• When somebody was described as being Son of god that meant they had a divine right to be king not that they were literal the physical child of a deity for instance even though Alexander The Great was referred said to be the Son of Zeus everybody know his Biological father was King Phillip II. This creates some interesting contradictions with the people for people that take Jesus was the son of god literally ignore the fact he had to have been descended from King David through his father Joseph to be the Messiah

I removed this because it's Flame Bait, and also because the phrasing makes it sound like whenever anyone from any time or culture called any other person "son of god" they always meant it figuratively, which can't possibly be true.

• Hercules had super strength.

... clarification? Are you saying this is a misconception, or that people don't realize it, or ... ?

The bit in the Zelda section which starts "The Legend Of Zelda series has no continuity or plotline, and is simply the same game done over and over with different graphics." — that only focuses on the "no plotline" part, not the "same game" bit.

It fits the trope, no question, but I can't think the best way of phrasing it.

This was deleted by Blork using the following reason;

Battalion Wars shares thematic elements with Nintendo Wars and Advance Wars, but is a different series. Only the Japanese version shares the name. Drill Dozer was released in 2005, and was intended to be a new series. Custom Robo dates back to 1999. Animal Crossing is from 2001. Hotel Dusk is from 2007, as is Professor Layton. Then there's 2001's Pikmin, and another tentpole franchise I forgot that got started in 1996; Pokemon. Unless your definition of "new" only covers the last three years, Nintendo has had plenty of new I Ps, even if they haven't all been successful. The reason whiny fans complain about Nintendo "only" making rehashes is that they're the only Nintendo games said fans will even consider buying. How many of those seven franchises I just named are commonly associated with Nintendo in the public consciousness?

I've moved the "literature" entry for the Bible to "mythology," since there's an extensive entry on it there, and no one reads the Bible for literary value - even in its own language, most of it is fairly dry, and in modern language, it's been translated to hell and back. Also, I've cleaned up the Natter, and as for this sub-entry:

• The Bible's full of this actually. There's all sorts of things people "know" that have little or no basis in scripture. Stuff like the biblical condemnation of homosexuality (there are arguably two homosexual love stories, David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, Jesus in all his 33 years on earth couldn't be bothered to say one single thing about it), the fact that fallen angels are demons (this is never stated, the opposite in fact, as the fallen are said to be bound in everlasting chains), Satan being the same as Lucifer (never stated), and even God's omniscience (God often questions and in Exodus, Moses talks him into changing his mind). The book isn't as clear as The Fundamentalist would have you believe.

I've removed it entirely. Just wrong, wrong, wrong, right down the line. It's written in a crufty way "The Bible's full of this actually," and the points are pretty much all wrong.

• The biblical condemnation of homosexuality (there are arguably two homosexual love stories, David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, Jesus in all his 33 years on earth couldn't be bothered to say one single thing about it).

Male homosexuality is a death penalty offense under Mosaic law. Male and female homosexuality are both attacked by Paul in Romans. The form of male homosexuality generally practiced by the Romans is attacked by Paul in Corinthians, and even if it weren't, he spends the rest of the epistle attacking desires of the flesh in general. There is no legitimate question that any Christian sect that considers Paul divinely inspired should not condone homosexuality. One thing that's true - unlike his attacks on dietary laws and the death penalty, Christ said nothing about homosexuality. There's a case to be made for David and Jonathan, but (ironically, since the Old Testament has nothing against lesbians) Ruth and Naomi, who are in-laws, require quite a reach.

• The fact that fallen angels are demons (this is never stated, the opposite in fact, as the fallen are said to be bound in everlasting chains).

...maybe. Christ describes him as having "fallen from Heaven," but this may just be him coming down to wreak havoc.

• Satan being the same as Lucifer (never stated).

This was up before and it led to a fight. The page posted identifies them both together by a common metaphor of, wait for it... falling from Heaven. The first one, however, can be read as a metaphor, involving no angel or demon at all, and the second can be read as I've just said.

• Even God's omniscience (God often questions and in Exodus, Moses talks him into changing his mind).

Mainstream Christianity holds these questions as rhetorical, and Moses (do you mean Abraham?) changing his mind isn't necessarily incompatible, depending on your definition of "omniscience." Isaiah, the Psalms, and Christ all make reference to God's omniscience.

About the Pokemon example, the thing most people are focusing on regarding Pikachu's ability to ignore Ground-type immunity was his battle against a Rhydon owned by Blaine which spawned the "Aim for the horn!" meme, not his battle against Brock's Onix. Should any mention of this be made, or the example be removed?

The Columbus bit needs cleanup badly. To start with, he did discover America for Europe; the Vikings had no idea that the lands to the west extended so far south. He was looking to get to "Cathay" and "Cipango" by sea, which everyone (incorrectly) thought was possible, but hugely impractical due to everyone but Columbus thinking (correctly) that you'd have more ocean to cross than the entire width of Eurasia.

• Speaking of people who insist on using scientific-sounding words, "oxygen" isn't a synonym for "air". Only about 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen, and thank goodness for that. Trying to breathe in a pure-oxygen environment would kill you, not to mention that any fire would set the whole atmosphere ablaze. Which admittedly would be a lot of fun to watch, but not conducive to supporting life. If one wants to write an Expospeak Gag involving air, "atmospheric gases" is a better substitute.
  • I'm not sure how that is a thank goodness. If the atmosphere were pure oxygen, presumably we would have evolved to breath pure oxygen (assuming we did in fact evolve in this hypothetical scenario).

I removed most of the above (leaving only up to "only 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen"). There are several situations where breathing pure oxygen is used on purpose. It was one of the causes of the Apollo 1 fire (in pure oxygen, things we normally do not think as easily flamable are); it is used on medicine (including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which combines pure oxygen and high pressure); the masks used on airplanes during decompression incidents also use only oxygen; it is used to prevent decompression sickness; and so on (this all was just doing a quick look at Wikipedia). A 100% oxygen atmosphere would also not "be set ablaze by any fire", since you would still need a fuel, and then it is not 100% oxygen anymore (oxygen is only the oxidant).

Of course, pure oxygen is not 100% harmless; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity