Science And The Bible

[David Henson]

Cud Chewing Hare

The Hebrew word translated as hare is arneveth, it is a gnawing animal of the Leporidae family and is closely related but larger than the rabbit. It differs from the rabbit in that its young are usually not born in an underground burrow, are fully furred, active and have open eyes at birth. The average length, is about 2 ft (0.6 m) and are grayish or brownish.

It has a divided lip, cocked tail, long ears, hind limbs and feet. They can attain a speed of as much as 43 mph (70 km/hr)

The Law of Moses prohibited them as food, and refferred to them as a chewer of the cud. (Le 11:4, 6 / De 14:7) .

Though Hares and rabbits don't have a multichambered or multiparted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for rechewing ... characteristics assosiated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers, the Hebrew term used for chewing literally means "bringing up."

So the modern scientific classification was not the basis of what the Israelites in Moses' day understood 'cud chewing' to be.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has some time taken; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. Even our poet Cowper, a careful noticer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he had domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P.Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.

Franois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41): - "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare .... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine."

Mammals of the World (by E.P. Walker, 1964, Vol. II, p. 647) - "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant mammals."

---------------------------------------------------

Insects Have Four Legs

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

Leviticus 11:20-23 - "Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you.

Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you."

In 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.

The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.

To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?

---------------------------------------------------

Prenatal Influence

The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.

Lets look at Genesis 30:37-43.

Jacob wanted to leave his father in law Laban's service but Laban wanted him to stay and accept wages. Jacob introduces the notion of him to continue feeding and tending the stock if Laban will only set apart the speckled and spotted animals and pay him any black or spotted and speckled sheep thereafter born. Laban agreed to this.

Laban set apart those goats and put them in charge of his sons, three days distance from Jacob. The rest was left to Jacob to tend to. Here is what happened next.

Jacob took fresh boughs of poplar, almond, and plane and peeled white streaks in them exposing the white of the boughs. He laid the peeled sticks in front of the flocks, in the runnels of the watering troughs where the flocks drank and they bred when they came to drink. As they did so in front of the sticks - Jacob assumed they brought forth young that were striped, speckled and spotted. Jacob kept these separate. He also laid sticks in the runnels only when the stronger animals came to breed, leaving the weaker animals to breed without the sticks.

He may have done this due to the unscientific principal of prenatal influence. There is, in fact, no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support the maternal impressions theory that Jacob incorporated but the question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific theory?

The answer is no. Why?

The law of Lycurgus decreed that Spartan women should look upon the statues of Castor and Pollux so that their offspring would be imparted with strength and beauty. Hippocrates taught that strong emotions experienced by the pregnant woman could give rise to deformities in the child and Aristotle believed that many women brought forth children with harelip after seeing a hare and other deformities were due to "the imagination of the mother, who has cast her eyes and mind upon some ill-shaped creature. Egypt's sacred bull of Memphis with one or two eagle shaped figures on its back and a crescent on its forehead had to be killed when it was 25 years old but before doing so the priests had to supply a similarly marked successor. They surrounded their cows by appropriately shaped and colored objects.

There is no question of the ancient belief in prenatal influence, but as mentioned earlier, the real question is does the Bible agree?

Remember that just because Jacob thought there was something to it doesn't mean that the Bible concurs. In fact, there is the answer to the question. The Bible doesn't.

In the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, why he prospered. He doesn't give the credit to his prenatal influence scheme, but rather to God. "In this way God has taken the stock from your father and given it to me. When the stock was breeding, I raised my eyes in a dream and saw that the he-goats that leaped on the she-goats were striped, speckled, and mottled. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob!' 'Yes,' said I. And he said, 'Raise your eyes, look! all the he-goats that leap on the she-goats are striped, speckled, and mottled.'" - Genesis 31:9-12

It is obvious that the hybrids were uniformly colored themselves but carried in their germ cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling. Laws of heredity as discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

Both Jacob and Laban acknowledged Jehovah rather than prenatal influence as the deciding factor, so the Bible doesn't support the notion of prenatal influence and the Bible critics - the atheists - have it wrong again. (Genesis 30:27-30 / 31:5, 7, 9, 16)

Isn't it a biological truth that hybrids are stronger than uncrossed breeds? Like Jacob mentioned. So his would have been stronger while Laban's weaker?

Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.

---------------------------------------------------

Pi

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

[Twiler]

What scientific discoveries have been made based on an examination of the bible?

[Complexity]

Would rather burn my eyes out that read his stuff.

Science has nothing to do with 'the bible'.

[David Henson]

What scientific discoveries have been made based on an examination of the bible?

I have no idea, but that wasn't the point.

[David Henson]

Would rather burn my eyes out that read his stuff.

Feel free to do so, though I doubt if it would change your perception.

Science has nothing to do with 'the bible'.

I pretty much agree.

[Complexity]

'The bible' is a collection of superstitious nonsense that has nothing to do with reality.

Science is our only method for investigating and trying to understand reality.

Science has nothing to do with 'the bible'.

Yet another foray into silliness.

[Twiler]

I have no idea, but that wasn't the point.

Torture a document enough and it will say anything you want.

Isn't it irrelevant whether the bible contradicts scientific principles or not?

If it does agree. it doesn't prove the existence of YHVH.

If it doesn't, believers can dismiss that fact, because the being they worship is supposed to be all-powerful and ineffable.

[David Henson]

'The bible' is a collection of superstitious nonsense that has nothing to do with reality.

Reality is this. I posted information on four subjects which are often incorrectly used to determine or are given as examples of the Bible being unscientific. You have given nothing but opinion in response.

Science is our only method for investigating and trying to understand reality.

So?

Science has nothing to do with 'the bible'.

I have already agreed with you on this point.

Yet another foray into silliness.

Yours though, not mine. At least this time. You have no rebuttal.

[David Henson]

Torture a document enough and it will say anything you want.

Isn't it irrelevant whether the bible contradicts scientific principles or not?

Well, it is alleged to in these four cases when in fact it doesn't. If science is given as the means of ascertaining reality it is being abused in the hands of science minded atheists.

If it does agree. it doesn't prove the existence of YHVH.

True.

If it doesn't, believers can dismiss that fact, because the being they worship is supposed to be all-powerful and ineffable.

Well . . . lets put it this way. Science is fallible.

[SOdhner]

The Hebrew Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.

That line is going to get you in trouble here.

Anyway, those are some of the most trivial and silly things I've ever read. Anyone who debated the bible based on those points should look at it a little closer... because if you want unscientific stuff you can aim much, MUCH higher. You can also point out the many contradictions or something.

David, don't waste your time with this. Either debate the big stuff or let it all go.

[Lord Emsworth]

Pi

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

Oh really? Well, I might even agree with that. Bibleprobe and others peddle a different story:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/pi.htm
Read and weep.

[temporalillusion]

Splinters and planks, oh my!

[David Henson]

That line is going to get you in trouble here.

Anyway, those are some of the most trivial and silly things I've ever read. Anyone who debated the bible based on those points should look at it a little closer... because if you want unscientific stuff you can aim much, MUCH higher. You can also point out the many contradictions or something.

David, don't waste your time with this. Either debate the big stuff or let it all go.

When i first started posting here I made that point myself, namely that they were usually regarded as silly by atheists and by the time I finished responding to the post the writer of it had used, if I recall, three out of the four as examples he/she took to be serious. I have also heard at least two of them used by as many posters here independently. So, they may not be "big" to you and I but they are to some. At least enough for them to have been brought up on numerous occasions.

[David Henson]

Oh really? Well, I might even agree with that. Bibleprobe and others peddle a different story:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/pi.htm
Read and weep.

No thanks. Weep is about right, though.

[Kapyong]

Just a reminder :

Pi IS 3.




To one significant figure.


K.

[Hokulele]

When i first started posting here I made that point myself, namely that they were usually regarded as silly by atheists and by the time I finished responding to the post the writer of it had used, if I recall, three out of the four as examples he/she took to be serious. I have also heard at least two of them used by as many posters here independently. So, they may not be "big" to you and I but they are to some. At least enough for them to have been brought up on numerous occasions.


No, no, you had it right the first time.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5024176#post5024176

:rolleyes:

[Mirrorglass]

Pi

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Quoted for silliness.

Seriously, though. The points you've posted here aren't bad, David. If someone makes one of the four arguments against the Bible you listed, you can point them here. There are, however, a few more discrepancies (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) between science and the Bible you've yet to address.

[Hokulele]

Quoted for silliness.

Seriously, though. The points you've posted here aren't bad, David. If someone makes one of the four arguments against the Bible you listed, you can point them here. There are, however, a few more discrepancies (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) between science and the Bible you've yet to address.


Pft, that site doesn't even mention the fact that the book opens up with a talking snake. How on earth is that in agreement with science?

:D

[Mirrorglass]

Pft, that site doesn't even mention the fact that the book opens up with a talking snake. How on earth is that in agreement with science?

:D

Well, science hasn't disproved talking snakes, has it? I'm sure one will turn up in the middle east one of these days. The Bible only says there was one, so it's not that strange it hasn't been found yet. :D

I suppose it is also metaphorical, which you would know if you were a true Christian. That and Satandidit.

[Cainkane1]

My problem isn't the lack of science or even the science errors its the bad morality in the bible I can't stand. This God of Davids seems to love blood of humans and animals and he kills or recmmends the killing of babies and children and whatever.

Like another poster said even if the examples of davids is correct his God is one evil specter.

[SOdhner]

When i first started posting here I made that point myself, namely that they were usually regarded as silly by atheists and by the time I finished responding to the post the writer of it had used, if I recall, three out of the four as examples he/she took to be serious. I have also heard at least two of them used by as many posters here independently. So, they may not be "big" to you and I but they are to some. At least enough for them to have been brought up on numerous occasions.

Ugh. Yeah, if people have been so silly as to use these things as "proof" of inaccuracies I guess it's worth it to have the counter-argument somewhere.

I like the way they handle biblical scientific disputes at my church: "Eh. Let's just assume that part was a parable rather than a historical account. Whatever."

[David Henson]

Pft, that site doesn't even mention the fact that the book opens up with a talking snake. How on earth is that in agreement with science?

:D

Was the snake really talking or was it used like a puppet? Later in the Bible when men were common a spirit creature could take on the shape of a person in our eyes but since Adam and Eve were the only ones that wouldn't have been the case. Of course, as in the case of Balaam's ass it was an angel talking through the animal.

[Complexity]

David Henson - You are wrong. Period. I will read anything that you have posted on any subject except cilantro, and we're having a debate about the value of your opinions on that.

I won't have any argument or discussion of any kind with you.

I'm not into casting pearls these days.

[David Henson]

My problem isn't the lack of science or even the science errors its the bad morality in the bible I can't stand. This God of Davids seems to love blood of humans and animals and he kills or recommends the killing of babies and children and whatever.

Like another poster said even if the examples of davids is correct his God is one evil specter.

Lets say that you were the one that created mankind and you knew that if man didn't follow your guidance he would destroy himself, and that one of the reasons certain people didn't do that was that they had invented all sorts of gods and disciplines in order not to. If there were children in a place where God lead his people, who, in the way of ancient Israel, were given the opportunity to allow them to do so but declined it it only stands to reason that those children should be put to death.

Killing babies. . . what are your thoughts on abortion (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/index.html)?

[David Henson]

David Henson - You are wrong. Period. I will read anything that you have posted on any subject except cilantro, and we're having a debate about the value of your opinions on that.

I won't have any argument or discussion of any kind with you.

I'm not into casting pearls these days.

Good! For both of us.

[Twiler]

Lets say that you were the one that created mankind and you knew that if man didn't follow your guidance he would destroy himself, and that one of the reasons certain people didn't do that was that they had invented all sorts of gods and disciplines in order not to. If there were children in a place where God lead his people, who, in the way of ancient Israel, were given the opportunity to allow them to do so but declined it it only stands to reason that those children should be put to death.

So there was no other solution available to this all-powerful being?

[Hokulele]

Was the snake really talking or was it used like a puppet? Later in the Bible when men were common a spirit creature could take on the shape of a person in our eyes but since Adam and Eve were the only ones that wouldn't have been the case. Of course, as in the case of Balaam's ass it was an angel talking through the animal.


And spirit creatures and angels are, of course, completely compatible with what is known by modern science. :cool:

[fuelair]

Reality is this. I posted information on four subjects which are often incorrectly used to determine or are given as examples of the Bible being unscientific. You have given nothing but opinion in response.



So?



I have already agreed with you on this point.



Yours though, not mine. At least this time. You have no rebuttal.No rebuttal is needed. No point is made by this except that people who use certain interpretations of things may be misunderstanding them (I do not agree of necessity - but that really doesn't matter).

The important point is that none of that in the slightest way disproves that there is no proof- or even any functional evidence that the bible is true in any historical way (many points of it have been proven non-historical). But, even that doesn't matter as there exists not the slightest evidence of any special creator nor of any son he may have foisted off on a human, nor of the human so foisted off on.

Pretty much nothing in the bible has any evidence of historiocity other than a very few major names. That makes little picky things like the OP rather pointless even if every word in it were correct.

[Mirrorglass]

By the way, David, since you've said multiple times you give science no value at all, why do you keep making threads like this that claim science and the Bible are compatible? Why do you care if some of the Bible agrees with science, if science is totally unreliable anyway?

[Brainache]

So David, have you given up on the idiotic idea of a global flood yet? You have been presented with lots of scientific evidence against that little story, but I don't recall seeing you acknowledge any of it.

Why do you persist in trying to impose a modern scientific world view onto ancient morality tales?

I don't get it.

[Lucian]

Pft, that site doesn't even mention the fact that the book opens up with a talking snake. How on earth is that in agreement with science?

:D

Ahem, I believe that is brilliantly and plausibly explained here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/02/satan-the-fall-good-evil-shouldnt-eve-been-shocked).

Wait, did I say "brilliantly and plausibly?" Adverbs are hard.

[David Henson]

So there was no other solution available to this all-powerful being?

To you this "all powerful being" is only a fictional invention of a primitive people who should be able to wave a wand and fix things, is that correct?

You don't acknowledge that according to the Bible man was given the earth to do, up to a certain point, with it as they wish. Or the nation of Israel was brought about to demonstrate the sinful nature and the need for a messiah as well as the messiah himself.

Perhaps you see the practical use of a law that prohibits stealing or killing but haven't given the Bible much more thought than that, correct?

[David Henson]

And spirit creatures and angels are, of course, completely compatible with what is known by modern science. :cool:

Well, it isn't worth considering if it isn't compatible with what is known by modern science, now is it?! :rolleyes:

[David Henson]

No rebuttal is needed. No point is made by this except that people who use certain interpretations of things may be misunderstanding them (I do not agree of necessity - but that really doesn't matter).

The important point is that none of that in the slightest way disproves that there is no proof- or even any functional evidence that the bible is true in any historical way (many points of it have been proven non-historical). But, even that doesn't matter as there exists not the slightest evidence of any special creator nor of any son he may have foisted off on a human, nor of the human so foisted off on.

I really don't understand why so many of you use this as an argument. When I post on something like this on the misunderstanding of the Bible's position on pi, prenatal influence, refection, etc. I'm not doing so in an attempt to prove anything other than that those things are misunderstood.

Pretty much nothing in the bible has any evidence of historiocity other than a very few major names. That makes little picky things like the OP rather pointless even if every word in it were correct.

Hmmm . . . I think rather than painstakingly pointing out your obvious ignorance I will just ignore that statement as being too vague.

[Twiler]

To you this "all powerful being" is only a fictional invention of a primitive people who should be able to wave a wand and fix things, is that correct?

You don't acknowledge that according to the Bible man was given the earth to do, up to a certain point, with it as they wish. Or the nation of Israel was brought about to demonstrate the sinful nature and the need for a messiah as well as the messiah himself.

Perhaps you see the practical use of a law that prohibits stealing or killing but haven't given the Bible much more thought than that, correct?

I don't see how that answers the question.

Yes, I see the practical use of such a law, and yes, I give the bible very little thought.

Now, why wasn't there a better solution available?

[Cainkane1]

Lets say that you were the one that created mankind and you knew that if man didn't follow your guidance he would destroy himself, and that one of the reasons certain people didn't do that was that they had invented all sorts of gods and disciplines in order not to. If there were children in a place where God lead his people, who, in the way of ancient Israel, were given the opportunity to allow them to do so but declined it it only stands to reason that those children should be put to death.

Killing babies. . . what are your thoughts on abortion (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/index.html)?
I once watched a program about child prostitution in Cambodia. The emcee of perverted justice took it upon himself to close this den of inequity and save the children. Couldn't this kind, just loving God of yours at least be as humane as him? He drowns the guilty with the innocent. He instructs his Prophets to tell their soldiers to rip babies out of womens wombs and kill all the men women and chilldren except the virgin girls which the men can keep for themselves.

Ok your God exists. Is he worthy of worship? I think not.

[Cainkane1]

I once watched a program about child prostitution in Cambodia. The emcee of perverted justice took it upon himself to close this den of inequity and save the children. Couldn't this kind, just loving God of yours at least be as humane as him? He drowns the guilty with the innocent. He instructs his Prophets to tell their soldiers to rip babies out of womens wombs and kill all the men women and chilldren except the virgin girls which the men can keep for themselves.

Ok your God exists. Is he worthy of worship? I think not.
Incidentally my view of abortion is this. It should be safe, legal and rare.

[David Henson]

By the way, David, since you've said multiple times you give science no value at all, why do you keep making threads like this that claim science and the Bible are compatible? Why do you care if some of the Bible agrees with science, if science is totally unreliable anyway?

Have I said I give science no value at all? Perhaps I have overdid it. Bob Dylan was once asked by an interviewer which book he thought was the most overrated to which he answered "The Bible." When then asked which he thought was the most underrated he answered the same. I feel like that about science when I'm 'talking' to atheists.

Evolution isn't exclusively "science." Science brought us the weapons of war which don't distinguish between women, children, the elderly and soldiers on the battleground. Science minded atheist overlook this in their criticism of God's command to sometimes kill women, children and the elderly people of the nations.

"Science" is often attributed with having invented all modern technology when it may have had nothing to do with it. Often the Bible is misinterpreted in an attempt to make the Bible more believable or plausable from a "scientific" perspective and I have corrected that type of thinking many times.

[David Henson]

So David, have you given up on the idiotic idea of a global flood yet? You have been presented with lots of scientific evidence against that little story, but I don't recall seeing you acknowledge any of it.

Why do you persist in trying to impose a modern scientific world view onto ancient morality tales?

I don't get it.

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that the Bible and science don't always agree. Evolution and the flood are two examples. I believe the Bible over science.

It isn't uncommon - your seeing the Bible as unscientific and therefor unreliable, but science is fallible and I don't see any value in imposing modern scientific world views into the Bible. The point here was that some people think the Bible is unscientific in those areas mentioned when in fact they are not.

[David Henson]

I don't see how that answers the question.

Yes, I see the practical use of such a law, and yes, I give the bible very little thought.

Now, why wasn't there a better solution available?

Such as?

[Hokulele]

Well, it isn't worth considering if it isn't compatible with what is known by modern science, now would it?! :rolleyes:


Well, no. Especially not in a thread attempting to reconcile biblical accounts with modern science. You may as well assume the snake in Genesis wasn't speaking whatever-the-common-language-was-at-the-time, but rather that Eve spoke Parseltongue.

[Cainkane1]

Was the snake really talking or was it used like a puppet? Later in the Bible when men were common a spirit creature could take on the shape of a person in our eyes but since Adam and Eve were the only ones that wouldn't have been the case. Of course, as in the case of Balaam's ass it was an angel talking through the animal.
Why curse a puppet? Why not just curse the puppetier? Most rabbis say that the serpent was the mesopotanian diety Enki that Yahway put in his place.

[Iconoclast08]

Reality is this. I posted information on four subjects which are often incorrectly used to determine or are given as examples of the Bible being unscientific....

And even if those tortured rejoinders you provided were conceded, there are countless more nonsensical droolings in that big holy tome on which you have some 'splainin' to do.

