The Bible and Bad Science

[Subduction Zone]

Could you please point out the areas which suggest that I am confused, or making excuses, thank you. While you do so please include these which sums up the mistakes between 1 and 14.

So, I want so badly to be critical of someone or something, that I ignore the obvious. For example, King Solomon wrote,
(Proverbs 5:18, 19)
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

So I say, "Here this man does not know the difference between a female human and a female deer, and he thinks that one can get drunk with a woman's love. The man must clearly be out of his mind!"

Wouldn't you consider it a shame that I, in my quest to be critical, ignored good poetry?

Again, with regard to the difference between ancient writings and modern (Hebrew and English), and the fact that translation of ancient language is not for the frivolous.
4-legged insects? - Evidence for God's Unchanging Word

Lets cover what you wrote write now. No one has a problem with the Bible when it waxes poetic. But when it makes clear declaratory errors, such as the one that you mention with four legged insects that is when you should never go to apologetics sites. Those sites are willing to "lie for Jesus'. They will try to claim that some of the worst failed prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled. When one clearly is telling stories one loses all credibility.

Your bringing up poetry when no one complained about poetry is not proper. It indicates that you know that you are wrong.

Now it is a pity that you have no science education. If you did you would understand how Genesis is book of myths. An archaeologist could explain to you why there was no Exodus. You are abusing the Bible by thinking that it should be read literally.

 

[Audie]

There seems to be mistakes throughout this entire list, but I don't want to spend time going through all them.
Since the almighty creator is the Alpha and Omega, and the mistakes in the first are seen, I would like to address the last... But I would like to do so with a question. When and how did language originate?
If those who say the Bibles history is incorrect, can provide a factual answer, it would be good to hear it.
Certainly it would be a big mistake to conclude that a historical record is untrue, with no facts to deny it.

We did of course notice the setup, explaining about how others
may misread the bible, and presumably you get it right.

In listing rather obvious mistakes that presumably others are too
dim to realize they are making, you overlook a massive mistake
you make, which is to start with a conclusion.

But never mind that.

"Bible History is Incorrect" is too sweeping a statement, and you know it. Let us assume you are not setting up a strawman,
but it is nobody's contention that the history is incorrect in its totality.

Some of it is of course "correct" in that in places it talks about, with some degree of accuracy, things that really happened.

It also talks about things that did not. The biggest whopper by
far is the flood story.

Certainly it would be a big mistake to conclude that a historical record is untrue, with no facts to deny it

You are quite ready to assert with no evidence
that there is an almighty, a creator who is
alpha and omega but you say it is a mistake
to conclude something without supporting facts.

And what is it to conclude that what is presented as historical record (the flood) is disproved by all relevant data?

This is an important question.

For lo, your response will reveal clearly whether your
are a person of reason or rigid ideology.

 

[Audie]

The Bible was never meant to be a book of science.

Perhaps. Does that mean it is also a book thereby set free
from any constraints as to accuracy or what we might loosely call truth?

 

[nPeace]

Lets cover what you wrote write now. No one has a problem with the Bible when it waxes poetic. But when it makes clear declaratory errors, such as the one that you mention with four legged insects that is when you should never go to apologetics sites. Those sites are willing to "lie for Jesus'. They will try to claim that some of the worst failed prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled. When one clearly is telling stories one loses all credibility.

I won't go back and forth with you on who is lying, from who isn't. I will ask you this. Please think about it.
Is more than half the Bible utter foolishness - nonsense? Reasonable people conclude, "No. Most of what the Bible says is reasonable, and many who do not even accept it as the word of God, say that it has a lot of good guidelines for living etc." So ask yourself, why would a book that mostly make sense, speak of 4 legged insects? Could it have something to do with the way ancient language was written? Perhaps it might be good to carefully look at that link I posted... again, and try to understand the point it's making.

Your bringing up poetry when no one complained about poetry is not proper. It indicates that you know that you are wrong.

