Setting The Bible Reader Straight

[sooda]

This one also, is easily answered as there was no taxonomy or classification systems used as we have them now today within the science of zoology and entomology. Take a look at the insects in question here.

Locust:

Katydid:

Cricket:

Grasshopper:

These insects are similar, especially the grasshopper and katydid, and all four insects have six legs. Although, it’s obvious that when the Bible says “all fours”, it’s making a distinction between the front four legs and the hind two legs, as they serve completely different functions. Only the front four legs are counted as feet, whereas the fact that the hind two legs serve a much different function due to their completely unique anatomy, size and responsibilities for the organism, are not counted as feet, rather merely legs.

Biblical anatomy has different forms of classifications and descriptions for its biological terms than we do today, and that’s not very surprising considering it was written over three thousand years ago. In other words, this is obviously not a Bible error, this is just a difference between how people today classify different parts of insects and how Moses did thousands of years ago. The Bible does not count “jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground”, as the passage in Leviticus above phrases it, as feet, and likely any set of legs on an insect where the hind legs serve completely distinctive functions from the four front legs. It would seem ridiculous to assume that the ancient Hebrews didn’t know winged insects have four legs, considering they literally ate them raw. So this is a silly argument to be honest.

Another one bites the dust. Gotta love it when those trying to prove the bible untrue actually end up proving the bible true

They toasted grasshoppers before they ate them and gathered up bagsful to feed their livestock.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Skwim likes to use Biblical literalism to attack Biblical literalists.

Doesn't committing oneself to Bible literalism mean committing oneself to be wrong, when the Bible is literally wrong? Why would anyone wish to do such a thing?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I see translations and someone like you challenging what's there, I generally like to go to an interlinear and other placements of that same Hebrew or Greek word or expression. So since you take issue with the Hebrew word 'oph,' which has been variously translated as bird, fowl, or flying creature, and then taking the position that because the vast majority use 'bird,' or fowl at Leviticus 11:13 it must be right, I wonder about the mentality of people that use that position. That type of mental inclination really does extend to other areas of life. Particularly political platforms. It's amazing to me as I continue reading, listening and learning.
So then, saying that because some translators put a bat in the category of birds because of the Hebrew oph, saying that it must always mean bird and therefore the Bible is wrong because so many translators did not do their job properly, you would have to admit that virtually no English translation (or probably any other language with multiple translations) are exactly the same. And the question is, why are they not all exactly the same? Are they all wrong because they use differing translations? When I see people like you continue in the same line of argument without wavering, despite being shown the reality, you bring me back to realize the brilliance of what Jesus was saying when he gave his illustrations.

Well, if "owph" is to mean "flying creature," since many, many insects fly, shouldn't it apply to them, as well? Yet that is not a mistake made in Leviticus, is it? I mean, the list doesn't go on through the list of forbidden birds, followed by bat -- and then butterfly, now does it?

 

[3rdAngel]

They toasted grasshoppers before they ate them and gathered up bagsful to feed their livestock.

Some people make commercial food out of them today. Apparently very nutritous and high in protein.

 

[BilliardsBall]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
13 “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

.

​

As a Christian, I ignore your out-of-context "Bible errors" which are all refuted, commonly, quickly, online, in seconds.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Poppies were known at that time in that area. They appear to have been first domesticated in Sumeria and their product is found in Egypt earlier than 1,000 BC:

Poppy - Wikipedia

They should have been familiar with the poppy seed to and that is far smaller than a mustard seed.

Jesus was speaking proverbially

The point was small faith big results

Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds? | CARM.org

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

These are really trifling exceptions to take with the text, in my opinion. I understand that they are mistakes/errors, yes, but that should be expected since the writers were ignorant of a crap-ton of things... as we are likely ignorant of a crap-ton of things even now.

The same sort of thing will be seen in some of our writings of today, I would imagine, when people of future generations are reading some of our texts. Particularly medical or psychological information, if I had to guess at some of the things we're currently not producing "the best" documentation of.