It's quite pointless, sir. Like making beds in a burning house. But by all means, continue using those Crayola blunt-tip scissors to cut off the endless supply of hydra heads.

[Cainkane1]

To you this "all powerful being" is only a fictional invention of a primitive people who should be able to wave a wand and fix things, is that correct?

You don't acknowledge that according to the Bible man was given the earth to do, up to a certain point, with it as they wish. Or the nation of Israel was brought about to demonstrate the sinful nature and the need for a messiah as well as the messiah himself.

Perhaps you see the practical use of a law that prohibits stealing or killing but haven't given the Bible much more thought than that, correct?
It has always seemed odd to me that Gods commandment "thou shalt not kill" is a commandment your god breaks himself and often and sadistically.

[Lucian]

Well, no. Especially not in a thread attempting to reconcile biblical accounts with modern science. You may as well assume the snake in Genesis wasn't speaking whatever-the-common-language-was-at-the-time, but rather that Eve spoke Parseltongue.

You know, I heard that Eve was a Slytherin. Adam was a Hufflepuff.

[Cainkane1]

David is trying to rebut "The skeptics annotated bible" but he's not doing a very good job.

[Darth Rotor]

David, can we let stand that the Bible isn't a science text book? That may save a lot of bandwidth.

DR

[tsig]

And spirit creatures and angels are, of course, completely compatible with what is known by modern science. :cool:

Didn't take long til "goddidit" did it?

[tsig]

Have I said I give science no value at all? Perhaps I have overdid it. Bob Dylan was once asked by an interviewer which book he thought was the most overrated to which he answered "The Bible." When then asked which he thought was the most underrated he answered the same. I feel like that about science when I'm 'talking' to atheists.

Evolution isn't exclusively "science." Science brought us the weapons of war which don't distinguish between women, children, the elderly and soldiers on the battleground. Science minded atheist overlook this in their criticism of God's command to sometimes kill women, children and the elderly people of the nations.

"Science" is often attributed with having invented all modern technology when it may have had nothing to do with it. Often the Bible is misinterpreted in an attempt to make the Bible more believable or plausable from a "scientific" perspective and I have corrected that type of thinking many times.

Rather like god when he sent the flood.

[David Henson]

Why curse a puppet? Why not just curse the puppetier? Most rabbis say that the serpent was the mesopotanian diety Enki that Yahway put in his place.

Actually the puppet wasn't cursed, the puppetier was.

Sumerian clay tablets indicate that they believed that paradise was located in a place called Dilmun, probably in southwest Persia. Utu the sun god was supposedly ordered to water Dilmun with fresh water which was brought up from earth. Enki the water god ate the plants and so was cursed with death. (Genesis 2:6; 3:6)

The Persian haoma, the Scandinavian Yggdrasill, the Greek Gardens of Hesperides . . . Sicilians, Mayans, Aztecs, Javanese, Japanese, Chinese and the natives of India all have mythology which seems to have evolved from the Biblical Eden account.

[David Henson]

David, can we let stand that the Bible isn't a science text book? That may save a lot of bandwidth.

DR

Sure. The Bible isn't a science text book . . . if it were I wouldn't be interested in it. [he said, knowing how much it burns their ass]

[David Henson]

David is trying to rebut "The skeptics annotated bible" but he's not doing a very good job.

Is Only God Holy? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/godholy.html)

Should We Fear God? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/feargod.html)

Homosexuality - Revelation (http://thedaystar.webs.com/homosexuality/revelation.html)

Interpretation - Revelation (http://thedaystar.webs.com/interpretation/revelation.html)

1914 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/1914.html)

Is God's Will Always Done In Heaven? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/godswill.html)

42: Not God's Favorite Number (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/42.html)

Revelation / Highlights (http://thedaystar.webs.com/books/revelation.html)

Is It Okay To Swear? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/topics/index.html)

What The Bible Says About - Torture (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/torture.html)

What The Bible Says About - Suicide (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/suicide.html)

Revelation Prophecy & Misquotes (http://thedaystar.webs.com/prophecy/revelation.html)

What Were The 12 Tribes Of Israel? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/contradictions/12tribes.html)

And They Fell On Their Faces (FOF) (http://thedaystar.webs.com/absurdity/FOF.html)

Family Values - Revelation (http://thedaystar.webs.com/family/revelation.html)

Guinea Worms (http://thedaystar.webs.com/science/guinea.html)

Is Death Final? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/contradictions/death.html)

Does Hell Exist? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/interpretation/hell.html)

Will Jesus' Second Coming Be Visible To All? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/interpretation/2ndcoming.html)

Revelation Chapter 1 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev1.html)

Revelation Chapter 2 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev2.html)

Revelation Chapter 3 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev3.html)

Revelation Chapter 4 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev4.html)

Revelation Chapter 5 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev5.html)

Revelation Chapter 6 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev6.html)

Revelation Chapter 7 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev7.html)

Revelation Chapter 8 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev8.html)

Revelation Chapter 9 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev9.html)

Revelation Chapter 10 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev10.html)

Revelation Chapter 11 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev11.html)

Revelation Chapter 12 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev12.html)

Revelation Chapter 13 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev13.html)

Revelation Chapter 14 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev14.html)

Revelation Chapter 20 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev20.html)

Revelation 21 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev21.html)

Revelation Chapter 22 (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/rev22.html)

What The Bible Says About - Burning People To Death (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/burning.html)

What The Bible Says About - Abortion (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/index.html)

What The Bible Says About - Amputation (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/amputation.html)

What The Bible Says About - Astrology (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/astrology.html)

What The Bible Says About - Believers (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/believers.html)

What The Bible Says About - Birth Control (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/birthcontrol.html)

What The Bible Says About - Blasphemy (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/blasphemy.html)

What The Bible Says About - Blind People (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/blind.html)

What The Bible Says About - Pedophilia (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/pedophilia.html)

What The Bible Says About - Slavery (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/slavery.html)

What The Bible Says About - The End Of The World (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/world.html)

Is It Okay To Lie? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/contradictions/lie.html)

What's New? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/contradictions/whatsnew.html)

Will The Earth Last Forever? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/earthforever.html)

What Must You Do To Be Saved? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/tobesaved.html)

Is Jesus God (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/isjesusgod.html)

Salvation By Faith Alone? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/faithalone.html)

Was Joseph Jesus Father? (http://thedaystar.webs.com/revelation/jesusfather.html)

FAQ (http://thedaystar.webs.com/faq.html)

[Brainache]

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that the Bible and science don't always agree. Evolution and the flood are two examples. I believe the Bible over science.

You need to learn a bit about how science works and then you might realise that belief is not required. Science works, the bible doesn't.


It isn't uncommon - your seeing the Bible as unscientific and therefor unreliable, but science is fallible and I don't see any value in imposing modern scientific world views into the Bible. The point here was that some people think the Bible is unscientific in those areas mentioned when in fact they are not.

You are trying to use science to prove that the bible is true, but at the same time saying that the very tool you are using to prove the bible's truth doesn't work.

Your argument is confused to the point of incoherence.

My point in my earlier post was that the stories in the bible were devised by humans a long time ago to teach morality to the ignorant masses. They are not intended to be examined the way modern scientific theories are.

If you want to believe in your repulsive psychotic sky fairy, that is up to you, but please don't pretend that there is anything scientific about it.

[Iconoclast08]

What is it with this constant "science is fallible" thing? Why do you keep parroting this??

As if
(a) reasonable people don't recognize that and/or
(b) it is supposed to dawn on us that this is a knock-down argument that supports your position.

Brainache nailed it, by the way-- you are ultimately stuck in a self-refuting quagmire by conveying that you hoist biblical nonsense over the very instruments of your own argumentation.

You may as well stop researching this, stop writing all this stuff, and just say, "see Bible. Goddidit."

[devnull]

What is it with this constant "science is fallible" thing?

It's his post-hoc justification for ignoring the bits of science that don't agree with his bible. That way, he can choose the "good" science (agrees with bible) and ignore the "bad" science (disagrees with bible).

It's just about the most intellectually dishonest and cowardly thing I've ever heard.

[Achán hiNidráne]

What is it with this constant "science is fallible" thing? Why do you keep parroting this??


Because their god is supposed to be infallible, making him the penultimate authority. Why should you take something that admittedly makes mistakes seriously when you can follow something that allegedly doesn't?

[TimCallahan]

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that the Bible and science don't always agree. Evolution and the flood are two examples. I believe the Bible over science.

It isn't uncommon - your seeing the Bible as unscientific and therefor unreliable, but science is fallible and I don't see any value in imposing modern scientific world views into the Bible. The point here was that some people think the Bible is unscientific in those areas mentioned when in fact they are not.

Okay, concerning the hilited area, you're actually saying that science is wrong about geology and the fossil record because it disagrees with the Bible? Would you also believe the Bible over science if it said that perpetual motion machines work or that the sun literally rises and sets (which it actually does say)? Perhaps the Bible disagrees with science because:

1) It was written by and for people largely ignorant of science and

2) Science was and is irrelevant to the Bible's message.

[dio]

Why should you take something that admittedly makes mistakes seriously when you can follow something that allegedly doesn't?

Exactly.
How can one trust those bickering insecure scientists (who can't even figure out how many planets the solar system has) with answering such important questions as our purpose or our afterlife? :rolleyes:

[Twiler]

Such as?

Alter their minds so they do what he wants them to.

[David Henson]

You need to learn a bit about how science works and then you might realise that belief is not required. Science works, the bible doesn't.

Nah, science is the Bible's bitch. Crazy maddmen bringing mankind on the brink of destruction by making him fat, stupid and lazy while destroying his environment and at the same time being his possible complete and everlasting destruction and his false messiah.

[Hokulele]

Nah, science is the Bible's bitch. Crazy maddmen bringing mankind on the brink of destruction by making him fat, stupid and lazy while destroying his environment and at the same time being his possible complete and everlasting destruction and his false messiah.


Ah, so people aren't responsible for their own choices in life. Nice.

[David Henson]

Alter their minds so they do what he wants them to.

Are you suggesting that these children, who's fathers are, having given the choice first of surrendering peacefully and refusing it, preferring to die fighting, would rather have their minds altered instead of to grow and fight to the death as their fathers did?

[David Henson]

What is it with this constant "science is fallible" thing? Why do you keep parroting this??

As if
(a) reasonable people don't recognize that and/or
(b) it is supposed to dawn on us that this is a knock-down argument that supports your position.

Brainache nailed it, by the way-- you are ultimately stuck in a self-refuting quagmire by conveying that you hoist biblical nonsense over the very instruments of your own argumentation.

You may as well stop researching this, stop writing all this stuff, and just say, "see Bible. Goddidit."

Do you people not have any arguement other than the one? "See science. Goddidn'tdoit."

No matter what the information is about the Bible you won't respond to it you just change the subject of the thread to that one argument. Preaching science.

[Brainache]

Do you people not have any arguement other than the one? "See science. Goddidn'tdoit."

No matter what the information is about the Bible you won't respond to it you just change the subject of the thread to that one argument. Preaching science.

Are you aware that the bible is just an old book? It has been read by millions of people, just about all of whom disagree about what it says.

How many people who have studied science disagree with 2+2=4 or E=MC2?

If the bible contains anything, it is confusion.

[Twiler]

Are you suggesting that these children, who's fathers are, having given the choice first of surrendering peacefully and refusing it, preferring to die fighting, would rather have their minds altered instead of to grow and fight to the death as their fathers did?

Why does he have to give them a choice? Why can't he just change them into beings he agrees with?

[tsig]

Ah, so people aren't responsible for their own choices in life. Nice.

What would you know since you're:

"bringing mankind on the brink of destruction by making him fat, stupid and lazy while destroying his environment and at the same time being his possible complete and everlasting destruction and his false messiah. "

Yeah and while you're busy doing all that would you bring me a beer and throw another log on the fire.:covereyes:duck:

[tsig]

Do you people not have any arguement other than the one? "See science. Goddidn'tdoit."

No matter what the information is about the Bible you won't respond to it you just change the subject of the thread to that one argument. Preaching science.


Why do you think there is an explanation for the universe? Why does it need one?

[David Henson]

Why does he have to give them a choice? Why can't he just change them into beings he agrees with?

Because he doesn't want that. It isn't a very good idea, you know, if you had the power to do it that way would you want to? And, more importantly, to what end?

[David Henson]

Why do you think there is an explanation for the universe? Why does it need one?

In some context [looks around] is that supposed to make sense? Why does it need one? What is it?

[Twiler]

Because he doesn't want that. It isn't a very good idea, you know, if you had the power to do it that way would you want to? And, more importantly, to what end?

So YHVH doesn't want to use brainwashing but has no problem threatening people with eternal torment if they don't do things his way?

You know, that whole 'Hell' thing?

[David Henson]

It's his post-hoc justification for ignoring the bits of science that don't agree with his bible. That way, he can choose the "good" science (agrees with bible) and ignore the "bad" science (disagrees with bible).

[Shocked gasp!] "Bad science!?" Blasphemer!!

You heard it folks - I ignore the bad science, which is the science that disagrees with the Bible. I have dismissed "bad" science that attempted to agree with the Bible, to explain Revelation's heavenly signs and Moses' parting of the Red Sea for example.

It's just about the most intellectually dishonest and cowardly thing I've ever heard.

Not paying attention, again, dev? There are four subjects. Pi, Prenatal Influence, Insect Legs, and refection. I'm not a scientist and I would hazard a guess that none of you are so back up out of my face on the science crap.

[David Henson]

So YHVH doesn't want to use brainwashing but has no problem threatening people with eternal torment if they don't do things his way?

You know, that whole 'Hell' thing?

That whole 'Hell' thing (http://thedaystar.webs.com/interpretation/hell.html) is a product of religion and not supported by the Bible.

[D'rok]

You heard it folks - I ignore the bad science, which is the science that disagrees with the Bible.crap.
Yes, we did hear it. From you. Back on page one.

I believe the Bible over science.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5836348#post5836348

[Cainkane1]

In some context [looks around] is that supposed to make sense? Why does it need one? What is it?
There is an explanation for the Universe. It came about as the result of random scientifically phenomena that is not entirely explanable by science as of yet. What scientific evidence that is available totally and utterly disproves the creation nonsense found in the bible. God did nothing because there is no God.

[John Jones]

In some context [looks around] is that supposed to make sense? Why does it need one? What is it?

It being the existence of the universe.

No need to be obtuse.

[Trent Wray]

I'm afraid my comment will form a road that leads down to a root that involves the existence of god, so I'll take it another way perhaps at the end, for those who are interested.

Science is a method, not a "thing that provides", because at the root of "science" and what it does or doesn't do, are human beings doing or not doing those things with it. At the upper levels of science, where "definitive" exists, we typically have mathematics that reflect the end result of the scientific method and offer us something concrete about our observations, in a language we can all understand across most situations.

So math is a sort of absolute, humans are the subjective and semi-creative arm of science, and science itself is a tool.

Now, take a bible for example. The bible isn't mathematics because it isn't absolute .... it uses words to convey ideas and concepts and meanings. Math does this, but math "IS" where as a word "describes". So what is the purpose of a bible? It's essentially a tool used to describe something .... it's contents. Similar to a tool of science. Science is a tool for understanding the universe, and trying to find absolutes and how to practically utilize the nature of the universe and understand it.

The bible, or any book for that matter, is generally an account of history and it's contents. The bible happens to describe God within it's contents ... one interpretation of many. This falls into the realm of "religion". So focussing on the bible is focussing on one area of religion .... like focussing on microwaves is focussing on one area of science.

And just as with science, the subjective and creative arm of religion are people.

So at one end we have people. Above that we have tools we use to understand .... science and religion, for example. And above that, we form laws and definitives to solidify our observations through science.

Now, using the bible, what sorts of laws and definitives do we have that are absolute and objective and can be proven with formulas or some sort of "mathematical" language understood by all?

For believers, it's assumed that absolute is God and that the laws and math of god are described somewhat in the bible, yes? But to me .... that's confusing the "hierarchy" of what one thing is supposed to be used for over another. If we make the bible the "end of the road" then it becomes the math and absolutes, and imo, this causes confusion because it removes the bible as a tool of religion to understand "absolutes about a creator" and tries to make it a scientific absolute within itself.

So, if we assume for the sake of this argument that the bible is a tool of religion, like experiments are tools of science perhaps .... then what is the math and objective "language" or result that the bible is explaining? And assuming we will not be able to "prove god", what are we left with?

And on a side note ... and possibly a derailing one for anyone who wants to respond .... one thing I do notice is the following:

Many believers view "science" as the atheists idol or god. However, it is often pointed out by atheists/nonbelievers, and those who "understand science" that science isn't a "thing" or an entity. It doesn't blow people up, or kill people, it's not evil. People do those things. A perfect example of this POV of science by both sides, imo, is in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172908).

Now, on the same note, however .... unbelievers who understand that science doesn't "do evil" etc and so forth ... can often be seen saying things like the following:

"Science has brought us vaccines and science has increased our life expectancy and science has provided the ability to do this or that," etc and so forth. So on the one hand, many recognize that science isn't an entity ... esp. when it comes to "blaming science" for the evils and ills of the world. However, science is just as easily anthropomorphized by the same individuals in regards to the "good" that science provides.

Does anyone else notice this contradiction? And if it's not a contradiction, why isn't it one?

[John Jones]

Science is a discipline based on the premise that the universe works under a set of rules that are knowable.

I forget who said that.

[D'rok]

Science is a discipline based on the premise that the universe works under a set of rules that are knowable.

I forget who said that.

Musta been Jesus.

[TimCallahan]

Okay, concerning the hilited area, you're actually saying that science is wrong about geology and the fossil record because it disagrees with the Bible? Would you also believe the Bible over science if it said that perpetual motion machines work or that the sun literally rises and sets (which it actually does say)? Perhaps the Bible disagrees with science because:

1) It was written by and for people largely ignorant of science and

2) Science was and is irrelevant to the Bible's message.

Since you haven't yet answered this post, I'm asking the question again. Let me rephrase it: If we can find something in the Bible that directly contradicts what science tells us about th physical world, do you mean to say that science must be wrong?

[Ladewig]

Evolution isn't exclusively "science." Science brought us the weapons of war which don't distinguish between women, children, the elderly and soldiers on the battleground. Science minded atheist overlook this in their criticism of God's command to sometimes kill women, children and the elderly people of the nations.


Yes, science has brought weapons of war but the difference here is that science never claimed to be an infinitely good source of morality that loves mankind as its children. That's why your comparison is ridiculous. Your God has murdered and ordered the murder of toddlers and children too young to understand the difference between right and wrong. A discussion of that assertion and its attending moral value has nothing to do with what science has or has not done.

[John Jones]

Science is not an arbiter of morality.

It's a processs for discovering the universe.

[David Henson]

There is an explanation for the Universe. It came about as the result of random scientifically phenomena that is not entirely explanable by science as of yet. What scientific evidence that is available totally and utterly disproves the creation nonsense found in the bible. God did nothing because there is no God.

So your evidence for there being no God who created the universe is that the explanation of science negates it?

It is a pitty that you all have only increased my disinterest in science by being so zealous about it or I would ask you what it's explanation for the universe is. Of course, I must confess, I would get bored 5 minutes into it.

[John Jones]

It is a pitty that you all have only increased my disinterest in science

I doubt that is possible.

:yawn:

[David Henson]

Since you haven't yet answered this post, I'm asking the question again. Let me rephrase it: If we can find something in the Bible that directly contradicts what science tells us about th physical world, do you mean to say that science must be wrong?

Are you saying that science can't be wrong or that the Bible must be wrong about everything? If I show you a passage that says the earth is spherical hundreds of years before science said it it wouldn't change your opinion of the Bible, you would probably argue that the passage was obviously written much later than it was. Your "scientific" conclusion coming from higher criticism which simply took the text and broke it down imagining that other people had written it later because the phrases they used were specific, then I would show you where the same phrases were used by the authors your higher criticism said was exclusively used by various authors and I could show you the far more accurate archaelogical, and historical confirmation of things your science itself confirmed and because it doesn't come to the conclusion that you desire you call it bad science and I'm intellectually dishonest for saying look! You yourself, even in your own blind and obvious ignorance have said it!

