Great example of why the bible is not literal

[shadowmite]

http://www.ocellated.com/2006/04/13/bill-nye-in-waco/

One of my favorite arguments against the people who believe the interpretations of the bible should be taken literally. It's been dugg, so the website might have issues for a bit.

"Nye angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” He pointed out that the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

[phrog]

I do so like that he goes on to mention the two different stories of creation of man. Julia Sweeney points out in her Letting Go of God that those who subscribe to the litteral translation of the Bible haven't even read the first two chapters!

[Stephen73]

You are correct to point out yet another inconsistency in the bible.
The bible is full of inconsistencies and misconceptions and makes
very little sense, I am perplexed as to why anyone would be interested
in a 2000 year old book written by a group of sheep hearders.
:)

[phrog]

Oh I do find the book interesting, in a dragged out boring sort of way. What perplexes me is how so many can take the findings of thousands upon thousands of learned men and women and proudly step up and proclaim, "I'm going to stick to the teachings of this here 2000 year old manuscript."