I feel like feeding the trolls today, sorry guys!

Heliocentrism IS a lie, but it's a lie in an entirely different direction than what is written in the bible; the biblical depiction is significantly less accurate than heliocentrism.

Secular scientists Interpreting evidence wrong? Certainly possible, even likely in many cases; but the fact that we're able to make accurate predictions based off of the current scientific understanding lends it much credit, and I suspect that if it is proved to be incorrect, it will be a matter of precision rather than accuracy.

But as long as we're talking about misinterpretation- isn't it possible that over the centuries where the various books in the bible did not exist, but were rather passed down piecemeal via oral tradition, something was translated or interpreted wrong? Isn't it possible that these stories have been altered at key places by human action, either accidentally or to push an agenda? Wasn't the canon, in fact, filtering the various stories in the bible to fit the agenda of the early church?

And please, drop the whole 'bible as the infallible word of god' bit. There are verses in Deuteronomy and Revelations that specifically warn against modifying parts of the 'word of god.' Were the bible under some form of divine protection, these verses would be completely unnecessary; the implication is that the word, in the hands of man, is certainly fallible. How many times in the bible does god directly intervene to prevent his orders from being broken? How many times, instead, are the violations allowed to occur and punished later?

Seeing the bible as infallible is not just seeing god as infallible- it is also seeing every man, woman, and child involved in the extremely long history of the oral tradition as being infallible; obviously rubbish. It is seeing the leadership of the early church as infallible, despite significant evidence to the contrary. It is seeing the interpretations offered by modern religious leaders as infallible, again despite significant evidence to the contrary. Doesn't the bible itself say 'Who is like god?' Think about it for a minute; really, presenting the bible as infallible is the very height of arrogance and hubris amongst christians- the bible as a whole does not need to be considered infallible for the religion to work.

If the christian god does in fact exist, I'm fairly certain that the books in the bible will contain a mixture of the actual word of god, severely twisted interpretations of the word of god (by either man or the devil), and the word of the devil himself. I believe thats one of the reasons christians are advised to read the bible themselves and meditate on it; the inconsistencies aren't just in the facts, but in the very basic moral framework in places; filtering out the noise to reach something that makes sense to the reader is valuable regardless of whether the god in question is real or not.