So . . . I point out that while the nations around them were rubbing fecal matter in their wounds for healing the Bible had strict rules and regulations on handling the dead and covering their excrement while, only up to about a hundred years ago those rules weren't followed by medical science! We don't need a newer higher criticsim of the Bible to determine it must have been written in the last hundred years now do we when we can just simply dismiss it for no reason at all.

Don't you have the sense to see this?

[I Am The Scum]

The body of scientific knowledge makes many claims about the outside world, such as water boils at 100°C.
The Bible also makes claims about the outside world.

The two make claims that overlap and contradict in some areas, most notably in cosmology.

David, please demonstrate to me that The Bible is a more accurate way of knowing the truth about the outside world.

[John Jones]

Are you saying that science can't be wrong or that the Bible must be wrong about everything?

The fallacy of the excluded middle AKA the false dichotomy.

If I show you a passage that says the earth is spherical hundreds of years before science said it it wouldn't change your opinion of the Bible, . . .

Go ahead and show us that passage, and then we'll see.

[Ladewig]

So your evidence for there being no God who created the universe is that the explanation of science negates it?

It is a pitty that you all have only increased my disinterest in science

Disinterest means free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective. You are the last person who should ever claim to have a disinterested view of science.

[Ladewig]

Even if I were to follow your flawed argument and reject science because of it is sometimes in error, how will I know which scriptures are correct. If you have thrown out objective evidence as a way of judging the truthfulness of a scriptures (as you did concerning the flood), why do you believe that the Bible is more accurate than the Koran or Hindu scriptures?

[David Henson]

I'm afraid my comment will form a road that leads down to a root that involves the existence of god, so I'll take it another way perhaps at the end, for those who are interested.

Oh, anything would be better than the rest of this thread. Docendo discimus. I don't feel like I'm learning anything here and that is rare. Whenever I post on any other forum I learn by teaching, not only in my own beliefs but others as well.

Science is a method, not a "thing that provides", because at the root of "science" and what it does or doesn't do, are human beings doing or not doing those things with it. At the upper levels of science, where "definitive" exists, we typically have mathematics that reflect the end result of the scientific method and offer us something concrete about our observations, in a language we can all understand across most situations.

So math is a sort of absolute, humans are the subjective and semi-creative arm of science, and science itself is a tool.

Makes sense to me.

Now, take a bible for example. The bible isn't mathematics because it isn't absolute .... it uses words to convey ideas and concepts and meanings. Math does this, but math "IS" where as a word "describes". So what is the purpose of a bible? It's essentially a tool used to describe something .... it's contents. Similar to a tool of science. Science is a tool for understanding the universe, and trying to find absolutes and how to practically utilize the nature of the universe and understand it.

Language. Science is likened to math whereas the Bible is likened to language?

The bible, or any book for that matter, is generally an account of history and it's contents. The bible happens to describe God within it's contents ... one interpretation of many. This falls into the realm of "religion". So focusing on the bible is focusing on one area of religion .... like focusing on microwaves is focusing on one area of science.

And just as with science, the subjective and creative arm of religion are people.

Excellent! Couldn't have said it better myself.

So at one end we have people. Above that we have tools we use to understand .... science and religion, for example. And above that, we form laws and definitives to solidify our observations through science.

Ah, but any tool can be misused and abused.

Now, using the bible, what sorts of laws and definitives do we have that are absolute and objective and can be proven with formulas or some sort of "mathematical" language understood by all?

I have no idea about "mathematical" language, but I would suspect none. As for law of the Bible you have the law to angels, of divine creation, to Adam, Noah, marriage and birthright, morals, property, custody, slavery, of Moses (to Israel), of conscience, of Christ, of God, of sin and death, of faith, of husband and Kingly Law. I don't think these are what you are talking about. You can attribute the laws of science and nature to God but there certainly would be disagreement there and these actual laws or principles in and of themselves don't in any way speak the language of their origins. They are only observations that change more rapidly than morality.

For believers, it's assumed that absolute is God and that the laws and math of god are described somewhat in the bible, yes? But to me .... that's confusing the "hierarchy" of what one thing is supposed to be used for over another. If we make the bible the "end of the road" then it becomes the math and absolutes, and imo, this causes confusion because it removes the bible as a tool of religion to understand "absolutes about a creator" and tries to make it a scientific absolute within itself.

God. To me the word is a simple descriptive title, like man. That is another argument altogether . . . if I'm not mistaken you are saying the Bible and Science; never the twain shall meet? In an absolute sense. A misuse of the tool.

But let me ask you this. What about archeology? Discovering the language of primitive cultures? How does the math fit in there?

So, if we assume for the sake of this argument that the bible is a tool of religion, like experiments are tools of science perhaps .... then what is the math and objective "language" or result that the bible is explaining? And assuming we will not be able to "prove god", what are we left with?

I want similar examples of this, like love, extraterrestrial lifeforms, multiple dimensions - whatever.

And on a side note ... and possibly a derailing one for anyone who wants to respond .... one thing I do notice is the following:

Many believers view "science" as the atheists idol or god. However, it is often pointed out by atheists/nonbelievers, and those who "understand science" that science isn't a "thing" or an entity. It doesn't blow people up, or kill people, it's not evil. People do those things. A perfect example of this POV of science by both sides, imo, is in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172908).

Now, on the same note, however .... unbelievers who understand that science doesn't "do evil" etc and so forth ... can often be seen saying things like the following:

"Science has brought us vaccines and science has increased our life expectancy and science has provided the ability to do this or that," etc and so forth. So on the one hand, many recognize that science isn't an entity ... esp. when it comes to "blaming science" for the evils and ills of the world. However, science is just as easily anthropomorphized by the same individuals in regards to the "good" that science provides.

Does anyone else notice this contradiction? And if it's not a contradiction, why isn't it one?

Yes! Absolutely. Is it a contradiction? I don't think so. Science does both good and bad, as does the Bible and religion. It is, as you said, from people.

[David Henson]

The body of scientific knowledge makes many claims about the outside world, such as water boils at 100°C.
The Bible also makes claims about the outside world.

The two make claims that overlap and contradict in some areas, most notably in cosmology.

David, please demonstrate to me that The Bible is a more accurate way of knowing the truth about the outside world.

What do you mean by the outside world? History? Love? Life? Morality? Where does the Bible make the claim that either it is the only (or any) source of what you are looking for? Are you threatened by my belief in the Bible? Because you know, I'm not threatened by your belief in science. Do you want to convert me to your "thinking?" Because, you know, I don't want to convert you to mine. Do you think that we can't each have our own beliefs without respect or tolerance for the other, because I don't think that way. Would you silence me and prevent me from my own personal study and discussion of that with others because I wouldn't you.

What is the real issue here?

[David Henson]

Disinterest means free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective. You are the last person who should ever claim to have a disinterested view of science.

I'm only puking back up what is shoved down my throat at the present.

[David Henson]

Even if I were to follow your flawed argument and reject science because of it is sometimes in error, how will I know which scriptures are correct. If you have thrown out objective evidence as a way of judging the truthfulness of a scriptures (as you did concerning the flood), why do you believe that the Bible is more accurate than the Koran or Hindu scriptures?

If I had to sum up science in one word it would be observation. There is nothing wrong with observation, I consider myself observant. If you followed my argument and rejected science? That sounds as if that were my suggestion, and it isn't. I only said that science makes errors in observation, there is nothing wrong with that, its called learning.

Why do I believe the Bible is more accurate than other religious texts? Many reasons. I have compared them and it is my observation that that is the case. Care in tranlation, accurate according to secular history.

Enough about me, though, lets talk about you. Why do you believe the Bible is not more accurate than the Koran or Hindu scripture?

I bet you don't have a clue, do you?

[154]

If God exists,
to the extent that the study of God and the study of science pursue truth in an objective manner,
they will be mutually supportive rather than exclusive.

[Sledge]

David, when do you think science said the Earth was spherical?

[John Jones]

If God exists,
to the extent that the study of God and the study of science pursue truth in an objective manner,
they will be mutually supportive rather than exclusive.

The study of which god?

[John Jones]

I'm only puking back up what is shoved down my throat at the present.

So you're not responsible for anything you say?

[154]

Disinterest means free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective. You are the last person who should ever claim to have a disinterested view of science.Is Richard Dawkins' view "free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective"?

Even if I were to follow your flawed argument and reject science because of it is sometimes in error, how will I know which scriptures are correct.Challenging the current orthodoxies of scientists does not mean rejecting science.

[154]

The study of which god?God is or is not. You can hang your hat on "which" if you like.

[TimCallahan]

Are you saying that science can't be wrong or that the Bible must be wrong about everything? If I show you a passage that says the earth is spherical hundreds of years before science said it it wouldn't change your opinion of the Bible, you would probably argue that the passage was obviously written much later than it was. Your "scientific" conclusion coming from higher criticism which simply took the text and broke it down imagining that other people had written it later because the phrases they used were specific, then I would show you where the same phrases were used by the authors your higher criticism said was exclusively used by various authors and I could show you the far more accurate archaelogical, and historical confirmation of things your science itself confirmed and because it doesn't come to the conclusion that you desire you call it bad science and I'm intellectually dishonest for saying look! You yourself, even in your own blind and obvious ignorance have said it!

So . . . I point out that while the nations around them were rubbing fecal matter in their wounds for healing the Bible had strict rules and regulations on handling the dead and covering their excrement while, only up to about a hundred years ago those rules weren't followed by medical science! We don't need a newer higher criticsim of the Bible to determine it must have been written in the last hundred years now do we when we can just simply dismiss it for no reason at all.

Don't you have the sense to see this?

1)No, I'm not saying a priori that science must be right and the Bible wrong about everything. However, I'd like to see you point out to me one instance of the Bible saying something about the nature of the physical universe that contradicted science and yet turned out to be true.

2) As to the passage in the Bible that says specifically that the earth is a sphere, as opposed to a flat disc, please be specific (chapter and verse).

3) As to the hilited area, please do me the courtesy of letting me speak for myself, rather than setting me up as a straw-man by telling me what my reaction would be.

4) You say, ". . . I could show you the far more accurate archaelogical, and historical confirmation of things your science itself confirmed. . ."

Okay, so show me.

5) Again, you say, "I point out that while the nations around them were rubbing fecal matter in their wounds for healing . . . ."

Please give me your source for this specific bit of information, that people around the Israelites practiced rubbing fecal matter into their wounds.

6) Is this passage from the Bible scientifically correct (Ps. 19:4b - 6)?:

In them [i.e. the heavens] he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes forth like bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Since it's counterintuitive to see the the earth as turning, while the sun, relative to it, is standing still, this passage shows the sun running across the sky like a strong man. Does this mean that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all wrong?

[Trent Wray]

Oh, anything would be better than the rest of this thread. Docendo discimus. I don't feel like I'm learning anything here and that is rare. Whenever I post on any other forum I learn by teaching, not only in my own beliefs but others as well.

Language. Science is likened to math whereas the Bible is likened to language?

Ah, but any tool can be misused and abused.

I have no idea about "mathematical" language, but I would suspect none. As for law of the Bible you have the law to angels, of divine creation, to Adam, Noah, marriage and birthright, morals, property, custody, slavery, of Moses (to Israel), of conscience, of Christ, of God, of sin and death, of faith, of husband and Kingly Law. I don't think these are what you are talking about. You can attribute the laws of science and nature to God but there certainly would be disagreement there and these actual laws or principles in and of themselves don't in any way speak the language of their origins. They are only observations that change more rapidly than morality.

God. To me the word is a simple descriptive title, like man. That is another argument altogether . . . if I'm not mistaken you are saying the Bible and Science; never the twain shall meet? In an absolute sense. A misuse of the tool.

But let me ask you this. What about archeology? Discovering the language of primitive cultures? How does the math fit in there?

I want similar examples of this, like love, extraterrestrial lifeforms, multiple dimensions - whatever.

Yes! Absolutely. Is it a contradiction? I don't think so. Science does both good and bad, as does the Bible and religion. It is, as you said, from people. Hmm ... basically what I'm saying is that we have, as a starting point: mankind.

In an attempt to understand "stuff", i.e. the Universe, ourselves, etc, we have developed a variety of methods. Science is one, religion is one, philosophy, psychology, etc.

And these methods generally "point" to something, and sometimes science points to something absolute. These absolutes are represented, generally speaking I think, with math. Equations, formulas, etc and whatever. Chemistry is another area with "absolutes" in some ways. Helium is helium, oxygen is oxygen, water is water. Things can be broken down into specific components. Now, when you go into QM you get into probabilities and such ... overall math and certain other aspects of language and symbols represent concrete ideas that are understood by all people familiar with them.

They are neutral.

H20 is neutral. e=mc2 is neutral. These things aren't really open to interpretation. 2+2=4. Regardless of how you interpret it, it is what it is.

Now, the story of Moby Dick can be interpreted a number of ways. The philosophical ideas of Freud can be interpreted a number of ways. The bible can be interpreted a number of ways. The shape of the earth can as well, orbits, etc and so forth.

For some of these areas of thought and study, using scientific methods has helped to yield results that go beyond subjective interpretation or well formed theories. Seemingly random aspects to existence or "mystical" aspects have been explained ... and verified .... not just by scientifc methods, but by absolutes involving mathematics and objective terms/labels.

Other areas, only seem to lead to more subjective answers, not objective ones.

So when looking at the bible .... has it produced something objective? And if it hasn't, what is the objective thing it's trying to produce or point to .... if any at all?

There are obviously those who consider the language of the bible to be specific and deliberate, conveying a set of ideas that are not open to interpretation. And there are those who view it to be open ended and obviously open to interpretation.

For the bible to be speak of something "specific" and deliberate and OBJECTIVE ... it needs some kind of decoder. Some sort of key that when applied, turns it's stories and allegories and historical accounts into a thing that "makes objective sense" in which everyone can agree on.

In my eyes, that leaves God, or mankind.

And as we've already stated ... mankind essentially can misuse just about anything, objective or subjective. Hell, I could misuse math if I wanted to and exploit others.

So .... for me it always comes back to one of two "fundamentals" when discussing religion or the bible. The middle man is religion/texts/and everything in between. But what stands on both ends, is either a god that exists or doesn't exist ... and us. Mankind.

So, the bible seems to point to mankind. It's origins, it's accounts, etc. Unless we have God show up and speak for himself. Ruling out this as an option ... again, we're left with people.

Now this is the question I want to ask, specifically targeted at believers. Is it possible for the bible to point only to mankind ... our mind and attempts to understand and communicate our understandings, etc ...... without diminishing a believer's belief in god and their faith? And is it possible, that if there is a god ... the purpose of the bible isn't to point to him directly, but indirectly by pointing directly to us, revealing ourselves rather than "god".

I'm imagining a god that sees mankind sitting in a field and he throws a ball into the field. Eventually mankind starts playing with the ball, constructing a game ... and eventually the game turns too serious and violence breaks out.

Now, obviously the ball and the bible are synonymous in this scenario. But take away the concept of god completely ... and you are still left with a ball and violence and dissension breaking out over that ball.

So ultimately, practically, whatever .... what is the point of the ball/bible? No god, no truth, no lie, etc. Remove those ideas for a moment. What has the bible accomplished for the believer and the unbeliever.

[Ladewig]

Is Richard Dawkins' view "free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective"?

I have no idea. I was commenting on using words correctly.

Challenging the current orthodoxies of scientists does not mean rejecting science.

There is overwhelming evidence that there has been no world-wide flood in the past 20,000 years. David has said that when it comes to conflicting views about the flood, he accepts only the Bible's version. Because the two versions are incompatible, he must, by definition, reject the scientific view.


ETA: furthermore, I will agree that presenting contradictory evidence is a very valid way of challenging the orthodoxies of science. Many Nobel Prizes have been won by people who have challenged the orthodoxies of science. They achieve those feats by following the evidence. They then looked for the best theory to fit the available evidence. What is being done here is the exact opposite. It is starting with a conclusion, and then trying to shoehorn the evidence to fit the theory - any any evidence that helps is trumpeted and any evidence that contradicts the theory is outright rejected. It is that wholesale rejection of evidence that is akin to rejecting science.

[David Henson]

Is Richard Dawkins' view "free from bias, not taking a side, fair and objective"?

Challenging the current orthodoxies of scientists does not mean rejecting science.

Thank you.

[154]

I have no idea. I was commenting on using words correctly.You have no idea?

There is overwhelming evidence that there has been no world-wide flood in the past 20,000 years. David has said that when it comes to conflicting views about the flood, he accepts only the Bible's version. Because the two versions are incompatible, he must, by definition, reject the scientific view.When did men, and some who happen to be known as "scientists," become inerrant and free from bias?

[Complexity]

Shhh... They're talking to each other now.

If we back away quietly, they may never know that we've left the house.

[Ladewig]

If I had to sum up science in one word it would be observation. There is nothing wrong with observation, I consider myself observant. If you followed my argument and rejected science? That sounds as if that were my suggestion, and it isn't. I only said that science makes errors in observation, there is nothing wrong with that, its called learning.

Why do I believe the Bible is more accurate than other religious texts? Many reasons. I have compared them and it is my observation that that is the case. Care in tranlation, accurate according to secular history.

Enough about me, though, lets talk about you. Why do you believe the Bible is not more accurate than the Koran or Hindu scripture?

I bet you don't have a clue, do you?

You'd win that bet. I apologize if you came to the conclusion that I believed I had a foolproof method of distinguishing holy scriptures.

As for the Bible being accurate according to secular history, I do not understand why that increases the likelihood of the supernatural aspects of the Bible. Getting the names of countries, provinces, and kings correct does not mean that the claims of angels possessing talking animals is more believable.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Having read this thread I'm not sure what your exact point is David.
Sure, there are a few things in the bible that are true scientifically.
Yes some things, like pi, are probably abreviations as priests aren't builders and thus didn't exactly care about total accuracy.
Sure some things could be considered nitpicking, like the insect thing.
However, there are a lot of parts in the bible that simply do not correspond to scientific discoveries as they are.
In your deluge post I wrote a summary of all the reasons why several branches of science contradict the concept of a global flood (page 15), which you haven't had to time to awnser I guess.
Similar summaries could be written about large parts of the early OT, and history seems to disagree with significant parts of the later OT. The NT is far less focused on science, so there is less disagreement between the two.
What I find so strange is WHY you are so insistent on taking the whole of the bible as exact and literally true. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the OT is fables and morality there to teach you the truth of god and not to be taken to the extreme literalness you seem to want? Now wether such a god is worth worship is an entirely different question (and for me the awnser is no) and not the subject of this thread.

Why not go with the reasoning most christians seem to. God created/guided/gave intelligence to man and gave the OT/NT as a guideline. God also gave us brains and inquisitiveness and although we find out that the universe is older and more complex than our ancestors thought, that should not distract from the wonder of creation nor from the morality of the bible.

As I say, I personally do not believe in a god, but even though science cannot find any evidence for such a being's existence and although we can explain how the universe, earth and life formed without the need for a god, science does not specifically exclude such a being either. Just because we cannot find it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

On a personal note, as a scientist, I have never found any evidence or noticed any specific 'crusade' to devalue chrisitianity or de-convert believers of any kind (one of my co-workers is a devout hindu for instance). The shoe is rather on the other foot, a rather vocal group seems to want that science ignores or discards any results that disagree with their personal philosophy because ... well, that's where I lose the thread.

Is their (and your) faith in your religion so weak that if it turns out that a few of the stories are allegories or myths rather than exact literal truth that you immediately assume that the whole of the rest of the book isn't true either?
DO you believe that the only way future generations will believe it as the truth when they are denied the access to scientific facts?
I've worked with born again christians, devoted catholics, hindu's, muslims and bhuddists, all of whom kept their faith even when working in molecular genetics and using tools which use evolution as their basis (gene alignment, species allocation ed.) without ever wavering in their faith.

I on the other hand lost my faith by reading the bible as a child and thinking 'I like the blood and guts stories, but they're just that, stories like any other fairy tale'. Long before I ever got interested in science.