In the end, it just points to the idea that you should NEVER point at a written text and expect it to "stand the test of time" or claim that it is "perfect." That is just a dumb idea that is held by people willing to portray themselves as dumb.

 

[shmogie]

.

​

[/QUOTE]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
13 “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

.

​

Let me set you straight, since you are somewhat ignorant about the Bible, I'll help you.

You make the assumption that the ancient Jews used the Linneaean system of animal classification. They did not, since it didn't exist till thousands of years later.

The Aristotilean system, which they did not use, classed bats with birds.

The Hebrew word used, which you question, had a specific and general meaning. It meant the primary edible birds, fowl, and generally, a vertebrate with wings. Like bats. Your objection fails.

Hares and rabbits aren't the same thing, but as to chewing the cud, they do the same thing. They "recycle" partially digested food, and digest it once again. They "chew the cud".

I have great doubt that orchids were a plant that the Israelites knew about. Speaking of an orchid or it's seed to these folk would mean nothing to them. Using orchid seed within the framework of teaching life lessons would have no meaning. Therefore mustard seeds were used as the smallest seeds with which the people were familiar.

 

[Windwalker]

So why do Bibles ignore the more primitive meanings and purposely mislead (which I assume is your position) the reader with modern words like "birds" and "fowl"? Think the 94% are part of a huge cabal to undermine Christianity?
.

Is the Bible supposed to be read as a scientific classification system, or is it unconcerned about technical accuracies to satisfy the modern mind of logic and reason, because its audience wasn't them? I think the latter is true. Are you assuming the former should be true? If so, why? What gives you that idea?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
13 “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

​

First of all, we have poetic language, meaning the words here are not intended to be taken exactly as given, so long as the message is essentially intact.

Let's start with the hare. The Israelites probably would have believed that the rabbit also chews cud because they see it eating grass like a cow. Since they have limited patience to be watching a fast-running animal, they would understand that it eats grass and probably chews cud, and God would have the attitude "I the Lord your God (don't want to bother telling you that it actually eats feces so ummm) command you not to eat this creature that appears to eat grass like a cow but has different feet than a cow so don't eat it." It's on the forbidden list right? That's because God knows about its habits, even if that information is omitted here. In fact, Jews explain kosher as "laws that appear to have no purpose" but in fact, most of them do. Allergy prevention, prevention of worms, prevention of cross-contamination and pathogens, all of these things are omitted issues.

Next, the one on the mustard seed. First of all, Jesus is not talking about what we colloquially call "mustard" which is a green (I believe from Brassica the same genus that canola is). The mustard tree is one of two plants, neither of which is in the Brassica family. Mustard tree - Wikipedia
Going by seed size, we are probably talking about the first one, Nicotiana glauca, which is technically in the tobacco family. As you can see, it is tiny, but more importantly even if we are referring to the other one, Jesus didn't say that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, everywhere, that we will ever find. I mean, is a parable likely to be relevant to Jews, if it looks at seeds that are the Amazon or Madagascar? No, they will be like, "What are you smoking Jesus? Our smallest seed is the mustard (tree) seed, not whatever this orchid thing is!"

This is why you are being ignorant, this would be like seeing the word corn in the Bible, and thinking of ears of maize. No. Corn was called this by Americans, but the rest of the world traditionally called all grains by the name of corn, including wheat.

Now, let's go to the idea that bats are birds. Tell me what you see here.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. Do you know what this means? It means that those in contact with God had visions, dreams, and in some cases meetings with God. Unlike the Quran (which literally tells people that the sun sets in a pool of water), the people who wrote the Bible/Torah did not claim that it is infallible. They spoke to God, but they probably didn't ask God "Do hares chew their cud?" and "Are bats birds?" Apparently, people think dinosaurs are birds, but see my link to that one.
Do You Believe in Adam and Eve?
As you can see, reptiles share cervical, caudal, sacral, and dorsal vertabrae with dinosaurs (along with several bones) while birds have virtually none of these. But the word of biologists trumps what any basic observation would yield. Why should the Bible be different? God may give visions and inspirations, but he is not likely to answer pointed questions about whether the Earth is flat or round, or whether bats are bugs or birds or mammals. Why not? Because this is irrelevant to the theology of the Bible. Biologists later figured that stuff out by sitting for hours and watching bunnies eat feces and bats give milk (waste of time, honestly).

