Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, you admit saying something is right because it says it's right is crazy? Did I hear you correctly?
-
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!
Science And The Bible
- Thread starter Raymond Sheen
- Start date
So, you admit saying something is right because it says it's right is crazy? Did I hear you correctly?
I just love the ignore-list. :yes:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So, even though you admit in the OP...
You would put faith in a Creation story that blatantly flies in the face of modern biology, and a supposed world wide flood story that not only defies modern geology, physics, and hydrology?
What is your reasoning behind this?
Last edited:
You presume a great deal.
Last edited:
Raymond Sheen
Member
Patience, grasshopper your post requires more time.
Raymond Sheen
Member
Of course it is! You test whether the thing is wrong and until you discover that then it is, as far as you are aware, right. I have yet to find reason to doubt it. That isn't an uninformed opinion.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed, cognitive bias is a powerful thing.
Raymond Sheen
Member
What exactly do you intend to establish by my own personal presentation of evidence regarding who wrote the Bible? I realize that most theists are not very well informed but only slightly less so than the average atheist. You haven't given me anything to think about.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Yes, he had religious belief, of sorts, but what he said in public was different to what he wrote in private. He refused the sacrament on his deathbed, and didn't believe in the trinity of the Christian Church, when it was heresy to deny it.
What he did not know was, what lay ahead of him, and the impact his findings had on the future of the church.
I would love to know if his views would be the same if he were alive today.
Raymond Sheen
Member
Original Post Edited By Raymond Sheen
Skwim,
Bats And Birds
The Hebrew word ohph, used at Leviticus 11:13 is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds and sometimes as fowl. The English word fowl applied originally not only to birds but all winged flying creatures such as bats and insects. So although birds would be correct as a translation the word fowl as such may be outdated but not originally incorrect.
The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.
The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word meaning to swarm or teem. The noun form applies to small creatures found in large numbers (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30 / Genesis 1:20) It should be noted that fowl don't swarm in the waters.
Regarding unclean things the law applied to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including insects and bats (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and creatures with many legs (Leviticus 11:41-44).
Today the English word fowl is primarily used to refer to large edible birds, but the Hebrew ohph was derived from a verb meaning to fly, (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle which used to apply to any flock, rather than just cattle.
Insects With Four Legs
At Leviticus 11:22 the Hebrew word arbeh is translated as locust and refers to the migratory locust fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping wingless locust that is immature and undeveloped. (Joel 1:4) The Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as given in Leviticus 11:22b. It would be a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is in reference to the insect locust and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)
The leaper insect has two pairs of wings and four walking legs with two much longer leaper legs. Remember. These ancient people were by no means, botanists but they could count and they were eating these things so there would have hardly been a mistake even without divine inspiration. They referred to them as "going on all fours" because they walked on their four legs and would leap on the two remaining leaper legs. This isn't altogether unlike our term of a dog "going on two legs" or a baby "crawling on all fours." It is an indication of the desperate need for the "science" minded to, out of pure ignorance, negate the Bible.
Pi In The Bible
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 skeptic 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.
Earth Created In Six Days
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
This means that the Bible doesn't indicate the universe was created in 144 hours or six days. The Bible doesn't state, nor can one determine through chronology or any other means of the Bible, the age of the universe.
Skwim,
Bats And Birds
The Hebrew word ohph, used at Leviticus 11:13 is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds and sometimes as fowl. The English word fowl applied originally not only to birds but all winged flying creatures such as bats and insects. So although birds would be correct as a translation the word fowl as such may be outdated but not originally incorrect.
The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.
The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word meaning to swarm or teem. The noun form applies to small creatures found in large numbers (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30 / Genesis 1:20) It should be noted that fowl don't swarm in the waters.
Regarding unclean things the law applied to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including insects and bats (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and creatures with many legs (Leviticus 11:41-44).
Today the English word fowl is primarily used to refer to large edible birds, but the Hebrew ohph was derived from a verb meaning to fly, (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle which used to apply to any flock, rather than just cattle.
Insects With Four Legs
At Leviticus 11:22 the Hebrew word arbeh is translated as locust and refers to the migratory locust fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping wingless locust that is immature and undeveloped. (Joel 1:4) The Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as given in Leviticus 11:22b. It would be a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is in reference to the insect locust and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)
The leaper insect has two pairs of wings and four walking legs with two much longer leaper legs. Remember. These ancient people were by no means, botanists but they could count and they were eating these things so there would have hardly been a mistake even without divine inspiration. They referred to them as "going on all fours" because they walked on their four legs and would leap on the two remaining leaper legs. This isn't altogether unlike our term of a dog "going on two legs" or a baby "crawling on all fours." It is an indication of the desperate need for the "science" minded to, out of pure ignorance, negate the Bible.
