• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

10 laughably erroneous claims of the bible

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
The earth is described both as a circle and a four-cornered shape, both with edges, immobile, resting on pillars, the sun and stars embedded in a solid, hemispheric firmament circling under it to rise again, as well as separating the waters and heavens above it from the earth below. This is one of several similar renderings of biblical cosmology

35607_dcc2173ab7c9a0c6e19caee9daf811c7.jpeg



Why do you suppose that the pictures shown at the link above all look more or less like the above if this is not what the artists drawing them understand the scripture to be saying?

Consider Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.

That's not possible with a spherical earth, but it is with a flat earth as depicted above.

And there is all of this:
  • Isaiah 11:12 - And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
  • Job 38:13 - That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
  • Jeremiah 16:19 - O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
  • Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH
  • Isaiah 40:22 - He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.
This was believed literally because it was once believable. The earth seems flat, fixed, and immobile, and centered within the sphere of heavenly bodies orbiting it.



You're not guessing? Why can't it be you that is confused?

I say that the biblical cosmology described above was taught as if it were fact until it was learned that it is wrong, and is now being claimed to be a metaphor, because most believers simply do not allow themselves to see error in scripture. I say that this take is much more likely to be the case than implying that they knew their model was wrong, but presented it anyway.

When a person uses a metaphor, he knows what the metaphor stands for. @The Reverend Bob 's link gave "her lips are a blooming rose" as an example of a metaphor. The blooming rose stands for her lips, and clearly, the author knows that.

What is this cosmology a metaphor for? The truth? If so, how does that differ from an error, which is the word for a story not thought to stand for anythinng, but rather, is thought to be true, yet is incorrect?



Then that makes them useless as prophecies, doesn't it? What is the purpose or value of a prophecy? In the Bible, they're intended to be evidence of divine prescience and divine authorship of the prophecy. If they're mere poetry, they can't accomplish that goal when critical thinking is employed.

Another use for a prophecy is to provide useful information in advance of an event, such as a forecast of rain that warns you to take an umbrella, but biblical prophecy is never this. It is not useful to forecast any specific event at any specific time. Look at all the people giving away their worldly possessions based on some specific date and time assigned to a biblical prophecy.

For a prophecy to be convincing that it represents knowledge not normally available to any human, it must be what is called high-quality prophecy,

[a] High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified.

It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed.

[c] High quality prophecy must be accurate and unaccompanied by failed prophecies

[d] The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely.

Biblical prophecy doesn't rise to this standard. It is no better than what palm readers, spiritual mediums, and professional psychics do - what they call cold readings: "I see somebody whose name begins with A, and she is near water." "That must be Aunt Esther, who loved to water her garden." It's a verbal Rorschach test, and demonstrates no superhuman quality.

Here's what you need to be convincing. It's fiction - from a movie some years back called Frequency, in which Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts his father from his father's future by ham radio. To convince his father that he, the son, really is calling his father from his father's future - from 1998 back to 1969 - the son discusses the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series, which the father is watching live in 1969 on TV in a local pub

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watches it happen on TV. Once tricks like a tape delay and replay of an already finished game are ruled out, that's convincing, unlike vague, poetic scriptural predictions.



Perfect example of a vague passage neither useful for anything and not persuasive. Compare it to the Frequency excerpt.



Faith is the willingness to believe with insufficient supporting evidence, or what I just called guessing. It's a logical error. With reason, 2 + 2 only equals 4. This is what faith does to reason:
  • “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
That's a very poor way to think.



That's also a logical error. It may be true, but you have unjustifiably eliminated other logical possibilities. By reason, we understand that we do not know if gods exist. Our list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe should have a naturalistic option.



Less than a rarity. Impossibility. This is one of the unkept promises of Christianity, like Jesus returning before the present generation dies off. I assure you that this is false.



That's too simple an assessment. The words were probably believed when written - so they're not lies, just wrong and therefore not useful.



Is that a bad thing to you? Faith is also what the believers at Jonestown and Waco had. That's a bad thing to me.