So why. Why do you so desperately need every letter in the bible to be literally true?

[John Jones]

God is or is not. You can hang your hat on "which" if you like.


No thank you. :)

[Ladewig]

You have no idea?

No. It has been many years since I have read any Dawkins. Why do you doubt my claim that I know almost nothing about what Dawkins believes?

When did men, and some who happen to be known as "scientists," become inerrant and free from bias?

Scientists sometimes make errors. That is why no one in the scientific world simply accepts the claims made by people proposing theories or conclusions. Repeatability is one of the cornerstones of modern science. Scientists all over the world - no matter what their views - can perform the same experiment and get the same results. Even scientists with biases in favor or against a theory can repeat the experiment and get the same result. Scientists who are in favor of a 6000-year-old Earth and scientists who are against the idea of a 6000-year-old Earth can both go to Antarctica and drill ice cores and see that there have been more than 100,000 winters (with no interupting flood) on this planet. The bias and fallibility of men is irrelevant in looking at this particular type of scientific evidence.


Furthermore, you are assuming that significant numbers of scientists are against the idea of a young Earth or world-wide flood. They are not. In fact, if a scientist could produce unimpeachable evidence of a young earth, then fame, fortune, and prestige would await him or her.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Cud Chewing Hare

The Hebrew word translated as hare is arneveth, it is a gnawing animal of the Leporidae family and is closely related but larger than the rabbit. It differs from the rabbit in that its young are usually not born in an underground burrow, are fully furred, active and have open eyes at birth. The average length, is about 2 ft (0.6 m) and are grayish or brownish.

It has a divided lip, cocked tail, long ears, hind limbs and feet. They can attain a speed of as much as 43 mph (70 km/hr)

The Law of Moses prohibited them as food, and refferred to them as a chewer of the cud. (Le 11:4, 6 / De 14:7) .

Though Hares and rabbits don't have a multichambered or multiparted stomach and do not regurgitate their food for rechewing ... characteristics assosiated with the scientific classification of ruminants or cud chewers, the Hebrew term used for chewing literally means "bringing up."

So the modern scientific classification was not the basis of what the Israelites in Moses' day understood 'cud chewing' to be.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has some time taken; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. Even our poet Cowper, a careful noticer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he had domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P.Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.

Franois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41): - "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare .... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine."

Mammals of the World (by E.P. Walker, 1964, Vol. II, p. 647) - "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant mammals."

---------------------------------------------------

Insects Have Four Legs

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

Leviticus 11:20-23 - "Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you.

Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you."

In 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.

The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.

To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?

---------------------------------------------------

Prenatal Influence

The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.

Lets look at Genesis 30:37-43.

Jacob wanted to leave his father in law Laban's service but Laban wanted him to stay and accept wages. Jacob introduces the notion of him to continue feeding and tending the stock if Laban will only set apart the speckled and spotted animals and pay him any black or spotted and speckled sheep thereafter born. Laban agreed to this.

Laban set apart those goats and put them in charge of his sons, three days distance from Jacob. The rest was left to Jacob to tend to. Here is what happened next.

Jacob took fresh boughs of poplar, almond, and plane and peeled white streaks in them exposing the white of the boughs. He laid the peeled sticks in front of the flocks, in the runnels of the watering troughs where the flocks drank and they bred when they came to drink. As they did so in front of the sticks - Jacob assumed they brought forth young that were striped, speckled and spotted. Jacob kept these separate. He also laid sticks in the runnels only when the stronger animals came to breed, leaving the weaker animals to breed without the sticks.

He may have done this due to the unscientific principal of prenatal influence. There is, in fact, no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support the maternal impressions theory that Jacob incorporated but the question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific theory?

The answer is no. Why?

The law of Lycurgus decreed that Spartan women should look upon the statues of Castor and Pollux so that their offspring would be imparted with strength and beauty. Hippocrates taught that strong emotions experienced by the pregnant woman could give rise to deformities in the child and Aristotle believed that many women brought forth children with harelip after seeing a hare and other deformities were due to "the imagination of the mother, who has cast her eyes and mind upon some ill-shaped creature. Egypt's sacred bull of Memphis with one or two eagle shaped figures on its back and a crescent on its forehead had to be killed when it was 25 years old but before doing so the priests had to supply a similarly marked successor. They surrounded their cows by appropriately shaped and colored objects.

There is no question of the ancient belief in prenatal influence, but as mentioned earlier, the real question is does the Bible agree?

Remember that just because Jacob thought there was something to it doesn't mean that the Bible concurs. In fact, there is the answer to the question. The Bible doesn't.

In the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, why he prospered. He doesn't give the credit to his prenatal influence scheme, but rather to God. "In this way God has taken the stock from your father and given it to me. When the stock was breeding, I raised my eyes in a dream and saw that the he-goats that leaped on the she-goats were striped, speckled, and mottled. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob!' 'Yes,' said I. And he said, 'Raise your eyes, look! all the he-goats that leap on the she-goats are striped, speckled, and mottled.'" - Genesis 31:9-12

It is obvious that the hybrids were uniformly colored themselves but carried in their germ cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling. Laws of heredity as discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

Both Jacob and Laban acknowledged Jehovah rather than prenatal influence as the deciding factor, so the Bible doesn't support the notion of prenatal influence and the Bible critics - the atheists - have it wrong again. (Genesis 30:27-30 / 31:5, 7, 9, 16)

Isn't it a biological truth that hybrids are stronger than uncrossed breeds? Like Jacob mentioned. So his would have been stronger while Laban's weaker?

Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.

---------------------------------------------------

Pi

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

No

[David Henson]

the fallacy of the excluded middle aka the false dichotomy.



Go ahead and show us that passage, and then we'll see.

הישב על־חוג הארץ
וישביה כחגבים
הנוטה כדק שמים
וימתחם כאהל לשבת׃

[David Henson]

No

Yes.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes.

Why?

[I Ratant]

...

So why. Why do you so desperately need every letter in the bible to be literally true?
.
Good question, that.
The answer, smoke and mirrors will be clearer than any word salad he presents.

[David Henson]

Why?

Why not?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why not?

Because it's incorrect.


Let me give me you an example:

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated.

You know, it would have actually been more credible if the Bible had stipulated things that by then were not understood, such as the decimal example you mentioned. If God really exists and he's all knowing, then he should have said things the way they were, even if we mortals didn't have the intelligence nor technology to grasp it at the moment. But it would be evidence that the Bible was indeed written by a Superior Being who knows far more than we do.

However, as you yourself have pointed out, it was because humans didn't have their math fully developed, that the Bible reflects humans' knowledge of the subject at the given time. If, on the other hand, the Bible was mentioning concepts that were not to be "discovered" or confirmed until many centuries later, it would be proof that it was indeed dictated by an all-knowing future foreseeing being. But everything points at the same conclusion: The Bible was written by humans, using the knowledge such humans had at the time.

[I Am The Scum]

What do you mean by the outside world? History? Love? Life? Morality? Where does the Bible make the claim that either it is the only (or any) source of what you are looking for? Are you threatened by my belief in the Bible? Because you know, I'm not threatened by your belief in science. Do you want to convert me to your "thinking?" Because, you know, I don't want to convert you to mine. Do you think that we can't each have our own beliefs without respect or tolerance for the other, because I don't think that way. Would you silence me and prevent me from my own personal study and discussion of that with others because I wouldn't you.

What is the real issue here?

This is an extremely defensive non-answer for such a simple question. Allow me to rephrase.

Our understanding of scientific laws has given us a very good idea of how solar systems form. There is a star first, and planets second. The bible states that earth came first, then the sun. These are contradictory claims. They can't both be right. Science is the way most people would investigate the matter to determine which is true, but you say that's not good enough. So I'm asking you, how ought we look into the issue to determine its truth?

[David Henson]

This is an extremely defensive non-answer for such a simple question. Allow me to rephrase.

Our understanding of scientific laws has given us a very good idea of how solar systems form. There is a star first, and planets second. The bible states that earth came first, then the sun. These are contradictory claims. They can't both be right. Science is the way most people would investigate the matter to determine which is true, but you say that's not good enough. So I'm asking you, how ought we look into the issue to determine its truth?

I will show you, in this thread which was originally devoted to the idea that some "science minded atheists" have misinterpreted the Bible to, in some cases, disagree with science when it doesn't. Where in the Bible does it say that the earth came first, then the sun?

[Mirrorglass]

I will show you, in this thread which was originally devoted to the idea that some "science minded atheists" have misinterpreted the Bible to, in some cases, disagree with science when it doesn't. Where in the Bible does it say that the earth came first, then the sun?

Genesis?

Anyway, why does it matter? Not all of Bible disagrees with science. But many, many parts do. You admit that. So talking about the small details is a waste of time.

By the way, have you now accepted that atheism means lack of belief in a deity?

[David Henson]

Because it's incorrect.


Let me give me you an example:



You know, it would have actually been more credible if the Bible had stipulated things that by then were not understood, such as the decimal example you mentioned. If God really exists and he's all knowing, then he should have said things the way they were, even if we mortals didn't have the intelligence nor technology to grasp it at the moment. But it would be evidence that the Bible was indeed written by a Superior Being who knows far more than we do.

However, as you yourself have pointed out, it was because humans didn't have their math fully developed, that the Bible reflects humans' knowledge of the subject at the given time. If, on the other hand, the Bible was mentioning concepts that were not to be "discovered" or confirmed until many centuries later, it would be proof that it was indeed dictated by an all-knowing future foreseeing being. But everything points at the same conclusion: The Bible was written by humans, using the knowledge such humans had at the time.

Is that how you figure it? An object is being measured by a builder and you think that since it was being recorded it should have reflected a form of measurment that didn't exist. That is the way it should have been done so that, however many years later someone would see it and think, 'Now that, that had to have been evidence of God." Had the measurement reflected this futuristic form of measurment you wouldn't be here talking to me now you would be in your local house of worship, praying to the God of the decimal point?

[David Henson]

Genesis?

Anyway, why does it matter? Not all of Bible disagrees with science. But many, many parts do. You admit that. So talking about the small details is a waste of time.

By the way, have you now accepted that atheism means lack of belief in a deity?

So we are done already, then?

[Mirrorglass]

So we are done already, then?

If you agree that this thread is a complete waste of time, then yes. Just make a post saying so, and we'll all be gone in a flash.

Would you answer my question, though? It seems to me you've ran away from the "Why I would never be an atheist" thread. Any reason why? If you realized you were wrong, it's prudent to at least say so.

[I Am The Scum]

So we are done already, then?

Tell me how we ought to determine the truth of the matter.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is that how you figure it? An object is being measured by a builder and you think that since it was being recorded it should have reflected a form of measurment that didn't exist.

Yes, it should. Because the Bible was dictated by GOD. It shouldn't matter whether we humans discovered that form of measurement yet. GOD is supposed to know more than us. The book should reflect GOD's knowledge, not ours.

That is the way it should have been done so that, however many years later someone would see it and think, 'Now that, that had to have been evidence of God." Had the measurement reflected this futuristic form of measurment you wouldn't be here talking to me now you would be in your local house of worship, praying to the God of the decimal point?

You clearly have not understood an inch of what I have told you.
I'm not trying to sound pedantic, David, but your complete and absolute lack of reading comprehension is gonna make it impossible for us to have a normal argument.

Go right back, read what I wrote again and then see if you can repeat it to me. Here's the question you need to get right to pass the reading comprehension test:

1) Why is Ron saying that the Bible should reflect truths/discoveries that were not to be discovered yet by humans; as a compelling evidence that it was written by a superior intelligence and not by humans?

[David Henson]

Having read this thread I'm not sure what your exact point is David.

My point was that some atheists misinterpret the Bible when it comes to the 4 points of the OP.

Sure, there are a few things in the bible that are true scientifically.

Yes some things, like pi, are probably abbreviations as priests aren't builders and thus didn't exactly care about total accuracy.

Hiram wasn't a priest, he was a master worker. A skilled artisan. He was skilled in working with gold, silver, copper, iron, stone, wood, dyeing, engraving and designing. His father was also an accomplished craftsman. (1 Kings 7:13-45 / 2 Chronicles 2:13-14; 4:11-16)

Hiram was called Hiram-abi (Hiram My Father 2 Chronicles 2:13) and Hiram-abiv which is similar, which indicates not that he was King Hiram's literal father but his master workman. (2 Chronicles 4:16)

Sure some things could be considered nitpicking, like the insect thing.

However, there are a lot of parts in the bible that simply do not correspond to scientific discoveries as they are.

Yes.

In your deluge post I wrote a summary of all the reasons why several branches of science contradict the concept of a global flood (page 15), which you haven't had to time to answer I guess.
Similar summaries could be written about large parts of the early OT, and history seems to disagree with significant parts of the later OT. The NT is far less focused on science, so there is less disagreement between the two.
What I find so strange is WHY you are so insistent on taking the whole of the bible as exact and literally true. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the OT is fables and morality there to teach you the truth of god and not to be taken to the extreme literalness you seem to want? Now whether such a god is worth worship is an entirely different question (and for me the answer is no) and not the subject of this thread.

Again, that science doesn't agree with something doesn't necessarily mean that it is fable. Start a thread on these alleged fables and include in it a copy of the post in the Deluge thread which I am not going to search for but if you post the new thread as I suggest on fables, I promise I will answer it as soon as I see it.

Why not go with the reasoning most Christians seem to. God created/guided/gave intelligence to man and gave the OT/NT as a guideline. God also gave us brains and inquisitiveness and although we find out that the universe is older and more complex than our ancestors thought, that should not distract from the wonder of creation nor from the morality of the bible.

When you say OT/NT to me it is the equivalent of me saying to you that the theory of evolution is the teaching that a monkey hanging from a tree lost his tail and falling to the ground began to walk upright.

At 2 Corinthians 3:14 the Latin Vulgate and KJV translates the Greek diathekes as the Latin testamentum and so the English testament when in fact the word should be rendered covenant.

That probably about 99% of Christians don't know this is exactly why I don't follow their example of reasoning. Also, our ancestors, specifically the Bible writers, never speculated on the age of our planet or the universe. There is no disagreement with science on the matter because the Bible didn't comment upon it either way.

As I say, I personally do not believe in a god, but even though science cannot find any evidence for such a being's existence and although we can explain how the universe, earth and life formed without the need for a god, science does not specifically exclude such a being either. Just because we cannot find it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay. That doesn't mean a great deal to me because if science discovered that God existed it wouldn't necessarily impress me. It doesn't mean anything to me.

On a personal note, as a scientist, I have never found any evidence or noticed any specific 'crusade' to devalue Christianity or de-convert believers of any kind (one of my co-workers is a devout Hindu for instance). The shoe is rather on the other foot, a rather vocal group seems to want that science ignores or discards any results that disagree with their personal philosophy because ... well, that's where I lose the thread.

Okay. I hate all organized religion. I wish it were gone. Completely destroyed.

Is their (and your) faith in your religion so weak that if it turns out that a few of the stories are allegories or myths rather than exact literal truth that you immediately assume that the whole of the rest of the book isn't true either?

Would you even think of considering that of science. Do you really think we need to compromise on this matter? Why don't you lose some of your science because it disagrees with the Bible and I'll give up some of what I think is the truth for your science?

Do you really think that I have no more reason to believe what you offhandedly dismiss as more or less a primitive comic book? Don't patronize me.

DO you believe that the only way future generations will believe it as the truth when they are denied the access to scientific facts?

Did I suggest that?! No.

I've worked with born again Christians, devoted catholics, Hindu's, Muslims and Buddhists, all of whom kept their faith even when working in molecular genetics and using tools which use evolution as their basis (gene alignment, species allocation ed.) without ever wavering in their faith.

Okay.

I on the other hand lost my faith by reading the bible as a child and thinking 'I like the blood and guts stories, but they're just that, stories like any other fairy tale'. Long before I ever got interested in science.

So why. Why do you so desperately need every letter in the bible to be literally true?

The letters that are literally true I desperately need to be recognized as such. The letters that are figurative, allegorical, illustrative, spurious, under consideration or misinterpreted I want to be recognized as such as well.

Make the new thread. Include the repost. I will answer.

[David Henson]

David, when do you think science said the Earth was spherical?

Pythagoras, 4th century B.C.E. Of course he was a philosopher rather than a scientist. Lactantius in the 4th century C.E. scoffed at the idea, but he wasn't a scientist either, he was a Christian apologist. Isaiah said the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22, Hebrew chugh, rendered round, circle, globe) in the 8th century B.C.E. Aristotle thought it was a spherical but denied it could hang in empty space, though 3,500 years ago Moses wrote that it was hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7) That wasn't scientifically confirmed as such until Newton.

[David Henson]

Tell me how we ought to determine the truth of the matter.

You go back and tell me where the Bible says the earth came before the sun while I address Mirror.

[David Henson]

If you agree that this thread is a complete waste of time, then yes. Just make a post saying so, and we'll all be gone in a flash.

Would you answer my question, though? It seems to me you've ran away from the "Why I would never be an atheist" thread. Any reason why? If you realized you were wrong, it's prudent to at least say so.

Everytime I make a post I have up to 30 people respond. Every response I make to those 30 I have up to 30 more. If I took all of them on any subject 90% of them would all amount to about the same. It is possible that I missed your post. It is also possible that I didn't think it worthy of an answer. I have to pick my battles and while it is true that smart ass one line repitiion is a great deal less time consuming and more tempting to answer in bulk it also means the good stuff is burried and I don't have time to answer that as well.

[Tricky]

You go back and tell me where the Bible says the earth came before the sun while I address Mirror.
Ah. A softball.

Okay, in Genesis I
***
2 Now the earth was a formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
***

Earth first. Then "light of day". Unless "earth", "surface", "over" and "day" have completely different meanings than we normally ascribe to them. Oh sure, you can do backflips to try to fit this in with how things actually are, but such sophistry only belies how desperate some are to make the bible look like the writers knew what they were talking about.

The bible is an ancient and highly edited collection of legends, laws, poetry, parables and histories. I don't care that it is worthless, or to be extremely kind, highly inaccurate for science. I should say, I don't care as long as someone doesn't try to shove it down our throats that it IS scientific and should be considered along with other science texts in teaching easily-manipulated children. Then I have a problem with those people who try to do that, though not with the book itself.

[Stout]

My point was that some atheists misinterpret the Bible when it comes to the 4 points of the OP.

Those weren't misinterpretations, that's what the bible actually says and you're trying to shoehorn some sort of explanation into the mix to try and say "this is what they meant"

Take the rabbit and cud chewing. Why is the poor little bunny rabbit singled out for it's own sentence ( Lev 11:6 ) when it's clearly covered under Lev 11:27 by virtue of it's having paws ?

It reads more like the hare was singled out specifically because it "chews it's cud" meriting it some sort of special mention for this trait. If anything, the eating of it's own poo should have earned it the unclean distinction because that's seriously more ewwwwww than cud chewing. Since when do hares have hooves ? Last time i checked a rabbit's foot, it did not, in any way resemble a hoof.

Four legged insects ????? OK, now I'm confused. It's OK to eat the locusts because the bible says so ( Lev 11:22 ) but you go on to try and justify that these six legged insects may have been perceived to be four legged for reasons I can't fathom. What about the beetles mentioned in Lev 11:22 ? How do they merit special mention ?

Then we get to Lev 11:41-42 where we're told, basically, go vegetarian, making the preceding passages rather moot.

[David Henson]

Yes, it should. Because the Bible was dictated by GOD. It shouldn't matter whether we humans discovered that form of measurement yet. GOD is supposed to know more than us. The book should reflect GOD's knowledge, not ours.



You clearly have not understood an inch of what I have told you.
I'm not trying to sound pedantic, David, but your complete and absolute lack of reading comprehension is gonna make it impossible for us to have a normal argument.

Go right back, read what I wrote again and then see if you can repeat it to me. Here's the question you need to get right to pass the reading comprehension test:

1) Why is Ron saying that the Bible should reflect truths/discoveries that were not to be discovered yet by humans; as a compelling evidence that it was written by a superior intelligence and not by humans?