Lastly, the commandment against being on all fours is not a statement that it has four legs but part of a larger restriction of animals that are "unclean" or literally dirty (on all fours is an expression, meaning it's crawling on the ground). I'm fairly sure they ruled out most worms because they not only crawl in and on the ground but actually eat stuff in the soil. Likewise, many bivalves are forbidden because they tunnel in the soil. Grasshoppers and locusts are allowed (as was the exception for hares made in the opposite direction) because they spend part of their life hopping/flying and thus get a chance to clean off.

 

[allright]

The translators don't what animal the Hebrew word translated hare is being referred to

It certainly isn't a hare because God would only use animals the people were aware of and hares are not indigenous to Israel

Really take a beginners Bible course

 

[shmogie]

Doesn't committing oneself to Bible literalism mean committing oneself to be wrong, when the Bible is literally wrong? Why would anyone wish to do such a thing?

You have an opinion. Others have different opinions.

 

[allright]

Jesus was speaking about seeds farmers used to plant in Israel and in the first century in Israel the black mustard seed was by far the smallest seed farmers sowed

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.

SCIENCE vs BIBLE

By

Here's a list of scientific errors in the Bible from @Bob the Unbeliever back when he was Quantum Bob on a now defunct site. Perhaps we can add the mathematical error of making pi = 3.

[1] Bible says: "Lightning is from God"
Science says: "Lightning is static atmospheric effect."

[2] Bible says: "The world is flat".
Science says: "the world is an oblate spheroid."

[3] Bible says: "mental disease is caused by demons"
Science says: "mental disease is caused by brain damage of some sort or a chemical imbalance"

[4] Bible says: "sickness is caused by evil spirits"
Science says: "sickness is caused by microbes or genetic damage"

[5] Bible says: "the sky is a clear dome made of crystal"
Science says: "the sky is made of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and other trace gasses"

[6] Bible says: "the flat disc of the earth is held up by 4 pillars"
Science says: "the earth is roughly a sphere, and is held in orbit by gravity"

[7] Bible says: "people have souls"
Science says: "can this 'soul' be measured? If not, likely does not exist"

[8] Bible says: "the sun revolves around the earth"
Science says: "the earth revolves around the sun"

[9] Bible says: "the moon is a light in the sky"
Science says: "the moon reflects the sun's radiation, and is not a light in an of itself"

[10] Bible says: "the earth was flooded by water, all at once"
Science says: "impossible-- insufficient water, and such an event would have destroyed all life in the oceans"

[11] Bible says: "the sun stopped in the sky for a bit"
Science says: "such an event would have destroyed the earth, and everyone on it"

[12] Bible says: "from a high mountain, you can see the whole earth"
Science says: "Impossible on a spherical earth. Only possible if the earth was a flat disc"

[13] Bible says: "Snakes and donkeys can talk"
Science says: "snakes do not have vocal cords, cannot talk. Donkeys do not have proper vocal cords, cannot talk"

[14] Bible says: "you can make a woman from just a man's rib"
Science says: "you maybe could make another man-- but not a woman-- the DNA is wrong"

[15] Bible says: "bats are birds"
Science says: "bats are mammals, with fir and mammary glands--birds have neither of these"

[16] Bible says: "insects have 4 legs"
Science says: "all insects have 6 legs of varying degree"

Oh my gosh, the whole book of Leviticus is intended to have been followed only by the ancient nomadic tribes of Israel rather than as a book of science. The modern-day scientific classification of animals is a totally different subject than how ancient Jews were to follow dietary laws prescribed by their deity. Me thinks some people are taking this scripture totally out of context.