Reason is mine. I can't find a use for faith.



Yeah, we see that one a lot as well as metaphor. But my answer is the same to the apologist calling mythology allegory. Allegory of what? Calling a myth an allegory presumes that its writers knew that no such thing had happened and that they were creating an account with a hidden meaning - perhaps political or moral.

As you undoubtedly know, Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.

"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story are not allegories or metaphors, which require that their source understands what the elements in the story actually stand for.

I'd like to respond to your statements but I fear I would just be redundantly repeating my posts.
And I have a hard time focusing what I should tackle since I am lost in a forest of words from Dennis Quaid to Gulliver's Travels.
So please one at a time, then I would dance with you.
But for now...

source.gif
 

Maximilian

Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.
Passive aggressive attacks will get you nowhere, particularly as a ploy to save face and get out of the little corner you've been backed into.

Hopefully, next time our exchange will be less disturbing. :shrug:

.


It is a sincere question since it would give me context :)

But you don't have to answer if you're not comfortable discussing your ASD.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
But you don't have to answer if you're not comfortable discussing your ASD.

It has not been established that he has ASD.

But interesting strategy you got there: Insult and attack your opposition at every opportunity. That'll be super convincing i'm sure.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
No doubt some felt that way but don't forget to consider that the choice was down to two deplorables; Hillary and Trump. Obviously many felt Trump was the less deplorable. The best thing he'll have ever done for this nation is destroyed the Hillary corruption machine. Now if only he'd drop dead or resign, we could all be happy. :)
I was/am not a big Hillary fan, but her level of corruption did not seem to involve national security for the sake of some hotel deals, purposeful politically motivated destruction of our institutions (e.g., gutting the EPA, taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies , etc. ), so call apples and oranges on that, but yes, a new crop of less corrupt, less extreme, less vile politicians would be nice.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Not everybody thinks the Bible/Tanach was written by infallible omniscient beings.

If you do I can understand your disappointment.
I don't think it was written by such a being, I know it was written by numerologists and mystics in the ancient middle east. But many - many on this forum - seem to believe that the tales in the bible are the handiwork of those "inspired" by, or even dictated by, those folks.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
I was/am not a big Hillary fan, but her level of corruption did not seem to involve national security for the sake of some hotel deals, purposeful politically motivated destruction of our institutions (e.g., gutting the EPA, taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies , etc. ), so call apples and oranges on that, but yes, a new crop of less corrupt, less extreme, less vile politicians would be nice.
They're both corrupt but Hillary was a very sophisticated corrupt politician who wielded a lot more power in DC than her office gave her. There were a lot of Democrat leaders happy to see her gone. In comparison, Trump is, to paraphrase Rex Tillerson, a Fracking Moron. He's an inept corrupt politician. Which one is the bigger danger?

Yes, less corrupt, less extreme, less vile politicians would be nice.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'd like to respond to your statements but I fear I would just be redundantly repeating my posts.

You're probably correct. Your responses to me very well might be unaffected by what was written to you. Mine to you will always address the points you made, and will reflect that I read and understood your words. I will also tell which parts of your comment I disagree with and why. You may presume that if I don't address any given point, that I agree with it.

And I have a hard time focusing what I should tackle since I am lost in a forest of words from Dennis Quaid to Gulliver's Travels. So please one at a time, then I would dance with you.

That's alright. Your participation isn't required. I've made my arguments. If you have no rebuttal to them, then you don't.

But you should understand that you are judged by academic debate standards.. Two dissenting parties make a case before third parties, who judge which side has prevailed based on who made the last feasible and uncontested or inadequately contested argument. Failing to effectively rebut a cogent argument is understood as a concession.

You are always welcome to take up where you dropped the ball in the past, but until you do, the matter is settled in the eyes of those who judge debating by the standards such as those used in a court of law. The last feasible argument that goes unrebutted or is unsuccessfully rebutted prevails. In a formal debate such as a political candidates' debate, the audience doesn't vote, but in court, the jury does when it gives its verdict. And they are expected to use the standards just proposed.