Oh, this is so classic atheist thinking! Thanks for the Laugh, Ron, you actually made me fall out of my chair laughing with literal tears.

Let me see if I got this right. If God were worthy of worship he would have instructed Hiram to measure something that needed to be measured in a way that no one would be able to comprehend for hudreds of years, thus proving his divinity to you, who are questioning my reading comprehension, correct?

If you are so smart write it so I can understand it. In the distant future?

[Falls out of chair again]

[Sledge]

Pythagoras, 4th century B.C.E. Of course he was a philosopher rather than a scientist. Lactantius in the 4th century C.E. scoffed at the idea, but he wasn't a scientist either, he was a Christian apologist. Isaiah said the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22, Hebrew chugh, rendered round, circle, globe) in the 8th century B.C.E. Aristotle thought it was a spherical but denied it could hang in empty space, though 3,500 years ago Moses wrote that it was hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7) That wasn't scientifically confirmed as such until Newton.

A quick Google suggests the word "chugh" does not mean spere. What source are you basing this translation on?

[John Jones]

הישב על־חוג הארץ
וישביה כחגבים
הנוטה כדק שמים
וימתחם כאהל לשבת׃

English and/or the Roman alphabet are strangers to you?

[John Jones]

Deleted.

[Zep]

Pythagoras, 4th century B.C.E. Of course he was a philosopher rather than a scientist. Lactantius in the 4th century C.E. scoffed at the idea, but he wasn't a scientist either, he was a Christian apologist. Isaiah said the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22, Hebrew chugh, rendered round, circle, globe) in the 8th century B.C.E. Aristotle thought it was a spherical but denied it could hang in empty space, though 3,500 years ago Moses wrote that it was hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7) That wasn't scientifically confirmed as such until Newton.Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:Probably more accurately rendered as the circle of the earth visible to the horizon, or those lands around where you dwell. No inference of sphericity explicit or implied.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.For a start, it is Job speaking, not Moses. And it is Job making his (somewhat extended) wail that JVWH has treated him badly, including listing all the things that have gone wrong so far. The language is little more than exaggerated metaphor, like we say today: "The moon hung low in the sky". So to read it as literal science would be folly.


David, you can obviously read Hebrew and scholarly languages. But do you truly understand what is being written? Do you understand that "turn of phrase" is not the same as literal truth? Or is that beyond you.

[Ron Webb]

Pardon me, but may I return to an earlier point that seems to have been neglected? --

Was the snake really talking or was it used like a puppet?

According to the Bible, it was really talking: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1)

Actually the puppet wasn't cursed, the puppetier was.
Not according to the Bible: "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!'" (Genesis 3:14)

The Bible is quite clear about this. It tells of a talking serpent, who is cursed for his misdeeds. There is no mention of the serpent being used as a puppet, and if so, it would make no sense to curse the serpent "above all the livestock and all the wild animals".

In short, if you believe in the Bible as literal truth, then you have to believe in a talking snake. Of course, you could argue that the snake bit is just an allegory and not to be taken literally, but then how can you know that the rest of the Bible (e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection) is any more reliable?

[David Henson]

Ah. A softball.

Okay, in Genesis I
***
2 Now the earth was a formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
***

The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars. The Hebrew verb has two states; the perfect state, which indicates completed action, and the imperfect state which indicates action in progress, incompleteness. In Genesis 1:1, "created" in the Hebrew was the perfect state indicating completeness. The act of creating the heavens and the earth were complete.

In 1:3, though the KJV doesn't’t indicate the imperfect state of action in progress, when God says let there be light he actually proceeded to say let there be light, and light gradually came to be. A much more accurate translation, by J.W. Watts reads: “Afterward God proceeded to say, ‘Let there be light’; and gradually light came into existence,” Benjamin Willis Newton’s translation does likewise; brackets his: “And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].” The imperfect state is crucial to a fuller understanding of the first chapter of Genesis because it occurs 40 times.

Later verses indicate that though the light was gradually increasing after the first “day,” the source of that light wasn't’t discernible until the fourth. This has caused a great deal of confusion with science minded skeptics. The sun had been created in verse 1, the light had penetrated the dust and debris by the first creative “day” but the source was not yet visible.

The Hebrew word for light used in verse 2 is ohr, which means the light given from the source rather than the source itself. Ohr is light diffused. Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth for some undetermined period of time. Keep in mind that the Hebrew word yohm translated day is not a literal 24 hour period.

On the first creative “day” light (Hebrew ohr, meaning light in a general sense, rather than the source itself) from the luminaries was visible on earth. Then, (1:14) on the fourth day the luminaries themselves (Hebrew maohr, meaning the source of light) were visible. The light on the first day had been diffused light, probably because of debris in the atmosphere from creation.

A brief aside: A comparison with science and the Bible. Moses wrote that the division of day and night were products of the luminaries in the sixteenth Century B.C.E. but up until the fifth it was thought that light was a bright vapor and darkness was a black vapor, the latter of which ascended from the ground.

At Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, meaning “make” is used. Earlier, in verse 1 the Hebrew word bara, meaning “create” was used. At Genesis 1:1, before the first creative “day,” the heavens, which would include the luminaries, had been created and now on the fourth creative “day” the luminaries are being made in the sense that a bed is made. Not that it is manufactured but that it is, already having been manufactured, now prepared in a way for use. Genesis 1:14-18 is talking about God preparing the already existing luminaries in the sense that he was appointing them in their way for use. The dust and debris now dissipated, the source of light is now discernible so as to distinguish seasons, among other obvious benefits.

Earth first. Then "light of day". Unless "earth", "surface", "over" and "day" have completely different meanings than we normally ascribe to them. Oh sure, you can do backflips to try to fit this in with how things actually are, but such sophistry only belies how desperate some are to make the bible look like the writers knew what they were talking about.

Back flips like saying that "earth" even today can mean the planet or the soil, as it could in the Bible. It had additional meanings in the Bible, like the Hebrew erets, meaning the earth as opposed to the heaven or the sky, land, country, territory, ground surface of the ground, inhabited earth?

What we need to concentrate on was given above, light, the source of light, create and make. How bara, asah, ohr and maohr were used.

The bible is an ancient and highly edited collection of legends, laws, poetry, parables and histories. I don't care that it is worthless, or to be extremely kind, highly inaccurate for science. I should say, I don't care as long as someone doesn't try to shove it down our throats that it IS scientific and should be considered along with other science texts in teaching easily-manipulated children. Then I have a problem with those people who try to do that, though not with the book itself.

As I have said here before many times. I'm against creationism or the Bible being taught in schools. You go right on ahead teaching the easily-manipulated children your theory as fact. That way, as with the Christians of old, your propaganda will be forgotten or highly mistrusted.

Real good thinking as always from the "free thinkers." That is, those who are free from thought.

[Stout]

English and/or the Roman alphabet are strangers to you?

Damn, I love Google translate. That's the circle of the Earth thing. Isaiah 40:22 which implies a disc rather than a sphere and dovetails nicely with the Earth set upon pillars as outlined in 1 Samuel 2:8.

[David Henson]

A quick Google suggests the word "chugh" does not mean spere. What source are you basing this translation on?

A quicker Google? I thought you guys all used Bing! No wonder all the confussion.

Try Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.

[David Henson]

Damn, I love Google translate. That's the circle of the Earth thing. Isaiah 40:22 which implies a disc rather than a sphere and dovetails nicely with the Earth set upon pillars as outlined in 1 Samuel 2:8.

Actually the planet earth is an oblate spheroid, that is flattened at the poles, but lets not split hares (see OP) . . . uh . . . wow . . . anyway, Isaiah 40:22 says that God is looking down from heaven, only a spheriod object looks like a circle from every angle.

[Zep]

Ah, we have here the scholar who reads all and understands nothing. ;)

[I Am The Scum]

1:10 through 1:17 are more blatant.

[Lord Emsworth]

The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars. The Hebrew verb has two states; the perfect state, which indicates completed action, and the imperfect state which indicates action in progress, incompleteness. In Genesis 1:1, "created" in the Hebrew was the perfect state indicating completeness. The act of creating the heavens and the earth were complete.

The creation of the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1 - regardless of whether it is rendered as a dependent or independent clause - references the same events as Gen 1:3-31. Roughly: Gen 1:1 = Gen 1:3-31

Compare especially Gen 1:1 with the second (heaven) and third day (earth) of the creation week. ;)


Casting Gen 1:1 as describing separate events from the rest of the chapter also breaks the narrative pattern.

[Sledge]

Well, I went for something not written over a hundred years ago (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329). How do you suggest we determine which translation is correct?

[David Henson]

English and/or the Roman alphabet are strangers to you?

Well, someone else asked as well and I figured we would get around to the English one and then I would have to explain why some translations render the Hebrew chugh into circle and then of course you can say a circle can be flat etc. etc. etc. This ain't my first rodeo, allow me my intellectual liberty.

[Zep]

Actually the planet earth is an oblate spheroid, that is flattened at the poles, but lets not split hares (see OP) . . . uh . . . wow . . . anyway, Isaiah 40:22 says that God is looking down from heaven, only a spheriod object looks like a circle from every angle.What rubbish! What sort of a stretch of logic was that??! :boggled:

I'm no scholar but I can read better than you, it seems. It was Job speaking, not JVWH. And he was referring to the land about him, the circle of land, soil, earth in his view or under his purview. Literally it means a disk, figuratively it means the lands around known to him - the world of his time.

So it is nothing whatever to do with spheres, oblate, eccentric or cubic for that matter.


ETA: Splitting HAIRS, unless you really do mean splitting rabbit-like creatures.

[Lord Emsworth]

I have never understood how a spherical earth in Isaiah 40:22 is supposed to work with the tent simile.

The simile works very well though if circle of the earth is read as referencing a 'flat' earth, or if it is read as referencing the skydome.

[David Henson]

Well, I went for something not written over a hundred years ago (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329). How do you suggest we determine which translation is correct?

[sighs] Ooookkkay . . . we were talking about Isaiah 40:22 . . . wait a second, I'm going to turn my sleepbot on, I'll be right back. Oh, that is so much better. I've been listening to '80's and '90's music and Battle Of The Planets cartoons all day while I argue with y'all. Sleepbot will kick it down a notch.

How do I suggest we determine which translation is correct? Well, that depends upon what you want out of it. If you want to quickly dismiss the Bible and you will take the one that reflects your, for the sake of this discussion lets say, agenda. Then I have to try and demonstrate how that wouldn't really make that much difference. Most skeptics usually use the simplest interpretation of the more common translations, so you would want to go with circle. Rather than the Douay "globe" or Moffatt "round" from a more precise rendering of chugh in accordance with Davidson.

Of course, as I pointed out to . . . someone else . . . only a circle looks spheroid from almost every angle and we are talking about God looking "down" at the earth from heaven.

An interesting point to consider would be found at Isaiah 44:13 where the Hebrew word mechughah is used. Now that word is related to Chugh and it is rendered compass. You might want to dig deeper even and take a good look at Proverbs 8:27.

Someone mentioned softball earlier for no apparent reason to me. I thought that was curious though it might have been before we got into the chugh thing. I can't keep track of this stuff. What say Goggle on Hebrew ball which is spherical . . . that sort of thing, I suppose.

[David Henson]

What rubbish! What sort of a stretch of logic was that??! :boggled:

I'm no scholar but I can read better than you, it seems. It was Job speaking, not JVWH. And he was referring to the land about him, the circle of land, soil, earth in his view or under his purview. Literally it means a disk, figuratively it means the lands around known to him - the world of his time.

So it is nothing whatever to do with spheres, oblate, eccentric or cubic for that matter.


ETA: Splitting HAIRS, unless you really do mean splitting rabbit-like creatures.

Oh, Buddha . . . Job was quoted by Isaiah? Another fine example of the obviously superior reading comprehension of the skeptical. Moses wrote Job. Isaiah is another thing. Moses wrote about Job who said Jehovah was hanging the earth upon nothing and Isaiah said Jehovah was looking down on the circle of earth.

Pull yourself together, man!

The hare / hair pun was, admitedly, in poor taste.

[Lord Emsworth]

Of course, as I pointed out to . . . someone else . . . only a circle looks spheroid from almost every angle and we are talking about God looking "down" at the earth from heaven.

That's a useless argument. Similar holds true for circles as well, i.e. if you look down on them they'll look like circles.

It is true that circles don't look like circles if looked at from any angle, whereas spheres do. However, that has no weight at all. Why should it?

[Stout]

And the pillars that the Earth supposedly rested on ? One would figure that if oblate spheroid was what was actually meant, it would be pillar, in the singular rather than pillars.

I actually liked the hare/hair thing, it was fun.

David, in your opinion, what was the reason for all the dietary restrictions ? To, me it sounds like imposing unnecessary hardship as i can't find any ideas that parallel the Buddhist idea of do no harm to other living creatures.

I can think of a few reasons why a vegetarian diet ( plus fish and some insects ) might be practical but that's only my atheist scientific mind exploring the issue. eg, supporting more people per square kilometer on a veg vs meat diet, or preventing spoilage.

[David Henson]

I have never understood how a spherical earth in Isaiah 40:22 is supposed to work with the tent simile.

The simile works very well though if circle of the earth is read as referencing a 'flat' earth, or if it is read as referencing the skydome.

Which tent simile? Also, the skydome, is that the Dark Ages idea of a metal dome around the earth often pictured in Bible dictionaries etc. or is that a more modern scientific term for something, like, lets say - the Hebrew raqia / Greek Stereoma / Latin firmametntum but English expanse (rather than firmament)?

[David Henson]

Damn, I love Google translate. That's the circle of the Earth thing. Isaiah 40:22 which implies a disc rather than a sphere and dovetails nicely with the Earth set upon pillars as outlined in 1 Samuel 2:8.

I get alot of people on that Google translate thingy reading my website in all sorts of languages, it is pretty cool.

The pillars thing is figurative, like the term "a pillar of society" or "the cornerstone of Democrasy" or "the foundation of our marriage." In fact all of the skeptical devices to interpret the Bible as projecting a flat earth are obviously figurative whereas the case of Isaiah 40:22 is more likely to be more literal.

[ddt]

Pi

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.
Let's first start by noting that pi is a mathematical concept, and that mathematics is not science. Whereas science studies how the world works, and theories may be superseded by other theories that better describe the world, upon more observations of said reality, mathematical truth is absolute. Theorems from Euclid are still valid, even though we have also developed non-Euclidean geometry, for example.

The above paragraph is a mischaracterisation of pi. pi might be approximated by those three numbers, but it is distinct from all three numbers and not equivalent to one of those numbers. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if David would display equal pride in ignorance of mathematics as he does in science.


Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?
Well, it is inaccurate. Period. God, who is omniscient, should know his math, shouldn't he? And the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God, from begin to end, isn't it? I'm 100% with Ron_Tomkins here.


Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated.
All you have as evidence for this practice is a person that is insufficiently identified and is subsequently quoted by a 18th C. bishop? This paragraph seems a simple copy & paste job from other websites. Can you cite better evidence for this practice and for the number of straight lines (for comparison: when you increase the number of straight lines to 12, you get to 3.1). Considering that the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians had already much better approximations for pi, I very much doubt it.

Secondly, you present this as if this passage had been written by Hiram. It is not. It's written by God, or by a scribe whom he dictated it to. It's God describing what Hiram built, so Hiram's knowledge and practices are moot anyway.


There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.
And this is supposed to be the timeless, infallible word of God? It surely wasn't only written for Hiram's time (actually, it was only written down some 400-500 years later), but for all times. And now every high-school student can snicker that God would get an F for his trig test. Not a very smart God, I must say. God would surely realize, being omniscient and all, that these crude practices (if they existed at all) would soon be superseded by much better ones and that people would develop the mathematics to approximate pi realistically. And in fact, neighbouring people already had that, apparently though not God's chosen goat shepherds if we are to believe you.

You would have a point if this were indeed God talking to Hiram, giving him a blueprint how he must build the temple. But it is not; God is speaking here to the whole of humanity, for all times, describing how the temple was built. He shouldn't there constrain him in his description to the feeble knowledge of his chosen goat shepherds, if anything, he should have taught them proper mathematics.

[David Henson]

That's a useless argument. Similar holds true for circles as well, i.e. if you look down on them they'll look like circles.

It is true that circles don't look like circles if looked at from any angle, whereas spheres do. However, that has no weight at all. Why should it?

A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse rather than a circle. Since the verse is talking about God looking down at the eart it is more likely to mean spherical rather than projecting a primitive idea of a flat earth. Especially since the word used can mean spherical, like a ball, or globe.

Either way it is most likely to be spherical rather than flat. When you take all of the skeptical interpretations of a Biblical flat earth they are obviously not to be taken literally. The skeptic has got it all backwards.

[Stout]

I get alot of people on that Google translate thingy reading my website in all sorts of languages, it is pretty cool.

The pillars thing is figurative, like the term "a pillar of society" or "the cornerstone of Democrasy" or "the foundation of our marriage." In fact all of the skeptical devices to interpret the Bible as projecting a flat earth are obviously figurative whereas the case of Isaiah 40:22 is more likely to be more literal.

Google translate is cool, in this case I simply found the passage and looked it up in my Skeptics Annotated. That has the tent in Isaiah 40:22 but all I've found about the dome so far is a reference to it being Genesis, in the NRSV. The SAB uses the word "firmament" instead of dome. Link here. (http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#solid sky)

So the pillars are strictly figurative then ? Well that pretty much skewers any discussion on science vs the Bible. Defaulting to "even thought that's what it says, that's not what they really meant" might do well in a bible interpretation discussion but falls rather flat in this context.

[Lord Emsworth]

A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse rather than a circle

So?


Since the verse is talking about God looking down at the eart it is more likely to mean spherical rather than projecting a primitive idea of a flat earth.

If God were looking down at a flat and circular earth, then ... hmmm.

As I said, your argument is useless.



Especially since the word used can mean spherical, like a ball, or globe.

Can it? I wouldn't know.

Either way it is most likely to be spherical rather than flat. When you take all of the skeptical interpretations of a Biblical flat earth they are obviously not to be taken literally. The skeptic has got it all backwards.

[David Henson]

Google translate is cool, in this case I simply found the passage and looked it up in my Skeptics Annotated. That has the tent in Isaiah 40:22 but all I've found about the dome so far is a reference to it being Genesis, in the NRSV. The SAB uses the word "firmament" instead of dome. Link here. (http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#solid sky)

So the pillars are strictly figurative then ? Well that pretty much skewers any discussion on science vs the Bible. Defaulting to "even thought that's what it says, that's not what they really meant" might do well in a bible interpretation discussion but falls rather flat in this context.

Yeah . . . hey, when you say "my Skeptics Annotated" you don't mean you have it on disc do you? If so could you check out the What the Bible says about Torture My response to it is here (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/torture.html) but when Steve read my response he took down the part about David's example of torture. I asked him not to but he did anyway.

I was wanting to see that if you could somehow post it from the disc. Just copy the text? Please, I would appreciate it.

[Lord Emsworth]

Which tent simile?

:confused: Isaiah 40:22.

Also, the skydome, is that the Dark Ages idea of a metal dome around the earth often pictured in Bible dictionaries etc. or is that a more modern scientific term for something, like, lets say - the Hebrew raqia / Greek Stereoma / Latin firmametntum but English expanse (rather than firmament)?

Either this, or that? How could I possibly decide? :(

No, seriously. I am not sure where the idea comes from that the skydome (in the Bible) is made of metal. I tend rather to think that it was thought to be crystalline, and not just in the "dark ages." (Incidentally - and ironically - there is the modern scientific creationist idea that raqia was a canopy made of ice that melted down during the flood! Or something.)

[Tricky]

The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. {snip}
Just as I predicted. Sophism and argument about what words "meant". Cannot you just accept the obvious, that they were ignorant people who did the best they could with limited input? They were wrong. No big deal. The only big deal is if you say they were writing down the word of God. Ignorant people have an excuse for being wrong. God doesn't.

