Every single one? But there are contradictions? And somehow they managed to avoid including the real contradictions?
Edit: retracted text from my comment: You know this because of an image with text too blurry to read?". I forgot the check the high res option. Original point remains.
I took a random sample. I chose five at random. Those samples were inaccurate. Therefore, I can conclude with certaintity, that the data set is mostly inaccurate. Which is not surprising given the large size of the set. When dealing with factual contridictions, you must examine the historical context, breadth of the text, and related text to the original in question. The Bible is not the only holy book in the Christian mythos.
When dealing with all of these as a whole, you do find some rather interesting contradictions. Some that are hotly debated today in the church. But it’s not nearly to the scale of what the graph depicts. I’m perfectly fine discussing inaccuracies, contradictions, similarities to other mythos. Frankly, I love it. But I don’t like graphs like this because they’re often riddled with inaccuracies and immediately shut down all the incredible discussion these mythos from these sacred texts that people have written over thousands of years and have cared, died, and fought over. It’s rather dismissive and haughty, and I don’t care for it; in a data based forum.
Edit: minor grammatical errors. Changed comma to period.
Thanks for the screenshot. I didn’t think to look for the high res option.
But that still leaves the issue of managing to check every single one, knowing they were dismissible and also knowing they missed the contradictions they know are there. What are the odds that this managed to avoid any that the commenter knows exist?
Every single one? But there are contradictions? And somehow they managed to avoid including the real contradictions?
Edit: retracted text from my comment: You know this because of an image with text too blurry to read?". I forgot the check the high res option. Original point remains.
I took a random sample. I chose five at random. Those samples were inaccurate. Therefore, I can conclude with certaintity, that the data set is mostly inaccurate. Which is not surprising given the large size of the set. When dealing with factual contridictions, you must examine the historical context, breadth of the text, and related text to the original in question. The Bible is not the only holy book in the Christian mythos.
When dealing with all of these as a whole, you do find some rather interesting contradictions. Some that are hotly debated today in the church. But it’s not nearly to the scale of what the graph depicts. I’m perfectly fine discussing inaccuracies, contradictions, similarities to other mythos. Frankly, I love it. But I don’t like graphs like this because they’re often riddled with inaccuracies and immediately shut down all the incredible discussion these mythos from these sacred texts that people have written over thousands of years and have cared, died, and fought over. It’s rather dismissive and haughty, and I don’t care for it; in a data based forum.
Edit: minor grammatical errors. Changed comma to period.
Respectable response.
Why would you assume that the person saying they took 5 random contradictions would use “all of those” to refer to anything other than those 5?
Perfectly legible text for me. Voyager for iOS.
Edit: here a screenshot
Thanks for the screenshot. I didn’t think to look for the high res option.
But that still leaves the issue of managing to check every single one, knowing they were dismissible and also knowing they missed the contradictions they know are there. What are the odds that this managed to avoid any that the commenter knows exist?
He said he took five at random, and the “every single one” was in reference to those five.
As the other person said. They took five.
Also, I like to take positive intent and assume the best in people.