Main Page

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Errancy Wiki is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.

Categories of claimed error: Presentation of quote from Jewish Bible out of Context - Misleading Quote of Jewish Bible - Misquote of Jewish Bible - Anachronisms - Contradictions - Science - History - Immorality - Other - Transmission. Discussions are generally divided into Pro, Con, or Neutral arguments.

Skeptic Fathers: Skeptic Fathers

about.jpg


Church Fathers: Church Fathers

Books: Jesus Interrupted

It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see Recent Changes to check on what we've been talking about lately.


Newest Addition

From The Home Temple In Jerusalem, King Dave's Top 10 Examples of Errancy in The Christian Bible. This will be a listing of the Top 10 Errors in the Christian Bible as selected by the Administrators of ErrancyWiki based on feedback from Members. Please leave your suggestions for Errancy on my User Page, http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/User:JoeWallack . We start our list off with the Grand-Daddy of all Genealogical errors, Richard Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006) right here at ErrancyWiki. Enjoy!:

10. Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)


We have a Legends Page featuring Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006)

and

The Ending of "Mark" By Richard Carrier (2011)


We also have a new Book Reviews Page featuring Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin By Walter McCrone (1999)



Hebrew Bible

Christian Bible

*Mark

Deuterocanon

News

Guidance for Rules

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Rules

Language Tools:

The Westminster Leningrad Codex

http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek

Rules

  1. Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.
  2. Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.
  3. First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.
  4. No spam. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.
Personal tools