You go right on ahead teaching the easily-manipulated children your theory as fact. That way, as with the Christians of old, your propaganda will be forgotten or highly mistrusted.
Science is always taught as "theory". In science there are no absolute "facts". There is evidence. Theories change as evidence is gathered. This may be glossed over at lower levels for theories which have overwhelming evidence, like gravity and evolution, but this is cleared up at the level that anyone makes a serious study of science. Nothing in science is immune to modification.

Real good thinking as always from the "free thinkers." That is, those who are free from thought.
Who are you talking about? If this is intended as an insult, then save it for somebody else. I don't know if you would call me a "free thinker" but I have considered both science and religion, and they each have something that people want, maybe need. But they live in completely different arenas. If you try to make them overlap, you'll be caught, again and again, in sophistry, redefining words, trying to interpret ancient texts, and outright contradictions. My advice is, don't do it. You are inviting scorn from, and contaminating both religion and science.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Reality is this. I posted information on four subjects which are often incorrectly used to determine or are given as examples of the Bible being unscientific. You have given nothing but opinion in response. ....Do you know what a straw man is by any chance?

[154]

Oh, Buddha Ha! ;)
. . . Job was quoted by Isaiah? Another fine example of the obviously superior reading comprehension of the skeptical. Moses wrote Job. Isaiah is another thing. Moses wrote about Job who said Jehovah was hanging the earth upon nothing and Isaiah said Jehovah was looking down on the circle of earth. Yep.
Do they care?
Nope.

[tsig]

In some context [looks around] is that supposed to make sense? Why does it need one? What is it?

Why does the universe need an explanation?

[I Am The Scum]

David, are you denying that Genesis 1:10 through 1:17 states that the earth was made first, then the sun was made?

[devnull]

David, your idea of the decimal point not existing is moot - the author could have quite easily said 10 cubits across and 31 cubits around, and have been almost there.

30 cubits is wrong, plain and simple, and betrays the lowly origins of the bible.

[154]

*** In breaking news... devnull defeats God...***

[devnull]

*** In breaking news... devnull defeats God...***

there's nothing to defeat. Just a bunch of delusions that remain in the minds of indoctrinated and somewhat mentally challenged people.

In breaking news, 154 defeats Santa!

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Again, that science doesn't agree with something doesn't necessarily mean that it is fable. Start a thread on these alleged fables and include in it a copy of the post in the Deluge thread which I am not going to search for but if you post the new thread as I suggest on fables, I promise I will answer it as soon as I see it.

Well, the post is IN the deluge thread, its still semi active, why not start with that?


That probably about 99% of Christians don't know this is exactly why I don't follow their example of reasoning. Also, our ancestors, specifically the Bible writers, never speculated on the age of our planet or the universe. There is no disagreement with science on the matter because the Bible didn't comment upon it either way.

Yet from your posts you seem fixed on a young earth hypothesis for which the only evidence is the geneaology mentioned in the bible


Okay. I hate all organized religion. I wish it were gone. Completely destroyed.

Why? Most organized religion is in actuality no more than a reason for a lot of people to hang out together and socialize. The few excesses commited in the name of any of the major religions pale in comparison to the untold millions going to church/mosque/temple/whatever and go through the motions.



Would you even think of considering that of science. Do you really think we need to compromise on this matter? Why don't you lose some of your science because it disagrees with the Bible and I'll give up some of what I think is the truth for your science?

The thing is. Scientific evidence is fallible, open to critique and tested. From the moment it is postulated onward. Each theory submitted is first tested by anyone disagreeing with it, then refined as needed with the new results and ends up being routinely tested by students and rigorously re-tested whenever a new technique shows up. Some of these, like newtons theory of gravity and motion stand the test of time, needing only corrections at the sub-atomic level. Some get discarded, Dalton's original theory on how atoms worked for instance.
Can you show me where the bible is open to similar methods?
Yes, there are creationist scientists out there trying to prove the accuracy of the bible, but so far their methods are unreproducible by anyone not working to their agenda. If they ever DO manage to actually prove it, then science will toss out things that disagree with the bible.



Do you really think that I have no more reason to believe what you offhandedly dismiss as more or less a primitive comic book? Don't patronize me.


I'm sure you have many reasons to believe and I never intended to patronize, so if it came over as that I apologize. However believing something yourself and proving it to others are two different things.





The letters that are literally true I desperately need to be recognized as such. The letters that are figurative, allegorical, illustrative, spurious, under consideration or misinterpreted I want to be recognized as such as well.

Make the new thread. Include the repost. I will answer.

Why would I make a different thread? I have no personal interest in going through the bible and trying to prove or disprove every little bit. I'm responding here because of the fact that you use partly understood bits of my area of expertise (biology and biochemistry) to say 'look the bible is right and science is out to lie to us' and since this is a discussion forum I try to show that maybe things are not as black and white as you seem think (at least that is how I interpret your posts).
I personally think that at least the entire chapter of genesis is a myth later written to partly show why the israelites are the greatest people on earth, the same as most creation myths explain why the people who listen to it are the best. The other part is to inspire fear of god with an if you don't listen to his priests he'll kill you all again message at its center.

[Zep]

Oh, Buddha . . . Job was quoted by Isaiah? Another fine example of the obviously superior reading comprehension of the skeptical. Moses wrote Job. Isaiah is another thing. Moses wrote about Job who said Jehovah was hanging the earth upon nothing and Isaiah said Jehovah was looking down on the circle of earth.

Pull yourself together, man!

The hare / hair pun was, admitedly, in poor taste.Another henson selfpwn. I did not say who wrote the text. I said who was speaking IN the text, whose words are being quoted. It was Job.

Others have already pointed out your failure to grasp the obvious of Jehovah's POV.

Pull your fingers out of your ears and other places and get an education in reading comprehension.

[Hokulele]

How exactly does one determine "down" relative to a sphere (says the Northern Hemisphere resident temporarily located in the Southern Hemisphere, who noted this evening that the crescent moon was upside down compared to the perspective she is used to seeing)? Looking "down" on a flat disk makes far more sense from a linguistic perspective.

[tsig]

A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse rather than a circle. Since the verse is talking about God looking down at the eart it is more likely to mean spherical rather than projecting a primitive idea of a flat earth. Especially since the word used can mean spherical, like a ball, or globe.

Either way it is most likely to be spherical rather than flat. When you take all of the skeptical interpretations of a Biblical flat earth they are obviously not to be taken literally. The skeptic has got it all backwards.


Seems odd that we have to make all these allowances for an all knowing god he is remarkably limited in his world view.

[TimCallahan]

. . . .

4) You say, ". . . I could show you the far more accurate archaelogical, and historical confirmation of things your science itself confirmed. . ."

Okay, so show me.

5) Again, you say, "I point out that while the nations around them were rubbing fecal matter in their wounds for healing . . . ."

Please give me your source for this specific bit of information, that people around the Israelites practiced rubbing fecal matter into their wounds.

6) Is this passage from the Bible scientifically correct (Ps. 19:4b - 6)?:

In them [i.e. the heavens] he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes forth like bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Since it's counterintuitive to see the the earth as turning, while the sun, relative to it, is standing still, this passage shows the sun running across the sky like a strong man. Does this mean that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all wrong?

David,

I realize you are waging a number o arguments with different people on this thread, hence the delay in getting to certain people. I've excised the portions of my previous post that have answered in posts addressed to others. What remains are points 4 through 6. So, if you could respond to them I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Complexity]

Henson is here to proselytize. That's all.

He describes himself as a student of 'the bible'. Not satisfied with wasting his own time, for that 'study' can't be described in any other way, he wants to waste our time as well.

Oh, well. He's amusing to some.

I would love to see the end of religion. No more religions, no more superstitious belief, no more evil religious institutions, no more willfully ignorant people, no more wasted and damaged lives.

[I Ratant]

David, your idea of the decimal point not existing is moot - the author could have quite easily said 10 cubits across and 31 cubits around, and have been almost there.

30 cubits is wrong, plain and simple, and betrays the lowly origins of the bible.
.
Talmud... 500 A.D...."that which in circumference is 3 hands broad is one hand broad".
Babylonians, 2000 B.C. the value is 3-1/8. (Fractions work where the decimal system is unknown).
Egyptians, 2000 B.C. the value is 3-1/6
Hindu, in the Aryabhatiya, 499 A.D. "Add 4 to 100, multiply by 8, and add 62,000. The result is approximately the circumference of a circle of which the diameter is 20.000". ... the value is 3.1416
Archimedes...287 B.C. Beginning with a hexagon and two circles, using the principle that a hexagon inscribed outside the circle can approach the circumference of the circle given enough sides, and a hexagon inscribed
inside a circle will approach the circumference, a polygon of 96 sides gave a value of 3-10/71 to 3-1/7... pi would be 3.14804 to 3.142858. (no decimal notation of course.
The local ignorance of the value of pi being used in the -same- neighborhood- can only be attributed to self-inflicted ignorance.

[Trent Wray]

Henson is here to proselytize. That's all.

He describes himself as a student of 'the bible'. Not satisfied with wasting his own time, for that 'study' can't be described in any other way, he wants to waste our time as well.

Oh, well. He's amusing to some.

I would love to see the end of religion. No more religions, no more superstitious belief, no more evil religious institutions, no more willfully ignorant people, no more wasted and damaged lives. Although I don't think religion has proved a beneficial "method" for examining the idea of a god(s), what would method would you suggest those people who have experiences which are not considered "evidence" (i.e. personal anecdotes, subjective circumstances, etc), yet are not satisfactorily explained by others for them, use?

Arguably, some cultures are not yet capable of using the scientific method in an efficient manner. And simply always referring to an Occam's Razor mentality doesn't seem to be our "default" way of thinking (take children, for example, who use imagination to fill in the gaps). And what about those individuals who want to consider and explore concepts that lie outside of "what we know" and speculate? As long as they are able to separate speculation from reality, I could see a "healthy imagination" being used. But then again ... what happens when something happens to them for which there is no satisfactory answer? Should they spend their time trying to remain blank and neutral on it until one is provided for them? If it's a very important matter to them, that is almost akin to living in a type of denial, yes? Plus, on certain subjective areas, like a person's fear of death or grief over a lost loved one .... you're asking a person to possibly accept a truth that they may not be ready to accept concerning death. Would the idea of an afterlife not benefit some people in helping them to cope? And if it would, what method would you suggest they use to explore the idea of an afterlife?

I just don't see it being that cut and dry. Although I don't agree with religion in general, I think it will "always have it's place" within people, if not outwardly. This is not a blanket statement, but people seem generally inclined to use imagination to understand something and there is always the risk of delusions taking the place for facts or even well thought out theories.

[Complexity]

Although I don't think religion has proved a beneficial "method" for examining the idea of a god(s), what would method would you suggest those people who have experiences which are not considered "evidence" (i.e. personal anecdotes, subjective circumstances, etc), yet are not satisfactorily explained by others for them, use?

...

I just don't see it being that cut and dry. Although I don't agree with religion in general, I think it will "always have it's place" within people, if not outwardly. This is not a blanket statement, but people seem generally inclined to use imagination to understand something and there is always the risk of delusions taking the place for facts or even well thought out theories.


Don't agree at all.

People aren't wired very well. The personal experiences that you mention should be enjoyed if possible, investigated scientifically if they are sufficiently worth pursuing, and discarded unless a scientific investigation indicates that there is something to them. In general, they aren't worth more than a moment's passing curiosity.

People are inclined to delusion. Some of us fight against this inclination. Others don't. Shame on them.

I understand that JREF is an educational foundation, but I've lost interest in attempting to persuade people of nearly anything. I enjoy many people here and enjoy sharing things that interest me with some of them. Religion isn't a fit topic for discussion.

If I could destroy religion, I would. Since I can't, I shall wish for its disappearance, mock its adherents, and try to counteract the immense damage that it causes.

[Ron Webb]

Henson is here to proselytize. That's all.

Well, I'm a newbie here, so maybe there's some history that I'm not aware of; but IMHO he is defending his position with as much logic and rationality as one could expect for an indefensible ideology. ;)

I think everyone should challenge their own beliefs by seeking out and debating others with different opinions. I've done it myself, so I know how difficult it can be. Good on you, David!

[I Ratant]

I expect most everyone imagines things, solutions to the unknowable, etc.
It's when the swifties come along to exploit these unknowables, and not discuss them rationally, but take advantage of the confusion of those seeking answers that is the problem.
We call those people priests, rabbis, shamans, sooth sayers, psychics, frauds and charlatans.
Rational discussions of death should lead to the idea that there can't be anything past death.
To do this and accept it means discarding all the indoctrination inflicted on us by the bleevers, which is difficult to do, with the common view that the majority can be right, especially when the conclusion is satisfying... "I am too special to just stop, when I die".

[154]

I expect most everyone imagines things, solutions to the unknowable, etc.
It's when the swifties come along to exploit these unknowables, and not discuss them rationally, but take advantage of the confusion of those seeking answers that is the problem.
We call those people priests, rabbis, shamans, sooth sayers, psychics, frauds and charlatans.
Rational discussions of death should lead to the idea that there can't be anything past death.
To do this and accept it means discarding all the indoctrination inflicted on us by the bleevers, which is difficult to do, with the common view that the majority can be right, especially when the conclusion is satisfying... "I am too special to just stop, when I die".But, strangely yet deliberately, you don't see years and years of almost complete lock-step indoctrination through media, culture and most institutions of education- from grade school through PhDH2SO4, as indoctrination. You are no rebel. You think exactly as they want you to, just like they do.

[John Jones]

PhDH2SO4

Say what?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oh, this is so classic atheist thinking! Thanks for the Laugh, Ron, you actually made me fall out of my chair laughing with literal tears.

Let me see if I got this right. If God were worthy of worship he would have instructed Hiram to measure something that needed to be measured in a way that no one would be able to comprehend for hudreds of years, thus proving his divinity to you, who are questioning my reading comprehension, correct?

Exactly. Because if the Bible was indeed written by an all-knowing Superior Intelligence, then it shouldn't matter what our intelligence was by the time it was written. That would in fact be a very good proof that the Bible wasn't written by humans, but by something else, an ulterior, superior, all-knowing force.

Otherwise, it was clearly written by humans, with their limited intelligence and their limited understanding of the world.

I'm glad you understood it.


If you are so smart write it so I can understand it. In the distant future?

[Falls out of chair again]

The point seems to fly over your head again :nope:

[David Henson]

Now this is the question I want to ask, specifically targeted at believers. Is it possible for the bible to point only to mankind ... our mind and attempts to understand and communicate our understandings, etc ...... without diminishing a believer's belief in god and their faith? And is it possible, that if there is a god ... the purpose of the bible isn't to point to him directly, but indirectly by pointing directly to us, revealing ourselves rather than "god".

I'm imagining a god that sees mankind sitting in a field and he throws a ball into the field. Eventually mankind starts playing with the ball, constructing a game ... and eventually the game turns too serious and violence breaks out.

Now, obviously the ball and the bible are synonymous in this scenario. But take away the concept of god completely ... and you are still left with a ball and violence and dissension breaking out over that ball.

So ultimately, practically, whatever .... what is the point of the ball/bible? No god, no truth, no lie, etc. Remove those ideas for a moment. What has the bible accomplished for the believer and the unbeliever.

I have to be honest with you, Trent. None of that makes any sense to me whatsoever. It went whooosh! right over my head.

Much to my surprise I discovered some time ago that many atheists believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life forms, usually more intelligent than us in order to have possibly discovering us. When I was a kid I read a book called UFO Abductions, and I thought to myself that it was possible. Only possible. But lets say that a man was abducted and he presented something like the Bible, which is only God's (alleged, for the atheists) word to man.

The alien told the man some things that only the alien might have known and said something terrible is going to happen next month and I'm going to have an armada to pick up as many of you as I can to get you out of here. Be at a certain place at a certain time. Most people are not going to believe the guy, even if it were true. Many crazy people would show up and many skeptical people wouldn't.

So, it could turn out that, in this hypothetical case, the crazy people would win and the others would loose. That isn't to say that one shouldn't study and be skeptical it just means that if God's word isn't enough for some people it isn't God's fault.

I doubt that that helps, but other than that I can't imagine what God's word could have accomplished for anyone. It has indirectly accomplished a great deal of good and a great deal of bad, but that comes from people. If you yell "FIRE!" in a burning building it is going to cause some bad stuff to happen but thats the way it goes.

[David Henson]

Exactly. Because if the Bible was indeed written by an all-knowing Superior Intelligence, then it shouldn't matter what our intelligence was by the time it was written. That would in fact be a very good proof that the Bible wasn't written by humans, but by something else, an ulterior, superior, all-knowing force.

Otherwise, it was clearly written by humans, with their limited intelligence and their limited understanding of the world.

I'm glad you understood it.

The point seems to fly over your head again :nope:

It didn't. I have heard it over and over again and it is just presumptuous and, to be honest, the idea is stupid.

Lets say God inspired Moses to begin to write the Pentateuch around 1513 B.C.E., which he did, and the message he wanted to convey to the people was that mankind would destroy himself in, just hypothetically, 5052 C.E. and God employed your method in determining divine inspiration and wrote it so that anyone in the year 5052 C.E. would understand it was advanced enough to be obviously inspired. There are two painfully obvious flaws here. 1. from 1513 B.C.E. to 5052 C.E. there would be a hell of a lot of people miss out on the message, which would negate God's purpose and 2. In order for the people in 5052 C.E. to be impressed God would have to go even further in the absence of a future which would mean nobody would get the message ever.

And this is your mortal prescription - no insistence! (or rather excuse against) divine testability?

Its a good thing you in your infinite wisdom are not God.

[David Henson]

But, strangely yet deliberately, you don't see years and years of almost complete lock-step indoctrination through media, culture and most institutions of education- from grade school through PhDH2SO4, as indoctrination. You are no rebel. You think exactly as they want you to, just like they do.

I like this guy!

[iknownothing]

Well, I'm a newbie here, so maybe there's some history that I'm not aware of; but IMHO he is defending his position with as much logic and rationality as one could expect for an indefensible ideology. ;)


Yeah, check out the "why I could never be an atheist" (something like that) thread to see the same poster ranting and cursing incoherently.

[David Henson]

Well, I'm a newbie here, so maybe there's some history that I'm not aware of; but IMHO he is defending his position with as much logic and rationality as one could expect for an indefensible ideology. ;)

I think everyone should challenge their own beliefs by seeking out and debating others with different opinions. I've done it myself, so I know how difficult it can be. Good on you, David!

Here! Here!

[John Jones]

There are two painfully obvious flaws here. 1. from 1513 B.C.E. to 5052 C.E. there would be a hell of a lot of people miss out on the message, which would negate God's purpose and 2. In order for the people in 5052 C.E. to be impressed God would have to go even further in the absence of a future which would mean nobody would get the message ever.

Strawman argument. Do you care why?

[David Henson]

Yeah, check out the "why I could never be an atheist" (something like that) thread to see the same poster ranting and cursing incoherently.

Yeah!

[David Henson]

Strawman argument. Do you care why?

Nope. Strawman is a term used by atheist when they don't have an argument. If you had an actual argument you would have provided it.

[David Henson]

Don't agree at all.

People aren't wired very well. The personal experiences that you mention should be enjoyed if possible, investigated scientifically if they are sufficiently worth pursuing, and discarded unless a scientific investigation indicates that there is something to them. In general, they aren't worth more than a moment's passing curiosity.

People are inclined to delusion. Some of us fight against this inclination. Others don't. Shame on them.

I understand that JREF is an educational foundation, but I've lost interest in attempting to persuade people of nearly anything. I enjoy many people here and enjoy sharing things that interest me with some of them. Religion isn't a fit topic for discussion.

If I could destroy religion, I would. Since I can't, I shall wish for its disappearance, mock its adherents, and try to counteract the immense damage that it causes.

I agree with everything you said here except for that I think it is pretty short sighted of you to think it necessary to discard anything that science can't investigate. Science isn't so far ahead of itself for that and it isn't science's responsibility to do so and I would hope that any real scientist wouldn't be so myopic.

[David Henson]

Why does the universe need an explanation?

I wasn't the one that said it did, I don't think that it does at all. I'm not interested in one, though, so . . .