If you don't complain about poetry, how am I wrong? Is there not a contradiction in that statement?

Now it is a pity that you have no science education. If you did you would understand how Genesis is book of myths. An archaeologist could explain to you why there was no Exodus. You are abusing the Bible by thinking that it should be read literally.

Now you are going against forum rules, by insulting my intellect? Why is that necessary? Isn't that usually the reaction of persons who get angry because the find it difficult to address an argument against their ideas? Why not address my arguments, instead of trying to belittle me? There is no need for that.
I will wait, because I am patient.
Also, you have me a bit confused with this statement: "You are abusing the Bible by thinking that it should be read literally"
Huh??? Who's the one taking the Bible's passages literally.?

1. Where did the Bible call a bat, a bird?
Answer: Nowhere - I pointed out that mistake. Do you care to address it?

14. Where, When and How did language originate?
Answer: Mystery - The world does not know. I pointed out the mistake there also. You cannot with honesty scrap a historical record with no proof it's wrong. The Bible reveals the origin of language.

2 - 13 Can one say they know what an author means by his expressions, if one ignores the language, style, and context of the writings?
Answer: No - One has closed their mind to anything that suggests their critique against the literature is wrong.

 

[nPeace]

We did of course notice the setup, explaining about how others
may misread the bible, and presumably you get it right.

I would be happy if you pointed that out to me. Honestly. I don't see it.

Some of it is of course "correct" in that in places it talks about, with some degree of accuracy, things that really happened.

Thank you for that. I am wondering if anyone would be interested in actual figures?

It also talks about things that did not. The biggest whopper by
far is the flood story.

Certainly it would be a big mistake to conclude that a historical record is untrue, with no facts to deny it

You are quite ready to assert with no evidence
that there is an almighty, a creator who is
alpha and omega but you say it is a mistake
to conclude something without supporting facts.

And what is it to conclude that what is presented as historical record (the flood) is disproved by all relevant data?

This is an important question.

For lo, your response will reveal clearly whether your
are a person of reason or rigid ideology.

The global flood seems to be a hot topic. I prefer not to derail this topic though. Here is a suggestion. Why don't you start a thread on it and let me know. I realize there is one currently going, but that has so many posts, I don't want to get lost in that jungle. It's up to you.
I like to stay on topic with the OP.

 

[Audie]

I would be happy if you pointed that out to me. Honestly. I don't see it.


Thank you for that. I am wondering if anyone would be interested in actual figures?


The global flood seems to be a hot topic. I prefer not to derail this topic though. Here is a suggestion. Why don't you start a thread on it and let me know. I realize there is one currently going, but that has so many posts, I don't want to get lost in that jungle. It's up to you.
I like to stay on topic with the OP.

If you were not suggesting that you read it right where others do not, what were
you saying?

Did you miss my mention of the huge mistake of starting with a conclusion?

Actual figures? Degree of accuracy? Do you think the numbers give are always exactly correct, or are approximations?

The "flood" is far from a hot topic. Most people caught up with the 19th century
some time ago. For those who want to say the bible is accurate history, tho,
the "Flood" is kinda the elephant in the room.

No, I wont start a thread on it.

But it is a good topic to determine where a person stands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I won't go back and forth with you on who is lying, from who isn't. I will ask you this. Please think about it.
Is more than half the Bible utter foolishness - nonsense? Reasonable people conclude, "No. Most of what the Bible says is reasonable, and many who do not even accept it as the word of God, say that it has a lot of good guidelines for living etc." So ask yourself, why would a book that mostly make sense, speak of 4 legged insects? Could it have something to do with the way ancient language was written? Perhaps it might be good to carefully look at that link I posted... again, and try to understand the point it's making.

Oh my, We know who is lying. I was merely giving you a polite warning. And did I say "utter foolishness"? Now it is obvious that a huge part of the Bible is just wrong if one reads it literally. And the Bible never claims to be the "Word of God" a claim that would have been refuted by the hundreds of self contradictions in the Bible alone. Calling it the "Word of God" is rather insulting to your deity.