The Bible attempts to do what science does, but with wrong guesses. The creation story is an attempt at explaining what modern science explains better.

Every scripture is removed from surrounding context - the verses preceding and following it. When you claim that a scripture is taken out of context, you are implying that excising relevant language has changed the apparent meaning of the words, as when I reduce "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."" to, the Bible says "There is no God."

So, when you make the claim that something was taken out of context, you have actually said nothing until you restore relevant context that shows us that the scripture should be understood to mean something that contradicts the apparent meaning of the scripture. If you can't do that, you've done nothing.

When I see people like you continue in the same line of argument without wavering, despite being shown the reality, you bring me back to realize the brilliance of what Jesus was saying when he gave his illustrations.

I have the opposite experience when I see people like you trying to sanitize the errors in the Bible. It confirms my belief that that book was written only by fallible men that made a lot of errors, something the believer is not allowed to admit. And so, we see what we have seen on this thread - apologists trying to create just-so stories to try to rectify biblical errors. If I were to show you a picture of a boy throwing a ball upward in the noonday sun, and the Bible said that he would throw it downward at midnight, some apologist would explain that from the other side of the world, where it is midnight, the boy's upward is downward, hence the Bible got it right again. Next.

Another one bites the dust. Gotta love it when those trying to prove the bible untrue actually end up proving the bible true

If proof is that which convinces, who have you proven anything to? Who did you convince that you are correct? Not me.

If no minds were changed, you've proven nothing to anybody. It's up to them to tell you whether you proved something to them. It's analogous to a comedian telling us that he was hilarious at last night's stand-up show, when nobody laughed and the audience walked out thinking he was unfunny. That's the audience's call.

As a Christian, I ignore your out-of-context "Bible errors" which are all refuted, commonly, quickly, online, in seconds.

Nope. The Bible is replete with internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors committed by an allegedly perfect god, and errors of history and science. You can't make them go away with apologetics, however contorted they may be.

• "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

These are really trifling exceptions to take with the text, in my opinion. I understand that they are mistakes/errors, yes, but that should be expected since the writers were ignorant of a crap-ton of things... as we are likely ignorant of a crap-ton of things even now.

This subject - ancient errors - would be irrelevant if there weren't those claiming that this book is different from all other books by virtue of being divinely authored (some say inspired, but that's a weasel word in this context). If the Bible isn't the thoughts of a deity, then it's just another book like the Iliad or Odyssey.

You can see from their reactions how hard at work the believers are refuting the claims of the OP., so I don't think that they consider these objections trifling. They also toggle back and forth from the words being transcendent and prescient when that suits, to them being ordinary people who didn't have the benefit of the modern perspective when that suits.

(Digression - although one can tell its meaning from the way it's used, can anybody tell me what the abbreviation OP stands for? - opening paragraph, original post, something else?)

In the end, it just points to the idea that you should NEVER point at a written text and expect it to "stand the test of time" or claim that it is "perfect." That is just a dumb idea that is held by people willing to portray themselves as dumb.

Agreed, but isn't that exactly what is being done by these apologists?

You make the assumption that the ancient Jews used the Linneaean system of animal classification. They did not, since it didn't exist till thousands of years later.

No. We assume that if these scriptures were authored by a god, they would be correct. If you're going to treat them as the mundane and incorrect ideas or ancient people, then I have no argument with you. Of course these people didn't know what we know today and could not be expected to avoid multiple errors.

we have poetic language, meaning the words here are not intended to be taken exactly as given, so long as the message is essentially intact.

Who is to say what the message is when the language is poetry? Poetry is deliberately vague language that the reader is expected to project personal meaning into. When we want to avoid that, as when writing a will, giving directions to find something, or writing out a recipe, we want to be crystal clear, which is what a god that wishes to be understood ought to do as well.