If the defense attorney makes a claim of innocence, the prosecutor successfully rebuts the defense - perhaps by discrediting the alibi - and presents compelling evidence and argument in support of guilt, the defense must successfully rebut the prosecutor's argument. If instead, the defense ignores all of that - maybe calls it a wall of words and indicates that the defense was overwhelmed and simply repeats what it said before unchanged as you suggested you would do, the defendant is likely to lose his case and go to prison.

If I may ask, do you have ASD?

You too. You're also free to belly up, but you will be judged by the same standard when you do. I wasn't expecting much more from you than this, anyway - passive-aggressive personal attacks instead of a defense of your faith-based position that calling pi 3 wasn't simply an error made by primitives that didn't understand where the stars go in the daytime.

Wouldn't one of the symptoms of ASD be the mindless and inappropriate repetition of memes such as, "do you have ASD"? How many times have we read that from you now? I've seen it three times recently. You seem to be stuck in a verbal loop, a condition psychiatrists call perseveration, which is sometimes indicative of brain disease including organic encephalopathies.

If I may ask, and I do so as a retired physician with decades of experience identifying and in some cases treating mental conditions, have you ever been hospitalized for a psychiatric condition or been placed on psychoactive pharmaceuticals? I need context to understand your verbal fixation, which can be indicative of brain disease. You may want to get an MRI.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
We can dream, I suppose.
It's a matter of voting. There's a reason why the Independents are larger as a group than either party; they feel neither party represents their interests anymore. I was a Republican for almost 4 decades before becoming a Libertarian-leaning Independent.

Please vote, but the best power a voter has to destabilize the status quo is to always vote against the incumbent unless they truly are the type of person who should be in office. Their party doesn't matter. I'll be voting against Trump in 2020. The only question for me is whether it will be for a Democrat or a Libertarian.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
The creation of the firmament is associated with the placement of some sort of structure, and in some modern Bibles many modern scholars translate the Hebrew word raqia as a "dome" or "vault". The Hebrew language appears to imply that the firmament is a firm, fixed structure (FIRMament, which can now be seen as the spherical cloud of comets (Icy vault) in which our solar system was created from the solar nebula cloud (WATERS) that was divided from the greater galactic nebula cloud (WATERS).

"And God said, “Let there be lights within the firmament or vault to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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."

(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV) This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars=planets of our solar system, are "within" the firmament. Therefore, the waters that are "above the firmament=dome/vault" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars=planets of our solar system, revealing that the waters which are referred to in Psalms 148:4; "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens," belong to the greater galactic nebula cloud which has become our Milky Way Galaxy.

The Oort cloud, or the Opik-Oort cloud, which is named after Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud that surrounds our solar system, a cloud of predominantly icy objects such as comets that are comprised of mainly hydrogen, oxygen=water, ammonia and methane, and extends up to about a light year from the sun and defines the cosmographical boundary of our Solar System and the region of the suns gravitational dominance. Here is the Firmament, the great spherical vault within which is found the sun, moons and planets of our solar system, the dome of ice above us.

Meteorites are called shooting STARS, The Evening STAR can be any planet that crosses the local meridian before mid-night, especially Mercury or Venus when either is prominent in the west shortly after sunset, Likewise the Morning STAR is a planet of our Solar System.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I read the link. Where is the earliest manuscript of the alleged Jewish Revelation ?

All the linguistic and symbol detective work is subjective and pure supposition.

You cannot tell me something exists and expect me to just say OK.

There are numerous Biblical scholars who would take issue with the opinions in your link.

So, the request is simple, if this alleged Jewish Revelation exists, it was written down. If it was written, the manuscript must exist. If the manuscript exists, the earliest copy or scrap of a copy can be dated.

What is itś date ?

If on the other hand, as I suspect, the idea is purely opinions based upon extrapolation from the Christian text, I can only say pfui ! There are billions of opinions based upon all kinds of things, they aren´t facts,


Revelation of John, the original Jewish version. Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship
[/QUOTE]

Did you even read it?
 

