
Not so much for the content, but the writing.
Part of it is definitely due to the old age of the thing, but I'm sure it's mostly just terrible writing.

Schwa, first of all, you may want to pick a better translation. Maybe try the NIV, or The Message. Its the same basic idea, but MUCH easier to read.

Secondly, a lot of things change in any english translation of the Bible. Like the fact that Adam is actually the word for "man" in Hebrew. Or maybe Greek, im not sure. But those were the two main languages that the Bible was written in, and there are many unavoidable changes in the translation process. So if you're going to go through and critique the Bible, it is necessary to do so in its original language. And im sure you're not going to learn 3 other languages for this project.

As far as the whole opening scene goes (early Genesis), there is a great book on that, entitled "Genesis, Science, and History" by Douglass Jacoby. It offers reasonable explanations to just about (if not) all of the "inconsistancies" of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. It was a really interesting read for me, and cleared up a lot.
I'm probably going to post here somewhat often to address your findings, so see you in a bit.

Edit: And one more thing. I think it is really unfair to steryotype Christianity by Catholocism. I personally am a Christian, but do not believe in many things that Catholocism teaches, and have seen scriptural evidences against these practices.
And homosexuality is talked about in the Bible. Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 20:13, to name a few. Now, homophobia is a totally different thing. I have friends that are gay, and I do not treat them any different than those who are not, nor do i believe myself to be better than them. Yes, I believe that it is wrong, but that does not make them "worse" than me.

Quote from Arch-Angel

JDkl;ajfe;hioagw

Dear Arch-Angel,

STFU

This is directed at you insulting me for being an atheist who bashes Christianity. One, I do not force my beliefs on other people. Two, I do not insult people based on their beliefs. Three, I would rather be christian than atheist. Four, **** you.

-

At the part about the joke I made. It was a joke, the joke of course being that most christians never read the bible because they don't need to, and more atheists are likely to read the bible so that they can bash christians, or vindicate themselves. Which is probably true.

-

Also, breast and titties.

-

Also, these ideas are part of the "christian" faith which means they have, or are supposed to have basis in the 'bible' or the 'guidebook of christian faith', if not they have no right believing them, or referring to the bible in their belief of them. My reason for doing this primarily stems from knowing that there is barely anything in the bible that says "homosexuality is for fags and sinners", but many people would say it is the greatest moral biblical issue facing us today.

-

Also, I don't know, I'm sure I had something else to say. I apologize for the jerk content of this post and I would be much obliged if you could be the bigger man and not respond with a "**** you" just because I sunk down to that level.

-

Sorry

-

Also, genesis is full of good stuff, I'll post the quotes later. And by good I mean funny.

I know this wasn't supposed to be a religious debate but I would very much like to pick Arch-Angel up on this. It was the face-palm that did it.

Quote from Arch-Angel

2 of each kind. One Male, one Female. Not 9 of every kind. . . Besides, my Grandfather used to have cows. He had one Bull for every 20 or 30 Cows. Why would Noah need 7? That's stupid. Also. The Arks dimensions were never specified. The Ark was never found after the flood. Either sank to the bottom of the ocean, or was destroyed upon the rocks and shit. No one knows, but they assume that they do.

Genesis 6:15 says that the Ark's dimensions were 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. That's about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

I never said nine of each animal. All species were divided into clean and dirty. Pigs are dirty. Sheep are clean. 2 pigs, 7 sheep. My calculations for the 14-per-second were generously allowing all animals to be dirty anyway, but even if I had thought there were 3.5 times as many as there were, that's still 4-per-second.

You can attack how useful logic is, like Jeremy did, that's fine. Just don't attack my facts - I can verify those.

Quote from Zed

I know this wasn't supposed to be a religious debate but I would very much like to pick Arch-Angel up on this. It was the face-palm that did it.



Genesis 6:15 says that the Ark's dimensions were 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. That's about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

I never said nine of each animal. All species were divided into clean and dirty. Pigs are dirty. Sheep are clean. 2 pigs, 7 sheep. My calculations for the 14-per-second were generously allowing all animals to be dirty anyway, but even if I had thought there were 3.5 times as many as there were, that's still 4-per-second.

You can attack how useful logic is, like Jeremy did, that's fine. Just don't attack my facts - I can verify those.

Ok, i have something to say about this whole ark thing too.
To say that Noah put every animal on the ark is insane. The dimensions are given and it would not fit all of them. I totally acknowledge that fact.
My belief on this is that when the Bible says "animals of every kind" (or however it puts it) it is talking about every animal in the area. Since the exact time of the flood isn't given, it is my belief that evolution would have occured after this fact among the animals that were brought on it, giving us the variety there is today. Just as I believe that there is a solid chance that the flood did not envelop the entire planet, but just the Middle east.
So lets not go on using that as a falsehood in the Bible, unless you can prove this otherwise.

I thought we got past that with the logic concession? If we were allowing logic I wouldn't need all the dimensions and shit - just the fact that there isn't enough water to cover the planet. The point is more that you can't possibly take the Bible literally word for word. I would never bring this up to argue against God - only to argue against the sort of people that start taking the Bible as concrete evidence for something.

Lulz, bible study.

Quote from Zed

I thought we got past that with the logic concession? If we were allowing logic I wouldn't need all the dimensions and shit - just the fact that there isn't enough water to cover the planet. The point is more that you can't possibly take the Bible literally word for word. I would never bring this up to argue against God - only to argue against the sort of people that start taking the Bible as concrete evidence for something.

Ah, guess i totally missed what you were saying. In that case, i 100% agree :D

Yeah, trying to debate the bible in a logical sense...Makes no logical sense.

ok, look. 1 im a christan baptist.2 look at the prof. the B.C-AD time switch. christanity is the seconed largest religion in the world(next to islam). plus theres prof virgin mary was a virgin and the ark was found

I call troll.

a friend of mine did a skit called bible study
[swf=http://www.youtube.com/v/ntmOsfS-eSo&hd=1]height=505 width=853[/swf]