Here's some poetry from Bob Dylan's Desolation Row. Can you tell me what it means? No, you can't. You can only tell me what images it conjures up for you, which are likely to be different from mine and everybody else's. This is no way to communicate important information:

Dr. Filth, he keeps his world
Inside of a leather cup
But all his sexless patients
They’re trying to blow it up

Now his nurse, some local loser
She’s in charge of the cyanide hole
And she also keeps the cards that read
“Have Mercy on His Soul”

They all play on the pennywhistle
You can hear them blow
If you lean your head out far enough
From Desolation Row

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Agreed, but isn't that exactly what is being done by these apologists?

It absolutely is. And my post was entirely my roundabout way of calling such an endeavor "dumb" - while also trying not to raise the hackles of the moderators of this site.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

(Digression - although one can tell its meaning from the way it's used, can anybody tell me what the abbreviation OP stands for? - opening paragraph, original post, something else?)

Forgot I wanted to respond to this bit also - from what I have gathered "OP" can refer either to the "original post" or the "original poster." I've seen it used either way contextually.

 

[3rdAngel]

SCIENCE vs BIBLE
Here's a list of scientific errors in the Bible from @Bob the Unbeliever back when he was Quantum Bob on a now defunct site. Perhaps we can add the mathematical error of making pi = 3.

[1] Bible says: "Lightning is from God"
Science says: "Lightning is static atmospheric effect."

All this statement is says is cause and effect. It does not prove or disprove if there is a God who made lightning now does it? So nope no scientific error .

[2] Bible says: "The world is flat".
Science says: "the world is an oblate spheroid."

The bible does not say that the world is flat so no scientific error here. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

[3] Bible says: "mental disease is caused by demons" Science says: "mental disease is caused by brain damage of some sort or a chemical imbalance"

The bible does not say that mental disease is caused by demons. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

[4] Bible says: "sickness is caused by evil spirits" Science says: "sickness is caused by microbes or genetic damage"

The bible does not say that sickness is caused by evil spirits. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

[5] Bible says: "the sky is a clear dome made of crystal" Science says: "the sky is made of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and other trace gasses"

The bible does not say the sky is a clear dome made of crystal. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

[6] Bible says: "the flat disc of the earth is held up by 4 pillars" Science says: "the earth is roughly a sphere, and is held in orbit by gravity

What tha ????

[7] Bible says: "people have souls" Science says: "can this 'soul' be measured? If not, likely does not exist"

נפשׁ; nephesh the Hebrew word for Soul simply means a living breathing creature. Are you saying if a living breathing creature cannot be measured it does not exist? Well BOO! Here I am. Did I scare ya?

[8] Bible says: "the sun revolves around the earth" Science says: "the earth revolves around the sun"

The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

[9] Bible says: "the moon is a light in the sky" Science says: "the moon reflects the sun's radiation, and is not a light in an of itself"

Are you trying to say that the moon does not give off light in the sky? How the moon gives off it's light is not relavant when it gives off light don't you think?

[10] Bible says: "the earth was flooded by water, all at once" Science says: "impossible-- insufficient water, and such an event would have destroyed all life in the oceans"

Nonsense, I suggest you catch up on this one as the scientific community has found evidence for a flood.
I suggest you update your information your behind the times

[11] Bible says: "the sun stopped in the sky for a bit" Science says: "such an event would have destroyed the earth, and everyone on it"

Yet here we are. Amazing isn't it? All you have provided is a theory and no proof that it did not happen.

[12] Bible says: "from a high mountain, you can see the whole earth" Science says: "Impossible on a spherical earth. Only possible if the earth was a flat disc"

Nonsense, that is your false interpretation of what the scripture was saying

[13] Bible says: "Snakes and donkeys can talk" Science says: "snakes do not have vocal cords, cannot talk. Donkeys do not have proper vocal cords, cannot talk"

Nonsense, that is your false interpretation of what the scripture was saying

[14] Bible says: "you can make a woman from just a man's rib" Science says: "you maybe could make another man-- but not a woman-- the DNA is wrong"

I see so according to you the created has more knowledge than the creator?