[Mirrorglass]

Yeah, check out the "why I could never be an atheist" (something like that) thread to see the same poster ranting and cursing incoherently.

Yeah!

When checking out the thread, also notice how he stops answering questions after a while, runs away when shown to be wrong, and how since then he has refused to discuss the issue at all, let alone admit his error (which in this case was just about misunderstanding an English word, nothing biblical).

[David Henson]

David, are you denying that Genesis 1:10 through 1:17 states that the earth was made first, then the sun was made?

Yes I am. I did explain that in this thread in considerable detail. Somewhere. In my explanation of the Hebrew bara, Asah, ohr, and maohr.

[David Henson]

When checking out the thread, also notice how he stops answering questions after a while, runs away when shown to be wrong, and how since then he has refused to discuss the issue at all, let alone admit his error (which in this case was just about misunderstanding an English word, nothing biblical).

When I get bored I move on. There isn't anything that I can say that would make you think that I might be right even when we are talking about the Bible which you know almost nothing about as far as I can tell. If you do you are holding back on us.

What english word?

[John Jones]

Nope. Strawman is a term used by atheist when they don't have an argument. If you had an actual argument you would have provided it.


That's not all that a Strawman is. I asked before explaining because you don't seem to be interested in any serious discussion.

Glad we got that settled.

kthxbye

[Stout]

Yeah . . . hey, when you say "my Skeptics Annotated" you don't mean you have it on disc do you? If so could you check out the What the Bible says about Torture My response to it is here (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/torture.html) but when Steve read my response he took down the part about David's example of torture. I asked him not to but he did anyway.

I was wanting to see that if you could somehow post it from the disc. Just copy the text? Please, I would appreciate it.

Hi David

The "my" was just a figure of speech. I don't own a copy of the SAB on disc, in fact I was unaware that a CD even existed until I followed a link from your website. I had a look at your responses to torture i the bible, but unfortunately, my brain turned to mush reading your "refutations" and the idea of "that's what they said but it's not actually what they mean" reared it's head yet again and I was unable to continue.

[I Ratant]

But, strangely yet deliberately, you don't see years and years of almost complete lock-step indoctrination through media, culture and most institutions of education- from grade school through PhDH2SO4, as indoctrination. You are no rebel. You think exactly as they want you to, just like they do.
.
Shoot, I'll quote the whole thing!
Say what?:eek:

[Mirrorglass]

When I get bored I move on. There isn't anything that I can say that would make you think that I might be right even when we are talking about the Bible which you know almost nothing about as far as I can tell. If you do you are holding back on us.

Have I argued about anything biblical with you? I don't remember doing that, though I suppose I may have questioned a point of yours. But you're right; I only know somewhat more of the Bible than you do of science; that is, I've read it, and listened to people who know the subject better than I do. I do believe my views are less biased than yours, though.

What english word?

Atheism. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5835804&postcount=258)

[Brainache]

I have to be honest with you, Trent. None of that makes any sense to me whatsoever. It went whooosh! right over my head.

Much to my surprise I discovered some time ago that many atheists believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life forms, usually more intelligent than us in order to have possibly discovering us. When I was a kid I read a book called UFO Abductions, and I thought to myself that it was possible. Only possible. But lets say that a man was abducted and he presented something like the Bible, which is only God's (alleged, for the atheists) word to man.

The alien told the man some things that only the alien might have known and said something terrible is going to happen next month and I'm going to have an armada to pick up as many of you as I can to get you out of here. Be at a certain place at a certain time. Most people are not going to believe the guy, even if it were true. Many crazy people would show up and many skeptical people wouldn't.

So, it could turn out that, in this hypothetical case, the crazy people would win and the others would loose. That isn't to say that one shouldn't study and be skeptical it just means that if God's word isn't enough for some people it isn't God's fault.

I doubt that that helps, but other than that I can't imagine what God's word could have accomplished for anyone. It has indirectly accomplished a great deal of good and a great deal of bad, but that comes from people. If you yell "FIRE!" in a burning building it is going to cause some bad stuff to happen but thats the way it goes.

The problem with this is that the bible isn't the word of God, it is a work of men. Men trying to make sense of the world in a time of ignorance using metaphores and parables to teach about morality and such.

If you believe that God made the world, why are you looking for God in a book written by men? If you want to get to know the creator, I think you would do better to study His creation (ie the world).

Science is our modern way of studying the world. It is the best tool we have for that purpose.

People can make mistakes, but with science the rewards come when you correct those mistakes.

Theology requires an acceptance of dogma, science requires constant questioning of authority. The discipline of science is a constant struggle against our human tendency to fool ourselves, whereas faith requires us to accept things without evidence.

You seem to expect us to agree that faith is a useful way to gain knowledge, but really all it is is a path to self deception.

[Complexity]

I agree with everything you said here except for that I think it is pretty short sighted of you to think it necessary to discard anything that science can't investigate. Science isn't so far ahead of itself for that and it isn't science's responsibility to do so and I would hope that any real scientist wouldn't be so myopic.


Nonsense. You and I agree on very very little - nothing related to religion.

[Stout]

I just don't see it being that cut and dry. Although I don't agree with religion in general, I think it will "always have it's place" within people, if not outwardly. This is not a blanket statement, but people seem generally inclined to use imagination to understand something and there is always the risk of delusions taking the place for facts or even well thought out theories.

I completely agree. I'm not one of those angry atheists who was raised in a religious family. We were church once a month types and saying grace before dinner was a five second affair. I've just never understood the "need " to believe that there's some invisible guy in the sky who actually cares about what you do/say/think. It's comforting I suppose and embracing the idea of the immortal soul allows one to believe that they will, indeed, live forever.

[I Ratant]

Here! Here!
.
All that talk about knowledge of the ancient languages, including posting squiggles representing something, and the knowledge of the language of the forum comes from "Phonix is gud."

[Delvo]

David, your idea of the decimal point not existing is moot - the author could have quite easily said 10 cubits across and 31 cubits around, and have been almost there.

30 cubits is wrong, plain and simple, and betrays the lowly origins of the bible.It's not wrong. It's just rounded off to the nearest cubit. Anything from about 9.500000000000000000000000000001 to about 9.7084515286056154819019095657202 in diameter rounds off to 10 and yields a circumference between roughly 29.845130209103035765395112141158 and roughly 30.499999999999999999999999999999, which round off to 30.

And those numbers, having finite numbers of digits in them, are also only rounded off. But being rounded off somewhere does not equal being "wrong". It means that those a the perfectly correct numbers that you'd get in measuring the same object yourself, if you were only reporting in whole cubits, not fractions.

I know the Bible has a lot of nonsense in it, but this isn't an example of it. We should stick to examples of where it's just plain wrong and/or crazy, not merely imprecise... like when it says the area above the sky (outer space) is full of water.

you all have only increased my disinterest in science...I would get bored 5 minutes into it.You claim to have no interest in science, in a thread you started about science.

That's part of a pattern of yours. You similarly claimed that another thread you started was there for you to answer questions from us, and answered practically none of the questions we gave you in it. You also claim to hate religion and not want to convince anyone of yours, but trying to convince people of your religion is all you've done here.

Given your pattern of obviously lying about yourself and your own behaviors and motivations, you haven't given much of a reason why anybody should think that anything you say on any OTHER subject is true.

[Trent Wray]

I expect most everyone imagines things, solutions to the unknowable, etc.
It's when the swifties come along to exploit these unknowables, and not discuss them rationally, but take advantage of the confusion of those seeking answers that is the problem.
We call those people priests, rabbis, shamans, sooth sayers, psychics, frauds and charlatans.
Rational discussions of death should lead to the idea that there can't be anything past death.
To do this and accept it means discarding all the indoctrination inflicted on us by the bleevers, which is difficult to do, with the common view that the majority can be right, especially when the conclusion is satisfying... "I am too special to just stop, when I die".
Yes that's always an excellent point I think. We begin to imagine ourselves as being too special to just not die.

So how do we value another person as special (wife, gf, daughter, admired other) without "deifying them"? Practically, we can't deify everyone and make everyone "feel special" the same. At least I can't. I don't even want to. I have a handful of people I treat as "special" and more valuable than others, tbh. I think most everyone does.

So how do we add "balance" to this? To say "I won't teach life after death" isn't all that great, because it comes about naturally at times. For example, I will miss my wife immensely should she die. Seeing my grief, she might get it in her head to believe in life after death FOR ME, not for herself.
Don't agree at all.

People aren't wired very well. The personal experiences that you mention should be enjoyed if possible, investigated scientifically if they are sufficiently worth pursuing, and discarded unless a scientific investigation indicates that there is something to them. In general, they aren't worth more than a moment's passing curiosity.

People are inclined to delusion. Some of us fight against this inclination. Others don't. Shame on them.

I understand that JREF is an educational foundation, but I've lost interest in attempting to persuade people of nearly anything. I enjoy many people here and enjoy sharing things that interest me with some of them. Religion isn't a fit topic for discussion.

If I could destroy religion, I would. Since I can't, I shall wish for its disappearance, mock its adherents, and try to counteract the immense damage that it causes. Although I agree with some of what you've said, what I see written all over it is "believe like this. If you don't, you should experience shame and you will be discarded as I attempt to shame you should you get in my way."

Has this tactic been successful for you? Granted .... attempting to persuade people towards a certain type of thinking you value has not seemed to successful either. So is this the best alternative, or the only alternative do you think?

[ddt]

.
Talmud... 500 A.D...."that which in circumference is 3 hands broad is one hand broad".
Babylonians, 2000 B.C. the value is 3-1/8. (Fractions work where the decimal system is unknown).
Egyptians, 2000 B.C. the value is 3-1/6
Hindu, in the Aryabhatiya, 499 A.D. "Add 4 to 100, multiply by 8, and add 62,000. The result is approximately the circumference of a circle of which the diameter is 20.000". ... the value is 3.1416
Archimedes...287 B.C. Beginning with a hexagon and two circles, using the principle that a hexagon inscribed outside the circle can approach the circumference of the circle given enough sides, and a hexagon inscribed
inside a circle will approach the circumference, a polygon of 96 sides gave a value of 3-10/71 to 3-1/7... pi would be 3.14804 to 3.142858. (no decimal notation of course.
The local ignorance of the value of pi being used in the -same- neighborhood- can only be attributed to self-inflicted ignorance.

QFT. You said with much more eloquence and detail what I said in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5839406#post5839406). David has not responded (yet) - maybe he overlooked the posts?

[kerikiwi]

Why does he have to give them a choice? Why can't he just change them into beings he agrees with?

Or he could change himself into a being they agree with.

[ddt]

It's not wrong. It's just rounded off to the nearest cubit. Anything from about 9.500000000000000000000000000001 to about 9.7084515286056154819019095657202 in diameter rounds off to 10 and yields a circumference between roughly 29.845130209103035765395112141158 and roughly 30.499999999999999999999999999999, which round off to 30.

And those numbers, having finite numbers of digits in them, are also only rounded off. But being rounded off somewhere does not equal being "wrong". It means that those a the perfectly correct numbers that you'd get in measuring the same object yourself, if you were only reporting in whole cubits, not fractions.
You have a sound argument. That is, however, not the argument David made in his OP, and he apparently still defends. His argument is based on the premise that the diameter was exactly 10 cubits, not that that was a rounded figure.


I know the Bible has a lot of nonsense in it, but this isn't an example of it. We should stick to examples of where it's just plain wrong and/or crazy, not merely imprecise... like when it says the area above the sky (outer space) is full of water.
Oh yes, but David started by defending it with a totally tall story, the evidence for which is thinner than hearsay.

[I Am The Scum]

Yes I am. I did explain that in this thread in considerable detail. Somewhere. In my explanation of the Hebrew bara, Asah, ohr, and maohr.

You have not addressed 1:10. You addressed a previous passage. I'll paste it for convenience.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[David Henson]

Nonsense. You and I agree on very very little - nothing related to religion.

Does that frighten you terribly? The hilited portion of this quote from you I agree completely with. Generally I see very little in your comments worth any value aside from amusement, but that isn't the case here.

People aren't wired very well. The personal experiences that you mention should be enjoyed if possible, investigated scientifically if they are sufficiently worth pursuing, and discarded unless a scientific investigation indicates that there is something to them. In general, they aren't worth more than a moment's passing curiosity.

People are inclined to delusion. Some of us fight against this inclination. Others don't. Shame on them.

I understand that JREF is an educational foundation, but I've lost interest in attempting to persuade people of nearly anything. I enjoy many people here and enjoy sharing things that interest me with some of them. Religion isn't a fit topic for discussion.

If I could destroy religion, I would. Since I can't, I shall wish for its disappearance, mock its adherents, and try to counteract the immense damage that it causes.

[Mirrorglass]

Again, you use the wrong term, David. You believe in God; that is religion.

What you hate is organized religion, or at least organized religion that doesn't agree with you - which, of course, is most, if not all of it.

[Cavemonster]

Does that frighten you terribly? The hilited portion of this quote from you I agree completely with. Generally I see very little in your comments worth any value aside from amusement, but that isn't the case here.

The part of the first statement you left unhighlighted is essention to it's meaning.

The second statement was referring to your delusion. By excluding yourself, you were missing the point.

The third statement you may truly agree on.

In the fourth, Complexity is not merely referring to organized religion, but that which you would call "faith". Again you are included in the target for derision, and your lack of understanding that you fall in that category highlights that you do not indeed share Complexity's view.

[Complexity]

Although I agree with some of what you've said, what I see written all over it is "believe like this. If you don't, you should experience shame and you will be discarded as I attempt to shame you should you get in my way."

Has this tactic been successful for you? Granted .... attempting to persuade people towards a certain type of thinking you value has not seemed to successful either. So is this the best alternative, or the only alternative do you think?


Think of it as verbally slapping them in the face when they say inane things.

Has the tactic been successful? Yes. I want to point out to these people that I, for one, disagree with them, that I have contempt for their beliefs, and that I will not let their intellectual and moral travesty pass unchallenged. I think these messages are received if not understood or appreciated. In addition, it feels quite good on occasion.

I don't expect any change in beliefs or behavior. I don't expect them to begin to think better or to become ethical or moral people. I expect nothing from them at all.

[Complexity]

The part of the first statement you left unhighlighted is essention to it's meaning.

The second statement was referring to your delusion. By excluding yourself, you were missing the point.

The third statement you may truly agree on.

In the fourth, Complexity is not merely referring to organized religion, but that which you would call "faith". Again you are included in the target for derision, and your lack of understanding that you fall in that category highlights that you do not indeed share Complexity's view.


Thanks, Cavemonster.

I think he is also playing the game when he says that we agree in which he agrees that I think these things, not that both he and I think these things.

He fully understands that he is included in my scorn and derision in all regards.

[I Ratant]

QFT. You said with much more eloquence and detail what I said in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5839406#post5839406). David has not responded (yet) - maybe he overlooked the posts?
.
I have "The History of Pi" by petr beckmann close to hand. :)
The history of that number is worldwide, with just about everybody zeroing on on a value close to 3-1/7 long before anything was written for the Talmud.
Any wheelwright that was putting iron tires on chariot wheels would have to know pi or its close approximation, or come up short on a complete rim, using 3 as the number.
.
There's lots of coincidental history in the book also. The infidel symbols... zero and the decimal point were officially banned in Florence and Padua, with price lists in plain letters...Roman numerals, instead of ciphers.
The Maya numerical system was accurate enough to compute the length of the year within 5 minutes, and could have generated an accurate value for pi, had there been any need for it in that culture.

[David Henson]

Those weren't misinterpretations, that's what the bible actually says and you're trying to shoehorn some sort of explanation into the mix to try and say "this is what they meant."

Originally it was determined by the atheist here at the SAB discussion board and I think at the RRS, and I agreed that, these were not serious contradictions between science and the Bible. If the response here is any indication we were all wrong about that. I think you guys just like to disagree with me and each of my threads are always blown way out of proportion, but lets take a look.

Take the rabbit and cud chewing. Why is the poor little bunny rabbit singled out for it's own sentence ( Lev 11:6 ) when it's clearly covered under Lev 11:27 by virtue of it's having paws ?

It reads more like the hare was singled out specifically because it "chews it's cud" meriting it some sort of special mention for this trait. If anything, the eating of it's own poo should have earned it the unclean distinction because that's seriously more ewwwwww than cud chewing. Since when do hares have hooves ? Last time i checked a rabbit's foot, it did not, in any way resemble a hoof.

Only this is what you must not eat among the chewers of the cud and the splitters of the hoof: the camel, because it is a chewer of the cud but is no splitter of the hoof. It is unclean for you. Also the rock badger, because it is a chewer of the cud but does not split the hoof. It is unclean for you. Also the hare, because it is a chewer of the cud but it does not have the hoof split. It is unclean for you. Also the pig, because it is a splitter of the hoof and a former of a cleft in the hoof, but it itself does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat any of their flesh, and you must not touch their dead body. They are unclean for you.

As for any beast that is a splitter of the hoof but is not a former of a cleft and is not a chewer of the cud, they are unclean for you. Everyone touching them will be unclean. As for every creature going upon its paws among all the living creatures that go on all fours, they are unclean to you. Everyone touching their dead bodies will be unclean until the evening.

Only this sort you must not eat out of those that chew the cud or that split the hoof, cloven: the camel and the hare and the rock badger, because they are chewers of the cud but do not split the hoof. They are unclean for you. The pig also, because it is a splitter of the hoof but there is no cud. It is unclean for you. None of their flesh must you eat, and their carcasses you must not touch.

The pig and the rabbit are suceptible to parasitic infections if not well cooked. Back then that could have been a big problem.

Four legged insects ????? OK, now I'm confused. It's OK to eat the locusts because the bible says so ( Lev 11:22 ) but you go on to try and justify that these six legged insects may have been perceived to be four legged for reasons I can't fathom. What about the beetles mentioned in Lev 11:22 ? How do they merit special mention ?

Then we get to Lev 11:41-42 where we're told, basically, go vegetarian, making the preceding passages rather moot.

I don't see why you couldn't fathom the four legged insect concept, I explained it. It isn't reasononable to conclude that Moses didn't recognize the insects had 6 legs as I described them. It wouldn't take a scientist to determine that, a child could have done it. A primitive child even.

At Leviticus 11:22 some Bible translations like the extremely poor KJV render the Hebrew chargol as "beetle," most of which creeps rather than jumps, but scholars generally agree that it is actually a leaping insect, most generally translated as "cricket." Though sometimes "dropping locust" or "flying locust." Some translation even just transliterate the Hebrew term.

I don't know where you get the vegetarian thing, perhaps a translation issue? With all the responses I don't even have time to think so let me know.

Here is, in my opinion, the best translation, the NWT:

And every swarming creature that swarms upon the earth is a loathsome thing. It must not be eaten.*As for any creature that goes upon the belly and any creature that goes on all fours or any great number of feet of all the swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, you must not eat them, because they are a loathsome thing.

[Ron_Tomkins]

It didn't. I have heard it over and over again and it is just presumptuous and, to be honest, the idea is stupid.

Lets say God inspired Moses to begin to write the Pentateuch around 1513 B.C.E., which he did, and the message he wanted to convey to the people was that mankind would destroy himself in, just hypothetically, 5052 C.E. and God employed your method in determining divine inspiration and wrote it so that anyone in the year 5052 C.E. would understand it was advanced enough to be obviously inspired. There are two painfully obvious flaws here. 1. from 1513 B.C.E. to 5052 C.E. there would be a hell of a lot of people miss out on the message, which would negate God's purpose and 2. In order for the people in 5052 C.E. to be impressed God would have to go even further in the absence of a future which would mean nobody would get the message ever.

And this is your mortal prescription - no insistence! (or rather excuse against) divine testability?

Its a good thing you in your infinite wisdom are not God.

Now that you're done wasting my time writing a useless example that doesn't illustrate the point I'm trying to make, allow me to once again, illustrate it for you:

Lets say God writes in the Bible something like: My dear mortals, here are some major scientific discoveries that will be made, and here's the exact equations as they are to be followed. I know you do not understand them right now but in the future, as your civilization gains more skill and knowledge, you will. So please keep this book because you will need it and its information in the future.