If you don't complain about poetry, how am I wrong? Is there not a contradiction in that statement?

It is a dishonest debating technique and those are generally used by people that know that they are wrong. I would avoid such in the future.

Now you are going against forum rules, by insulting my intellect? Why is that necessary? Isn't that usually the reaction of persons who get angry because the find it difficult to address an argument against their ideas? Why not address my arguments, instead of trying to belittle me? There is no need for that.
I will wait, because I am patient.
Also, you have me a bit confused with this statement: "You are abusing the Bible by thinking that it should be read literally"
Huh??? Who's the one taking the Bible's passages literally.?

1. Where did the Bible call a bat, a bird?
Answer: Nowhere - I pointed out that mistake. Do you care to address it?

14. Where, When and How did language originate?
Answer: Mystery - The world does not know. I pointed out the mistake there also. You cannot with honesty scrap a historical record with no proof it's wrong. The Bible reveals the origin of language.

2 - 13 Can one say they know what an author means by his expressions, if one ignores the language, style, and context of the writings?
Answer: No - One has closed their mind to anything that suggests their critique against the literature is wrong.

No, your lack of science education is an observation, not an insult. I did not state that you lacked the intelligence to learn. And you are taking too much of the Bible literally. You already admitted that you believed the Noah's Ark myth when just a little critical thought would lead you to conclude that it never happened.


As to the bat bird issue, that is merely biased reinterpretation by you. You did not "show" anything. Besides that was not my claim in the first place.

We know how new languages arise Again the myths of the Bible are not an "explanation". Claiming it was magic explains nothing. Yet we know that languages evolve in a manner that is a bit similar to the evolution of species. We have the Romance Languages as an excellent example. They all started out as Latin speakers, but separation and natural change over time made the languages that arose from this separation different enough so that speakers could no longer communicate with each other.

And not knowing what the author meant exactly is no excuse for reinterpretation.

By the way a Gish Gallop is also a dishonest debating technique. It is best to stick to one claim at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would be happy if you pointed that out to me. Honestly. I don't see it.


Thank you for that. I am wondering if anyone would be interested in actual figures?


The global flood seems to be a hot topic. I prefer not to derail this topic though. Here is a suggestion. Why don't you start a thread on it and let me know. I realize there is one currently going, but that has so many posts, I don't want to get lost in that jungle. It's up to you.
I like to stay on topic with the OP.

The Flood does fit under the purview of this thread. It is a claim that clearly runs contrary to science. Biology, Geology, and Physics all clearly refute the flood. History refutes the flood. Even myth can be said to refute the flood since different cultures have wildly varying myths. Some do not have flood myths at all.

 

[nPeace]

If you were not suggesting that you read it right where others do not, what were
you saying?

I think that's fairly obvious.

Looking over the list, I feel some of them are honestly debatable so I'm presenting only those I feel have reasonable merit. If you feel any of them are truly not mistakes or can be readily explained away, I'm all ears.

Please note, I realize that many Christians will excuse some of them as analogies or metaphors, which is fine, but then I expect and reasonable explanation as to why they're presented in such a misleading manner.

Would you say or even suggest that Skwim felt he got it right where others did not?

Did you miss my mention of the huge mistake of starting with a conclusion?

No, but I welcome any facts that can support an opinion.

Actual figures? Degree of accuracy? Do you think the numbers give are always exactly correct, or are approximations?

I meant, actual figures of those you think the Bible got right.

The "flood" is far from a hot topic. Most people caught up with the 19th century
some time ago. For those who want to say the bible is accurate history, tho,
the "Flood" is kinda the elephant in the room.

No, I wont start a thread on it.

But it is a good topic to determine where a person stands.

I don't agree that anything has been disproved regarding the flood, but we all have our opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't agree that anything has been disproved regarding the flood, but we all have our opinions.