[15] Bible says: "bats are birds"
Science says: "bats are mammals, with fir and mammary glands--birds have neither of these"

Nonsense. There was no zoological classification systems as we have them today when these passages of the scriptures were written. So to compare a classification system that we use today in zoology to something that was written before this science existed is simply a mute point. As a side note the Hebrew word used here for the english translation as bird, fowl or creature is עוף; ‛ôph From H5774; and it has many meanings that include; a bird as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings, often collective: - bird, that flieth, flying, fowl. Another words something that has wings as a covering which would include a bat that has wings as a covering.

[16] Bible says: "insects have 4 legs" Science says: "all insects have 6 legs of varying degree"

Nonsense, the bible says no such thing.

If proof is that which convinces, who have you proven anything to? Who did you convince that you are correct? Not me. If no minds were changed, you've proven nothing to anybody. It's up to them to tell you whether you proved something to them. It's analogous to a comedian telling us that he was hilarious at last night's stand-up show, when nobody laughed and the audience walked out thinking he was unfunny. That's the audience's call.

Proof is not that which convinces. Proof is evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. You have provided none.

Your welcome

 

[sooda]

SCIENCE vs BIBLE

By

Here's a list of scientific errors in the Bible from @Bob the Unbeliever back when he was Quantum Bob on a now defunct site. Perhaps we can add the mathematical error of making pi = 3.

[1] Bible says: "Lightning is from God"
Science says: "Lightning is static atmospheric effect."

[2] Bible says: "The world is flat".
Science says: "the world is an oblate spheroid."

[3] Bible says: "mental disease is caused by demons"
Science says: "mental disease is caused by brain damage of some sort or a chemical imbalance"

[4] Bible says: "sickness is caused by evil spirits"
Science says: "sickness is caused by microbes or genetic damage"

[5] Bible says: "the sky is a clear dome made of crystal"
Science says: "the sky is made of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and other trace gasses"

[6] Bible says: "the flat disc of the earth is held up by 4 pillars"
Science says: "the earth is roughly a sphere, and is held in orbit by gravity"

[7] Bible says: "people have souls"
Science says: "can this 'soul' be measured? If not, likely does not exist"

[8] Bible says: "the sun revolves around the earth"
Science says: "the earth revolves around the sun"

[9] Bible says: "the moon is a light in the sky"
Science says: "the moon reflects the sun's radiation, and is not a light in an of itself"

[10] Bible says: "the earth was flooded by water, all at once"
Science says: "impossible-- insufficient water, and such an event would have destroyed all life in the oceans"

[11] Bible says: "the sun stopped in the sky for a bit"
Science says: "such an event would have destroyed the earth, and everyone on it"

[12] Bible says: "from a high mountain, you can see the whole earth"
Science says: "Impossible on a spherical earth. Only possible if the earth was a flat disc"

[13] Bible says: "Snakes and donkeys can talk"
Science says: "snakes do not have vocal cords, cannot talk. Donkeys do not have proper vocal cords, cannot talk"

[14] Bible says: "you can make a woman from just a man's rib"
Science says: "you maybe could make another man-- but not a woman-- the DNA is wrong"

[15] Bible says: "bats are birds"
Science says: "bats are mammals, with fir and mammary glands--birds have neither of these"

[16] Bible says: "insects have 4 legs"
Science says: "all insects have 6 legs of varying degree"



The Bible attempts to do what science does, but with wrong guesses. The creation story is an attempt at explaining what modern science explains better.

Every scripture is removed from surrounding context - the verses preceding and following it. When you claim that a scripture is taken out of context, you are implying that excising relevant language has changed the apparent meaning of the words, as when I reduce "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."" to, the Bible says "There is no God."

So, when you make the claim that something was taken out of context, you have actually said nothing until you restore relevant context that shows us that the scripture should be understood to mean something that contradicts the apparent meaning of the scripture. If you can't do that, you've done nothing.