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
The Bible contains numerous scientific errors, including (but of course not limited to) the following:

1. It says the earth is flat:

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

2. It says that the earth rests upon pillars:

1 Samuel 2:8 "..for the pillars of the Earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them...."

Job 9:6 "...and the pillars thereof tremble..."
Psalm 75:3 "...I bear up the pillars of it ..."

3. It claims that the sky is a solid firmament and that water is above it:

Genesis 1:6 "....and God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the
waters from the waters."

4. It claims the stars are small enough to fall to the earth without destroying the earth:

Revelation 6:13: "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind."

Revelation 8:10:
"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;"

5. It claims that the earth does not move:

Pslam 96:10 "...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved."

6. It claims that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than the other way around:

Psalm 19:6: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth."

7. It claims that insects have four legs:

Leviticus 11:20-23: "All flying insects
that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

8. It claims that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, when in fact, the orchid seed, among others, are smaller than the mustard seed:

Matthew 13:32:1 "Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

9. It claims that ants have no rulers, when in fact, ant colonies have a hierarchical structure with a queen (ruler) and worker ants:

Proverbs 6:6-7: "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler,"

10. It claims that pi is equal to 3.

2 Chronicles 4:2: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

Farnsworth,
There are no untruths in God’s word, the Bible. Many of the thing stated are used the same way today as in the distant past. Remember, it was The Almighty God, Jehovah who created all things. I believe He could get a little more accurate, if He wanted to, probably so accurate, that you would again try to find some inaccuracies, because you just do not want to believe. You seem to know more than God Who created everything, and is trying to converse with almost impossibly ignorant human beings.
Have you ever heard of the Words Accommodation, or Anthropomorphisms. God, in His infinite wisdom, is trying to reach you!!! Or what about Epistemological and Egocentric Predicament???
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Farnsworth,
There are no untruths in God’s word, the Bible. Many of the thing stated are used the same way today as in the distant past. Remember, it was The Almighty God, Jehovah who created all things. I believe He could get a little more accurate, if He wanted to, probably so accurate, that you would again try to find some inaccuracies, because you just do not want to believe. You seem to know more than God Who created everything, and is trying to converse with almost impossibly ignorant human beings.


Have you ever heard of the Words Accommodation, or Anthropomorphisms. God, in His infinite wisdom, is trying to reach you!!! Or what about Epistemological and Egocentric Predicament???


Maybe God should have written the Bible himself instead of using people, because people made a lot of mistakes.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Farnsworth,
There are no untruths in God’s word, the Bible. Many of the thing stated are used the same way today as in the distant past. Remember, it was The Almighty God, Jehovah who created all things. I believe He could get a little more accurate, if He wanted to, probably so accurate, that you would again try to find some inaccuracies, because you just do not want to believe. You seem to know more than God Who created everything, and is trying to converse with almost impossibly ignorant human beings.
Have you ever heard of the Words Accommodation, or Anthropomorphisms. God, in His infinite wisdom, is trying to reach you!!! Or what about Epistemological and Egocentric Predicament???
So you are claiming that the Bible does not tell us that there was a global flood?

One of us appears to be confused.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Farnsworth,
There are no untruths in God’s word, the Bible. Many of the thing stated are used the same way today as in the distant past. Remember, it was The Almighty God, Jehovah who created all things. I believe He could get a little more accurate, if He wanted to, probably so accurate, that you would again try to find some inaccuracies, because you just do not want to believe. You seem to know more than God Who created everything, and is trying to converse with almost impossibly ignorant human beings.
Have you ever heard of the Words Accommodation, or Anthropomorphisms. God, in His infinite wisdom, is trying to reach you!!! Or what about Epistemological and Egocentric Predicament???

Using big words proves nothing, nor does it demonstrate intelligence. There are plenty of untruths in the bible, which, by the way, is not the word of a god. But I understand it's difficult for you to accept that there are errors in the bible. For years, I tried to defend the bible, like you, even arguing with atheists online about why the bible was the word of god. However, after studying it more carefully, I learned that the errors are undeniable.
 
Top