It does not matter whether or not you agree. This is a matter where you are obviously wrong. Disagreeing only tells us that you do not have much of a science education as I pointed out earlier. Would you like to learn?

 

[Audie]

I think that's fairly obvious.

Would you say or even suggest that Skwim felt he got it right where others did not?


No, but I welcome any facts that can support an opinion.


I meant, actual figures of those you think the Bible got right.


I don't agree that anything has been disproved regarding the flood, but we all have our opinions.

It is common enough for people to think they are gifted with inerrant readin'

You see no mistake in starting with a conclusion?

I dont know any actual figures the bible got right.
I noticed a lot of approximations.

Flood / disproof. True, we all have opinions, but then, data
and opinion are not the same word. Nor are all opinions equal
just for being opinions. You could ask the janitor, or the
brain surgeon for opinions on a cat scan.

That being said, there is abundant data to show that there
was no flood. Data v uninformed opinion is not much of a contest.

 

[nPeace]

I am trying to keep up with you Subduction Zone, so that we can get somewhere.
So let's slow the pace a bit. There is no Gish Galloping going on here. No one here is being forced to respond immediately, nor jump skip, and hop. If you feel that way, just slow it down. i'll walk with you, even crawl... if I have to.

Now it is obvious that a huge part of the Bible is just wrong if one reads it literally.

If - definition:
introducing a conditional (subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met) clause
In other words "based on this or that conditon, so so so..."
So would I be wrong to say that you cannot honestly say the Bible is wrong, if you don't know the condition - condition being "should this be read literally, or not?"?
Your answer - Yes or No.

And the Bible never claims to be the "Word of God" a claim that would have been refuted by the hundreds of self contradictions in the Bible alone. Calling it the "Word of God" is rather insulting to your deity.

I suggest that you are wrong on three counts.
1. the bible does make claims that it is the word of God.
2. No. There are no contradictions in the Bible to refute it being authentated by God. On the contrary in it's entirety, it unanimously supports the authorship of a divine being.
3. See 2.
If I am giving too much at one time, just take your time, and chew one at a time. i'll be with you.

It is a dishonest debating technique and those are generally used by people that know that they are wrong. I would avoid such in the future.

Wait wait wait. Hold up! Wait a minute.
You said I broght up poetry because I know I am wrong. Yet you have no problem with poetry.
So now I point out a discrepancy there, and I am using a dishonest debating technique, because I know I am wrong?
Man you confusing me. I'm beginning to wonder if this is your general debating tactic. Am I right?
Anyhow, I'm not about going in circles, so forget that.

No, your lack of science education is an observation, not an insult. I did not state that you lacked the intelligence to learn.

No. You know nothing about my scientific understanding, and instantly you jump on me about science education. It's an insult, plain and simple.
Okay, so here's your chance. Show me where you observed my lack of science knowledge.

I'll pause here till this is done.

 

[nPeace]

It does not matter whether or not you agree. This is a matter where you are obviously wrong. Disagreeing only tells us that you do not have much of a science education as I pointed out earlier. Would you like to learn?

No. There you go again. I did not elaborate on why I said I do not agree. That does not mean that there is no valid reason why. Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions is not the way to go... obviously.

 

[nPeace]

It is common enough for people to think they are gifted with inerrant readin'

You see no mistake in starting with a conclusion?

I dont know any actual figures the bible got right.
I noticed a lot of approximations.

Flood / disproof. True, we all have opinions, but then, data
and opinion are not the same word. Nor are all opinions equal
just for being opinions. You could ask the janitor, or the
brain surgeon for opinions on a cat scan.

That being said, there is abundant data to show that there
was no flood. Data v uninformed opinion is not much of a contest.

So give me your proof that the date is right. And when you do so, show me the scale you weighted it on.

 

[Audie]

So give me your proof that the date is right. And when you do so, show me the scale you weighted it on.

What on earth are you talking about.