I have the opposite experience when I see people like you trying to sanitize the errors in the Bible. It confirms my belief that that book was written only by fallible men that made a lot of errors, something the believer is not allowed to admit. And so, we see what we have seen on this thread - apologists trying to create just-so stories to try to rectify biblical errors. If I were to show you a picture of a boy throwing a ball upward in the noonday sun, and the Bible said that he would throw it downward at midnight, some apologist would explain that from the other side of the world, where it is midnight, the boy's upward is downward, hence the Bible got it right again. Next.



If proof is that which convinces, who have you proven anything to? Who did you convince that you are correct? Not me.

If no minds were changed, you've proven nothing to anybody. It's up to them to tell you whether you proved something to them. It's analogous to a comedian telling us that he was hilarious at last night's stand-up show, when nobody laughed and the audience walked out thinking he was unfunny. That's the audience's call.



Nope. The Bible is replete with internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors committed by an allegedly perfect god, and errors of history and science. You can't make them go away with apologetics, however contorted they may be.

• "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

This subject - ancient errors - would be irrelevant if there weren't those claiming that this book is different from all other books by virtue of being divinely authored (some say inspired, but that's a weasel word in this context). If the Bible isn't the thoughts of a deity, then it's just another book like the Iliad or Odyssey.

You can see from their reactions how hard at work the believers are refuting the claims of the OP., so I don't think that they consider these objections trifling. They also toggle back and forth from the words being transcendent and prescient when that suits, to them being ordinary people who didn't have the benefit of the modern perspective when that suits.

(Digression - although one can tell its meaning from the way it's used, can anybody tell me what the abbreviation OP stands for? - opening paragraph, original post, something else?)



Agreed, but isn't that exactly what is being done by these apologists?



No. We assume that if these scriptures were authored by a god, they would be correct. If you're going to treat them as the mundane and incorrect ideas or ancient people, then I have no argument with you. Of course these people didn't know what we know today and could not be expected to avoid multiple errors.



Who is to say what the message is when the language is poetry? Poetry is deliberately vague language that the reader is expected to project personal meaning into. When we want to avoid that, as when writing a will, giving directions to find something, or writing out a recipe, we want to be crystal clear, which is what a god that wishes to be understood ought to do as well.

Here's some poetry from Bob Dylan's Desolation Row. Can you tell me what it means? No, you can't. You can only tell me what images it conjures up for you, which are likely to be different from mine and everybody else's. This is no way to communicate important information:

Dr. Filth, he keeps his world
Inside of a leather cup
But all his sexless patients
They’re trying to blow it up

Now his nurse, some local loser
She’s in charge of the cyanide hole
And she also keeps the cards that read
“Have Mercy on His Soul”

They all play on the pennywhistle
You can hear them blow
If you lean your head out far enough
From Desolation Row

Brilliant post.

 

[74x12]

.

In main, every Christian accepts the truth of the Bible, some accepting this truth more rigorously than others, which varies from the fundamentalist literal truth to an interpretive truth wherein the Christian feels free to pick which verses are true or not. But regardless of the approach, the fact remains that in places the Bible does make some very specific assertions. "This is X---it is not Y." Last September I alluded to four of these, implying they are actually wrong when I said "Of course the bible also tells me that bats are birds, hares chew cud, grasshoppers walk on only four legs, and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds . . . . but what the heck, no book is perfect." Since then one of my examples was challenged, it doesn't matter which one, which set me thinking that perhaps I should briefly explain my reasons for calling all of them wrong.


Herewith then is my explanation of each:

"Bats are birds"

Leviticus 11: 13-19
13 “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.​

Now some Bibles use the term "fowl" instead of "birds," and in very rare instances, (6%) "creatures," but the error is quite clear; very simply, bats are mammals not birds or fowl.



***********************************************************************************************************


"Hares chew cud"

Leviticus 11:1-6
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.​

Cud is partly digested food internally returned from the first stomach, the rumin, to the mouth for further chewing. Hares and other Lagomorphs lack a rumin so they're incapable of producing cud. Most likely this error arose from watching hares and rabbits eat their feces, a dining practice called refection. Here's a simple illustration of these two quite different operations.

