the so fallible Bible

[Doubting Thomas]

This is ad hoc. Atheists don't go with the most probable if it's inconvenient. Consider scurvy. The least probable outcome of a deleterious mutation is that it fixes in the species, yet that's the scenario with vitamin c synthesis in certain primates.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about how some Christians use a particular trick to explain away biblical contradictions or errors, and you go on about scurvy?

And it's not ad hoc, I've personally had a fundie Christian friend use this explanation during a discussion on whether God prohibits alcohol consumption when he claimed that Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but turned water into grape juice.

---

For instance, consider the famous bear attack passage. The word usually translated as rend or tear can also mean divide. So, the scenario could have been that the group was blocking the road, the bears charged their middle, and they were divided, clearing a path for the prophet. The evidence that there were two definitions for the word is that it is translated as divide in other places, such as Moses dividing the red sea.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's fairly obvious that the punishment for calling God's prophet "Baldy" was being mauled by bears. And the passage said the bears "tare forty-two of the youths," not "parted the crowd to make way for God's prophet."

With as many hoops as you like to jump through, you should join the circus.