Never mind, you are deliberately asking the ridiculous,
which is being evasive. Not worth my while. Bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am trying to keep up with you Subduction Zone, so that we can get somewhere.
So let's slow the pace a bit. There is no Gish Galloping going on here. No one here is being forced to respond immediately, nor jump skip, and hop. If you feel that way, just slow it down. i'll walk with you, even crawl... if I have to.

Now I must point out another improper technique of yours. You tend to excessively break up posts. That is both rude and implies that one cannot deal with concepts in context. You really should try to limit this. Responding to every sentence in a post is never justified. And yes, you have been galloping a bit. Slowing down to a crawl is for your benefit not ours. Once again, when you are the one that demonstrates an inability to understand a concept you try to accuse others of that fault. Not a wise debating technique.

If - definition:
introducing a conditional (subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met) clause
In other words "based on this or that conditon, so so so..."
So would I be wrong to say that you cannot honestly say the Bible is wrong, if you don't know the condition - condition being "should this be read literally, or not?"?
Your answer - Yes or No.[/quoite]

But we understand the Bible more than well enough to understand that it is wrong. Over and over again. By the way I did go back and you never even touched the "bats are birds" issue. If you read the passage in context it starts by saying these "birds" are unclean, it then gives a list of birds and ends with the bat. Now if you want to claim that the word "birds" was translated improperly then not only must you prove that, you also must come up with a reasonable explanation of why bats were included in that list.

I suggest that you are wrong on three counts.
1. the bible does make claims that it is the word of God.
2. No. There are no contradictions in the Bible to refute it being authentated by God. On the contrary in it's entirety, it unanimously supports the authorship of a divine being.
3. See 2.
If I am giving too much at one time, just take your time, and chew one at a time. i'll be with you.

1. No, the Bible never makes this claim. At best it refers to "the scriptures" but those can at best only be some verses older than the writing of that particular verse. And it does not even necessarily mean verses found in the Bible today.

2 Please, if you can't be rational there is no point in having a conversation. The countless contradiction in the Bible in fact make for very good humor. Here is just one example:

Wait wait wait. Hold up! Wait a minute.
You said I broght up poetry because I know I am wrong. Yet you have no problem with poetry.
So now I point out a discrepancy there, and I am using a dishonest debating technique, because I know I am wrong?
Man you confusing me. I'm beginning to wonder if this is your general debating tactic. Am I right?
Anyhow, I'm not about going in circles, so forget that.

Yes, even though you continue to demonstrate an inability to use logic, one uses improper debating techniques because deep down they know that they are wrong. And here is one more, inappropriate use of smileys. And as I said avoiding the Gish Gallop is for your advantage so that you will not get confused.

No. You know nothing about my scientific understanding, and instantly you jump on me about science education. It's an insult, plain and simple.
Okay, so here's your chance. Show me where you observed my lack of science knowledge.

I'll pause here till this is done.

That is wrong again. Even a high school level of science education should be enough to realize that the flood is a myth. So it is not an insult to observe that your level of science education is rather low. Also if it was an insult there would be an implication that you could not learn rather than an offer of assistance. Over reaction is another bad sign. Calling an offer of assistance an insult is an over reaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What on earth are you talking about.

Never mind, you are deliberately asking the ridiculous,
which is being evasive. Not worth my while. Bye.

Did he misinterpret "Data " as "Date" perhaps?

 

[nPeace]

Wow!
Yeah, the Philistines did flee in terror from the Israelites.
______________

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow!
Yeah, the Philistines did flee in terror from the Israelites.
______________

No one fled. You have merely been posting nonsense and Audie got tired of it.

Now you just did break the rules by equating Audie to a Philistine.

I am still wondering if you care to learn or not?

 

[nPeace]

No one fled. You have merely been posting nonsense and Audie got tired of it.

Now you just did break the rules by equating Audie to a Philistine.

I am still wondering if you care to learn or not?

Subduction, show me where I called anyone anything please.