View attachment 35664​

***********************************************************************************************************

​

"Grasshoppers walk on only four legs"

Leviticus 11:21
“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. But you can eat some of these, namely, those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground: all locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers. But all the other flying insects that have four legs you are to detest.
​

The video below should dispel this error (actual walking at the 1:39 mark).

​

BTW, locusts are simply nine species of a migrating form of grasshoppers.

​

***********************************************************************************************************


"the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds"

Mark 4: 30-32
30 He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or with what parable shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed which, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest seed on earth. 32 Yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all shrubs, and shoots out great branches, so that the birds of the air may nest in its shade.”
​

The facts say otherwise.

"Orchids (Orchidaceae): The World's Smallest Seeds

Certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce. They are dispersed into the air like minute dust particles or single-celled spores, eventually coming to rest in the upper canopy of rain forest trees."​

source

View attachment 35665



​

Some here may object to my four choices saying these errors only occurred because the writers at the time simply didn't know any better, which is fine if one accepts that premise that the original Biblical writings were solely the work of such people, but customarily the Bible is said to be the product of an all-knowing god. A deity who worked to tell his followers exactly what was what; that it's a trustworthy work that needn't be questioned. But this still leaves the problem of its errors. Aside from turning a blind eye, a not uncommon practice, what is one to do with them. As a Christian what do YOU do?

.

​

So first of all your modern definition of a "bird" is not the ancient Hebraic definition of a bird. That doesn't prove the Bible is in error. It only proves you don't understand ancient Hebrew. Just because you define bird one way doesn't mean they have to do the same.

Hares chew cud ... again your definition of chewing cud is not theirs. So what hares do is they eat their own poop. Same thing as chewing cud really. It's something translated into English as chewing cud but can have a broader application in Hebrew.

Grasshoppers walking on four legs ... again this a difference in definitions. So to the ancient Hebrews the insects had 4 legs and 2 arms. And indeed, if you have a close up picture of a grasshopper then you can see that the front two "legs" are different looking. Specialized. How do we define an arm vs. a leg? That's up to us. And they apparently defined it differently. That doesn't prove the Bible is wrong.

Saying "but they walk on the front two legs!" doesn't prove anything either because you can walk on your arms. And besides, we're talking about people who routinely ate locusts as a snack. This means they must have often seen locusts up close. So they definitely knew that a locust had 6 limbs. This is not a matter of ignorance but definitions.

Mustard seed being the smallest seed. Indeed it is the smallest seed in context. The context was ancient Judea and Jesus was talking to gardeners/farmers. So the parable is speaking of things they knew and understand. What they understood was domesticated garden plants. So if you ask them or talk to them in day to day conversation the mustard seed was the smallest seed around. Jesus wasn't teaching a science class although He could if He wanted. This was "gardener talk".

 

[sojourner]

The bible does not say that the world is flat so no scientific error here. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

The bible does not say the sky is a clear dome made of crystal. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

I’ll address these first two together. Genesis calls the sky raqiya. Raqiya literally means a hammered out bowl. If a bowl were placed over the earth as a sky-cover, geometry tells us that the earth would have to be disc-shaped in order to be covered by this bowl. Hence, Genesis infers a flat earth.

If this bowl were indeed hammered out, as the terminology explicitly states, it would need to be rigid. Hence, the rigid dome of the biblical sky.

The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth. Perhaps you need to get your fact straight

Th3 ancients, as we see above, believed the sky was such a dome upon which were placed the heavenly bodies. The dome then rotated around.

Yet here we are. Amazing isn't it? All you have provided is a theory and no proof that it did not happen

If the earth stopped, all atmosphere would float away. This is scientific fact, and evidence that the occurrence never happened.

I see so according to you the created has more knowledge than the creator

This doesn’t address the statement.

Yes, the Bible is scientifically wrong on these points. Which isn’t particularly a problem if the stories are metaphors. But since you insist they are literally, historically factual, you have to do all sorts of illogical gymnastics in order to make this square peg fit in the round hole of reality.

Too bad.