This would be proof that the Bible was written by a Superior Intelligence. In the same way that if you're a student of anything, your teacher obviously knows more about you. I have had countless occasions where, say, I ask my music teacher something and he/she says "Yes, this goes like this and like this but at this moment you're not fully ready to understand this. But soon you will". Then, a couple years after, as I re-check that information, I realize that indeed, I was not ready at the moment.

It is because my teacher holds more knowledge than I, that we can safely assume that my teacher is intellectually superior to me (At least in the subject that he/she is teaching)

Likewise, if the Bible didn't simply reflect the knowledge of the humans at that time, it wouldn't be so blatantly obvious that it was written by such human intelligence, and not a Superior Intelligence.

[David Henson]

1)No, I'm not saying a priori that science must be right and the Bible wrong about everything. However, I'd like to see you point out to me one instance of the Bible saying something about the nature of the physical universe that contradicted science and yet turned out to be true.

Science? Science now or science 200 years ago? Science at the time of the Bible? The round earth, hanging upon nothing, the 4 points of the OP probably, the separation between light and dark mentioned in another post in this thread which science thought for hundreds of years later was a light and dark vapor, thy hygenic laws which medical science didn't practice until about 100 years ago, the hydrologic cycle . . .

2) As to the passage in the Bible that says specifically that the earth is a sphere, as opposed to a flat disc, please be specific (chapter and verse).

Since this post that has been covered. Isaiah 40:22.

3) As to the hilited area, please do me the courtesy of letting me speak for myself, rather than setting me up as a straw-man by telling me what my reaction would be.

I'll think about it. I was an atheist for a quater of a century. Everyone I know in is an atheist except one person. I have been doing this for 16 years and I have a pretty good idea on what you are going to say, if anything. So I'll think about it.

4) You say, ". . . I could show you the far more accurate archaelogical, and historical confirmation of things your science itself confirmed. . ."

Okay, so show me.

Bellshazzar, the destruction of the Northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 740 B.C.E., population explosion in Judah after the 10th century B.C.E., Pontius Pilate, Lysanias . . .

5) Again, you say, "I point out that while the nations around them were rubbing fecal matter in their wounds for healing . . . ."

Please give me your source for this specific bit of information, that people around the Israelites practiced rubbing fecal matter into their wounds.

History of Mankind, by J. Hawkes and Sir Leonard Woolley, 1963, Vol. I, p. 695

6) Is this passage from the Bible scientifically correct (Ps. 19:4b - 6)?:

In them [i.e. the heavens] he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes forth like bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Since it's counterintuitive to see the the earth as turning, while the sun, relative to it, is standing still, this passage shows the sun running across the sky like a strong man. Does this mean that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all wrong?

No.

[kerikiwi]

The pig and the rabbit are suceptible to parasitic infections if not well cooked. Back then that could have been a big problem.



You'd think god would have offered this as the reason, rather than chewing cud and splitting feet.

[Trent Wray]

Think of it as verbally slapping them in the face when they say inane things.

Has the tactic been successful? Yes. I want to point out to these people that I, for one, disagree with them, that I have contempt for their beliefs, and that I will not let their intellectual and moral travesty pass unchallenged. I think these messages are received if not understood or appreciated. In addition, it feels quite good on occasion.

I don't expect any change in beliefs or behavior. I don't expect them to begin to think better or to become ethical or moral people. I expect nothing from them at all. Okay, so I'm not judging you, just assuming you're cool with scorn, shame, verbal slapping, etc. Right? And sometimes it feels good. I can't argue with that LOL :)

So let me ask you one last thing (probably) .... do you see this as using somewhat of the same tactics as the "others" or the "opposition" .... and if so do you just not care? Again, I'm not judging. I'm trying to find out why it's fine in your eyes to "be that way." If it brings you peace, then cool, so long as you're aware of the possible consequences. And is this the ultimate technique to you, or do you think there is something different you will adopt in the future? Thanx for your honesty ...

[Cainkane1]

You'd think god would have offered this as the reason, rather than chewing cud and splitting feet.
Yes you do have to cook porn and rabbit throughly but you can also get many diseases from undercook kosher meat also. Anthrax anyone?

[kerikiwi]

Yes you do have to cook porn and rabbit throughly

:boggled:
Trying to think of the necessary ingredients for this dish...

[Robin]

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha -...
Er... if you read the text they would not have had to have a decimal place to have stated a more accurate measurement.
... and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."
Do you have a more precise cite for this? It does not sound right. If skilled workers used an inaccurate method for measuring the perimeter then it would make their work inordinately difficult - they could not plan for materials, their supporting structures would come out all wrong and so on.
The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation...
But isn't it funny how this "reason and research" throws up different, completely inconsistent answers?

The other popular excuse given is that a very precise value of Pi (for the time) is encoded into the particular version of the Hebrew word for "perimeter" used in the text.

Presumably you don't accept that reasoning.

[I Ratant]

:boggled:
Trying to think of the necessary ingredients for this dish {porn and rabbit}...
.
I recall the Ayatollah Khomeni was said to have observed that sex with pigeons, rather than with lionesses was recommended.
Rabbits instead of pigeons would be OK also.
It could be worth observing that rabbits don't chew the cud.
But what do biologists know?
.

"The alimentary canal of ruminants, such as cattle, goats, sheep, alpacas and antelope, is unable to produce the enzymes required to break down the cellulose and hemicellulose of plant matter. Accordingly, these animals have developed a symbiotic relationship with a wide range of microbes, which largely reside in the reticulorumen, and which are able to synthesize the requisite enzymes. The reticulorumen thus hosts a microbial fermentation which yields products (mainly volatile fatty acids and microbial protein), which the ruminant is able to digest and absorb. This allows digestion of less edible plants."
.
Brings up the herbivorous (prior to the Fall) lions and tigers and bears oh my! which lack the specialized gut of the practising herbivore.
"Lying down with the lamb" would benefit the lion.
The lamb, not so much.
Yum yum!

[ddt]

Er... if you read the text they would not have had to have a decimal place to have stated a more accurate measurement.
And nobody would have argued with that. But David's position is that the diameter of the thing is precisely 10 cubits, and the artisans on the day used some weird measurement technique (which you, and I_Ratant have nicely debunked).

Of course, it's improbable we'll ever resolve that question. It's highly questionable in the first place that Solomon's temple existed in the first place. Archeology has given no evidence of that, and all points to Jerusalem being merely a village in those days.

[I Ratant]

Er... if you read the text they would not have had to have a decimal place to have stated a more accurate measurement.

Do you have a more precise cite for this? It does not sound right. If skilled workers used an inaccurate method for measuring the perimeter then it would make their work inordinately difficult - they could not plan for materials, their supporting structures would come out all wrong and so on.

But isn't it funny how this "reason and research" throws up different, completely inconsistent answers?

The other popular excuse given is that a very precise value of Pi (for the time) is encoded into the particular version of the Hebrew word for "perimeter" used in the text.

Presumably you don't accept that reasoning.
.
As it would be death to mention that 1/7 bit needed to complete the circle, the practical worker wouldn't mention it where any of the religious police could hear.

[Complexity]

Trent Wray - I live in a world in which the majority of people are insane. They control the governments, militaries, and most other institutions. These religious and other superstitious people have no moral or ethical qualms about using the government to coerse those not of their beliefs.

I've taught, argued with, tried to persuade, and finally tried to ignore people who insist upon intruding into my life and trying to control what I do, say, and think.

I'm tired. When these people post their garbage on the forums of my community, the most they'll get from me, and the most I think they deserve, is a growl and a swipe.

Others will react as they wish - I have no problem with that.

I work alone on other, real-world responses, mostly writing. Whether any will bear fruit is uncertain. Do any have a chance at being effective? Not on anyone past childhood, I'm afraid.

I hate what they've done to the world.

[Complexity]

:boggled:
Trying to think of the necessary ingredients for this dish...


Meat, I'm happy to say.

[David Henson]

You'd think god would have offered this as the reason, rather than chewing cud and splitting feet.

You would be wrong.

[Trent Wray]

Trent Wray - I live in a world in which the majority of people are insane. They control the governments, militaries, and most other institutions. These religious and other superstitious people have no moral or ethical qualms about using the government to coerse those not of their beliefs.

I've taught, argued with, tried to persuade, and finally tried to ignore people who insist upon intruding into my life and trying to control what I do, say, and think.

I'm tired. When these people post their garbage on the forums of my community, the most they'll get from me, and the most I think they deserve, is a growl and a swipe.

Others will react as they wish - I have no problem with that.

I work alone on other, real-world responses, mostly writing. Whether any will bear fruit is uncertain. Do any have a chance at being effective? Not on anyone past childhood, I'm afraid.

I hate what they've done to the world. Hmm .... I live in that same world.

Hatred is a tough dilemma, if it even is a negative dilemma. It's tough when a person stares into that abyss hoping to combat it, and it looks back at them and overtakes them on some level. Unless of course, the person enjoys it and has embraced it willingly.

I'm immediately reminded of the dual between Vader and Anakin, unfortunately. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm reminded of the Comedian of the Watchmen.

And then there are all the other "mere mortals" caught in-between the fighting. Hmm ......

Is society supposed to "make the man"? Or is the man supposed to make the society? Or neither?

ETA: Complexity ---- if I want to open up a thread on "hatred", can I use your post?

[kerikiwi]

You would be wrong.

No, I would be right.

[David Henson]

Isaiah 40:22 Probably more accurately rendered as the circle of the earth visible to the horizon, or those lands around where you dwell. No inference of sphericity explicit or implied.

You might want to compare a bunch of translations on that, the original language. Odd, really, the skeptic isn't very thorough in their criticism. As I pointed out a careful examination of the original language does suggest sphericity. The circle of the earth visible to the horizon doesn't apply if he is above the earth looking down or even from your poor choice of translation is sitting or enthroned on the thing, does it?

[Brainache]

No, I would be right.

Ahhh but you see, the bible doesn't say it, therefore in David's world, God couldn't have said it.

His faith put limits on God. His faith keeps his God trapped inside a book and closes his eyes to the wonders of creation as revealed by careful examination and experimentation. His faith relies on the halucinations of ancient mystics for all its relevant information.

It is really quite sad to see a world view so wrapped up in ignorance.

[Complexity]

ETA: Complexity ---- if I want to open up a thread on "hatred", can I use your post?


Use that post if you wish. If so, I'd appreciate your using the rest of this one as well.

Although it often seems otherwise, I'm not sure I really hate anyone.

I don't think there is such a thing as free will. There is no mind apart from brain and there is no mechanism through which an incorporeal and supernatural mind (if it did exist) could interact with a brain. I don't think that anyone is responsible for their actions.

Our lack of free will doesn't mean that our behavior can't be changed. While I intellectually understand that there is no free will, I am as human as the rest of us and react emotionally in my interactions with others as though there is free will. Our interactions affect behavior.

I hate what the superstitious (and, yes, that does include all of the religious and spiritual, organized or not) have done to the world.

Sometimes I hate these and other people as individuals or as groups. I periodically realize that they aren't in control of, and are not responsible for, their beliefs and behavior. Even when I realize this, I don't want to spend my time being proselytized or condemned to 'hell' by them.

Several of my best friends are religious. We avoid discussions of religion and treat each other with respect. I don't respect their religious beliefs - I respect them. I think of them as having religion tapeworms in their brains (nasty religion and superstition meme clusters, to be more accurate) and readily acknowledge that I'm at least as screwed up, though in different ways, as they are.

I am content to let people be if they behave in the same way. When they insist on intruding on or injuring others or myself, I will strike back.

[Robin]

... and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."
David Henson - could I reiterate the request for details of this cite. I can't find Christian Wordsworth as an author anywhere and I cannot find who "Rennie" refers to. Presumably he or she is an historian.

[Hokulele]

You might want to compare a bunch of translations on that, the original language. Odd, really, the skeptic isn't very thorough in their criticism. As I pointed out a careful examination of the original language does suggest sphericity. The circle of the earth visible to the horizon doesn't apply if he is above the earth looking down or even from your poor choice of translation is sitting or enthroned on the thing, does it?


Which way is "up" relative to a sphere? "Up" relative to a disk is easy.

[Robin]

You might want to compare a bunch of translations on that, the original language. Odd, really, the skeptic isn't very thorough in their criticism. As I pointed out a careful examination of the original language does suggest sphericity. The circle of the earth visible to the horizon doesn't apply if he is above the earth looking down or even from your poor choice of translation is sitting or enthroned on the thing, does it?
If he is "above" the earth then he just has a wider horizon.

But I am interested in which word or words in the original suggest sphericity in any way.

The word chug implies circle, horizon or vault. And one usually spreads a tent on a flat surface.

How can you pitch a tent so that it encompasses everyone on a sphere?

[154]

Trent Wray - I live in a world in which the majority of people are insane. They control the governments, militaries, and most other institutions. These religious and other superstitious people have no moral or ethical qualms about using the government to coerse those not of their beliefs.

I've taught, argued with, tried to persuade, and finally tried to ignore people who insist upon intruding into my life and trying to control what I do, say, and think.

I'm tired. When these people post their garbage on the forums of my community, the most they'll get from me, and the most I think they deserve, is a growl and a swipe.

Others will react as they wish - I have no problem with that.

I work alone on other, real-world responses, mostly writing. Whether any will bear fruit is uncertain. Do any have a chance at being effective? Not on anyone past childhood, I'm afraid.

I hate what they've done to the world.Right-wingnut fundamentalist, extremist, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Bible-believing Christians rule this world?

[David Henson]

According to the Bible, it was really talking: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1)

I really like this post, Mr. Webb, it shows that you are not only willing to closely examine what I'm saying but more importantly what the Bible is saying before you criticize. You don't seem to be carelessly interpreting it in a thoughtless manner based only upon your preconceived notions. Very well done.

Not according to the Bible: "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!'" (Genesis 3:14)

Did you notice, though, that the snake was to be cursed to crawl on his belly? How do you think he must have got around before the curse?

Consider this. The serpent was used by the angel who was meant to be protecting the garden as a tool to communicate to Eve. A similar example of this is Balaam's ass. Peter said of Balaam's ass, at 2 Peter 2:16 - "A voiceless beast of burden, making utterance with the voice of a man, hindered the prophet’s mad course."

Balaam's Ass, at Numbers 22:26-31 - "Jehovah’s angel now passed by again and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside to the right or the left. When the ass got to see Jehovah’s angel she now lay down under Balaam; so that Balaam’s anger blazed, and he kept beating the ass with his staff. Finally Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass and she said to Balaam: “What have I done to you so that you have beaten me these three times?” At this Balaam said to the ass: “It is because you have dealt ruthlessly with me. If only there were a sword in my hand, for now I should have killed you!” Then the she-ass said to Balaam: “Am I not your she-ass that you have ridden upon all your life long until this day? Have I ever been used to do to you this way?” To which he said: “No!” And Jehovah proceeded to uncover Balaam’s eyes, so that he saw Jehovah’s angel stationed in the road with his drawn sword in his hand. At once he bowed low and prostrated himself on his face."

Now consider what Satan is referred to throughout the Bible. At John 8:44 he is called the father of the lie. Not the actual serpent who was used as a tool by the rebellious angel, but Satan. At Revelation 20:2 he is called "the original serpent."

The Bible is quite clear about this. It tells of a talking serpent, who is cursed for his misdeeds. There is no mention of the serpent being used as a puppet, and if so, it would make no sense to curse the serpent "above all the livestock and all the wild animals".

My experience with skeptics are that they want a literal reading almost all the time. If they King James Version of Genesis 3:14 says the serpent is cursed above all the animals then that is what it must mean, but what do you think about idea that Satan used the serpent as I suggested and so Jehovah cursed him in a way that reflects the manner in which Satan did it. If you consider the above where I mentioned the serpent's crawling on his belly being redundant then Satan's curse would be a figurative debasement.

Consider 2 Peter 2:4 where the Greek word tartarus is used. It means the lowest place. Angels are considered higher than us. But tartarus is a condition of debasement where rebellious angels in heaven are, in a figurative sense, imprisoned in a condition of lowly status.

Romans 16:20 - "For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. May the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus be with you." (Also see Ephesians 6:12 / 1 Peter 3:19)

In short, if you believe in the Bible as literal truth, then you have to believe in a talking snake.

We were doing so well . . .

Of course, you could argue that the snake bit is just an allegory and not to be taken literally, but then how can you know that the rest of the Bible (e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection) is any more reliable?

The same way I just showed you that you were wrong. Then we would have to move on to Genesis 3:15, which most people don't know is the first Biblical prophecy of Jesus Christ. The seed of the serpent, Satan's seed. The seed of the Woman. Satan would bruise the heel of the Messiah. That is the death of Christ. A minor wound for someone resurrected. But Christ would bruise Satan in the head. A lethal blow. Destruction.

[Complexity]

Right-wingnut fundamentalist, extremist, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Bible-believing Christians rule this world?


With their muslim, witchdoctor, new-age, astrology lover, homeopath, voodoo, religious jew, lottery player, religious buddhist, tarot reader, ancestor worshipper, and otherwise ignorant and superstitious brethren.

I did, by the way, enjoy the way you just described yourself. Your badge. Wear it with pride.

[kerikiwi]

is the first Bilical prophecy of Jesus Christ.

Is this prophecy literal?

[Complexity]

Is this prophecy literal?


It can be if you'd like it to be.

[Robin]

... and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."
David Henson - could I reiterate the request for details of this cite. I can't find Christian Wordsworth as an author anywhere and I cannot find who "Rennie" refers to. Presumably he or she is an historian.
Hey, come on - how long can it take you provide details of this cite?

Do you have a book title/publisher? Or a journal reference? Or a URL? That is all I need to follow this up.

[Complexity]

Hey, come on - how long can it take you provide details of this cite?

Do you have a book title/publisher? Or a journal reference? Or a URL? That is all I need to follow this up.


Please be patient - he's making it up as quickly as he can.

[154]

With their muslim, witchdoctor, new-age, astrology lover, homeopath, voodoo, religious jew, lottery player, religious buddhist, tarot reader, ancestor worshipper, and otherwise ignorant and superstitious brethren.

I did, by the way, enjoy the way you just described yourself. Your badge. Wear it with pride.

As you know, that descriptive list of attempted and intended denigration is yours and dismisses your point.

Not of this world, Complexity, Not Of This World. Called out of this world and just briefly passing through.

[Robin]

Then we would have to move on to Genesis 3:15, which most people don't know agree is the first Biblical prophecy of Jesus Christ. The seed of the serpent, Satan's seed.
Fixed it

[David Henson]

Right-wingnut fundamentalist, extremist, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Bible-believing Christians rule this world?

Do they not? The Bible calls them Babylon the Great. Whore. To be destroyed. Did you know that most of modern day nationalistic Christendom got their primary teachings, not from the Bible, but from ancient Babylon. They were introduced gradually through others like Constantine, but they originated in ancient Babylon.

[David Henson]

Fixed it

Yes. That is better. Tell me Robin, what is your - uh - Religious (for a lack of a better word) background, if I may be so bold?

[154]

Do they not? The Bible calls them Babylon the Great. Whore. To be destroyed. Did you know that most of modern day nationalistic Christendom got their primary teachings, not from the Bible, but from ancient Babylon. They were introduced gradually through others like Constantine, but they originated in ancient Babylon.And they are not of Jesus Christ and He will tell them that.

[Brainache]

Do they not? The Bible calls them Babylon the Great. Whore. To be destroyed. Did you know that most of modern day nationalistic Christendom got their primary teachings, not from the Bible, but from ancient Babylon. They were introduced gradually through others like Constantine, but they originated in ancient Babylon.

Like all those stories in the old testament?

[Trent Wray]

Use that post if you wish. If so, I'd appreciate your using the rest of this one as well.That's cool .... and I'll include both post if I open up a thread. Thanx :)

[Brainache]

And they are not of Jesus Christ and He will tell them that.

When? He has had plenty of chances so far, but the fundies just keep growing and spreading like cancer.