Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Again maybe to you and everyone since 1735, but what about the several thousand years and everyone who lived before? Especially when all it takes is a little friggen common sense to unlock this seeming mind blowing 'contradiction' to all those who come after.

I think you're missing his point, Drich, though I agree with you about the bats-vs-birds thing being a non-argument because of the later invention of the more specific terms, and the Bible's (human) authors having no knowledge of the concept, nor reason to make such a distinction, based on the way language was used back then. But that's not really his overall point.

The point is that the Bible is exactly as ignorant of the world/universe as the Bronze/Iron Age Hebrews. Yet the claim is continuously made that it is the work of something higher than human brains (specifically, inspiration or revelation from God).

He is pointing out that, if that were true, we would expect to find things contained in the Bible which no one knew, back then... amazing new discoveries about the universe, or even about the sphere on which we live.

For one instance, they tell the story of how there are three races, descended from Ham, Shem, and Japheth. (Black, Semite, and White, respectively.) Those were indeed the three races with which people in the Mideast had familiarity, at that time in history. Yet God never "reveals" to those authors that they live on a huge sphere, a concept that would have to be discovered by the Greeks, centuries later, or that on the other side of that sphere are other peoples and entire other continents that do not connect to their continent in a way that the animals in their "global flood" story could possibly cross to repopulate, post-flood. And so on... the Bible is a catalogue of the ignorance and prejudices of the ancient Hebrew warrior-priests.

Know why they had a disctinction between split-toed and hoofed animals, but not between birds and bats? Because they were not a nation of scientists, but of tribal sheepherders, and the just hadn't looked very closely at things besides the herds upon which they depended for food and clothing. On the other hand, if you're to argue that they had certain members who had God whispering The Truth™ into their ears for them to write down as Divine Revelation, then it's odd that God doesn't reveal to them anything about the actual nature of the Creation... like, for instance, that Lamarckian inheritance is utterly incorrect, as erroneously described in Genesis chapter 30 (when explaining why Jacob/Israel became such a wealthy and powerful man on the basis of keeping the spotted sheep that came from Laban's flocks, because he was "clever" enough to cut white stripes into the bark of poplar branches, and place them in the sight of the mating sheep), one of numerous instances of the "divine revelation" being a mark of the ignorance of the ancient tribal priests.

And that's fine! That's just what we expect to see. It's when people come here and try to make excuses for why God's Divine Revelation is exactly as fucking ignorant as a Bronze Age sheepherder that we start to get less-charitable in our replies to a person who in the modern age would accept such a thing in place of reality.