Pi In The Bible
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 skeptic 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.
Earth Created In Six Days
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
This means that the Bible doesn't indicate the universe was created in 144 hours or six days. The Bible doesn't state, nor can one determine through chronology or any other means of the Bible, the age of the universe.
Last edited:
Raymond Sheen
Member
Original Post Edited By Raymond Sheen
Prenatal Influence
At Genesis 30:37-43 Jacob wishes to leave his father in law, Laban's service but Laban doesn't want him to go. Jacob gets the idea to continue feeding and tending Laban's stock if he will set aside the speckled and spotted animals and pay him in any black or spotted and speckled sheep born from then on. Laban agrees and sets those goats apart in the charge of his sons which are three days away from Jacob. The rest he leaves for Jacob to tend to.
What Jacob would do next would cause some confusion to this very day. He took some fresh boughs of poplar, almond and plane and peeled white streaks in them of the bark. Putting them in front of the flocks, near the runnels of the watering troughs where they drank and bred Jacob thought they would bring young that were like the sticks, striped, speckled and spotted. He was also careful to place the sticks where the strongest of the flock mated.
He may actually have done this because it was the unscientific principal of prenatal influence common in those times. They didn't know that there was no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support a maternal impression, but the real question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific principal? No. It didn't.
It first must be realized that just because Jacob may have originally thought there was something to prenatal influence it doesn't necessarily imply the Bible agrees. In fact the Bible itself indicates disagreement because in the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, exactly why he prospered. He doesn't say it was his prenatal manipulation of sticks before the flock, but rather that it was Jehovah 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.
Prenatal Influence
At Genesis 30:37-43 Jacob wishes to leave his father in law, Laban's service but Laban doesn't want him to go. Jacob gets the idea to continue feeding and tending Laban's stock if he will set aside the speckled and spotted animals and pay him in any black or spotted and speckled sheep born from then on. Laban agrees and sets those goats apart in the charge of his sons which are three days away from Jacob. The rest he leaves for Jacob to tend to.
What Jacob would do next would cause some confusion to this very day. He took some fresh boughs of poplar, almond and plane and peeled white streaks in them of the bark. Putting them in front of the flocks, near the runnels of the watering troughs where they drank and bred Jacob thought they would bring young that were like the sticks, striped, speckled and spotted. He was also careful to place the sticks where the strongest of the flock mated.
He may actually have done this because it was the unscientific principal of prenatal influence common in those times. They didn't know that there was no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support a maternal impression, but the real question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific principal? No. It didn't.
It first must be realized that just because Jacob may have originally thought there was something to prenatal influence it doesn't necessarily imply the Bible agrees. In fact the Bible itself indicates disagreement because in the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, exactly why he prospered. He doesn't say it was his prenatal manipulation of sticks before the flock, but rather that it was Jehovah 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.
Last edited:
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Raymond, you don't believe in evolution?
Raymond Sheen
Member
Of course not. Its nonsense.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that dinosaurs and people were contemporaries?
Raymond Sheen
Member
Yes, and totally outside the realms of possibility when it comes to the inerrant science. Science is never abused for political or material gain; never does it cause destruction instead of destruction and always corrects itself . . . but until then how unlike dogma?
Raymond Sheen
Member
No I don't. I am a drummer retired, as a brief aside and we do rock. I played for many years.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Glad to hear from another percussionist. Here's some goodies.
and I don't believe in dino-people either.
We know that diseases mutate and dogs are the result of breeding practices. Evolution my friend is all around you. I believe that God used evolution and science is just us people trying to describe those building blocks.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
How did you come to this conclusion?
Raymond Sheen
Member
First of all, let me just say that I like your avatar. Obviously that means a great deal more to me than to you. Archie Bunker and Southpark.
How did I come to that conclusion. Well. At best they are both opposing propositions to reality. You may think that the present is far removed from the past but in a satirical gesture you should actually know better.
Cartman, frozen in time, with the (as I understand it) the ministry of science is no more relevant than the dark ages. Farting noises, transsexual school marms against the norm or, as in the case with Southpark and Archie Bunker don't mean **** to me but a laugh.
You got something better than that better cling dogmatic to the banal and insipid repetition of history which obviously don't register.