Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[kinch]

This is a false dichotomy, since the Bible is not "opposed to science". You can believe that it is, if you want. It's a free country. I'm certainly not going to deny you that right. Everyone is entitled to their own belief system. But there are no facts that are in opposition to the Bible, only speculative theories.

Okay, I'll probably catch shit for this, but I intend it humorously and as being that view that I am entitled that doesn't quite match with yours.

I see this story, generally, as somewhat against accepted science in fact and theory by all scientists and those educated in science, if taken as a story on its own apart from religious indoctrination or belief:

There is a guy, or a being, who creates man out of clay, and then a woman out of the rib of the man, or maybe not, depending on which page you are reading of the Bible. The god was a minor guy (or two, actually: El and Jehovah (or more: Baal, etc.)), with other gods, but apparently he got pretty strong and people started forgetting his friends. Well this lady eats a magical apple because a talking snake told her to and now we are all totally screwed because of it, and because this apple was crazy magical. Anyway, lots of stuff happens and lots of people live hundreds of years, which isn't that big of a deal, because the Earth is only thousands of years old. One of these old guys builds a boat and loads tons of animals on it, happily, and floats around for a bit. Sometimes god gets mad, and sometimes the Earth stops spinning and stars fall onto the Earth from their water/glass ceiling. No biggie. Eventually, another guy comes along, and mentions that he isn't certain things because only god is, but really he is the son of god, but really he is also god. God, by the way, is all knowing except for when he doesn't know things and gets mad when he finds out, and is all powerful except for when he needs his rest or when he can't do stuff. The son-father-not-either-depending guy dies, and he comes back to life. Oh, before I forget, we are reminded constantly that the Earth is flat. Dinosaurs don't show up. Back to the son-etc. guy: if we pray to him and tell him that he is our master, and eat him up every now and again, depending on our sect, and drink a bit of his blood from time to time, or occasionally grape juice, then we go to a perfect place.

I can think of a few things that 99% of scientists would disagree with here.


Maybe this is another thread, and based on past experience one not worth pursuing, but it is funny depending on your angle.

I respect and enjoy religion, btw, but simply do not consider the Bible at one with science if it is interpreted literally.

 

[GoBucks89]

Maybe this is another thread, and based on past experience one not worth pursuing, but it is funny depending on your angle.

Sure, as long as your angle is atheism.

I respect and enjoy religion, btw, but simply do not consider the Bible at one with science if it is interpreted literally.

What facts do you have that contradict the Bible? And leave out that straw man about the "flat earth". The Bible does not teach it and the idea that people used to believe it is just a myth.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This just can't be true, say my critics. After all, didn't the Church teach that the world was flat? [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Actually, no. Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.[/FONT]
...
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The fact is that the earth's sphericity was attested to by the overwhelming consensus of European Christian thinkers; the idea of a flat earth, to the extent it was raised at all, was positively ridiculed.[/FONT]​

If you choose to avoid this topic, I will not press the point. It does tend to come down to personal opinions. The thing that I would ask is to avoid acting as if an opinion is a fact. No matter how strong your feelings are, that does not make them facts.

 

[Brewtus]

What facts do you have that contradict the Bible? And leave out that straw man about the "flat earth". The Bible does not teach it and the idea that people used to believe it is just a myth.

What facts contradict the Bible? Well here are just a few:

1) A bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
2) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
3) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
4) Hares chew their cud (Lev. 11:6);
5) Camels don't have divided hooves (Lev. 11:4);
6) The earth rests on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
7) The earth won't be moved (1 Chron. 16:30);
8) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
9) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

Many of these must have been clearly false to anyone living thousands of years ago who actually made an effort to study what they were writing about. But apparently they were either careless writers or were divinely inspired by an imperfect being.

And as for your flat-earth argument, Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth in 240 BC when it was commonly assumed that the earth was a sphere. No credible historian claims that people thought the earth was flat in the Middle Ages. But as you know the Bible wasn?t written in the middle ages. The Old Testatment was written long before Eratosthenes made his measurements and at a time when the earth was thought to be flat. If God wanted to effectively communicate his divinity and inerrancy, why would He be so vague in his descriptions of the earth (referring to edges, corners, pillars, etc) and not clearly state that the earth is a sphere? Could it be because the Bible wasn't divinely inspired and that ordinary falible men actually wrote it?

 

[lvbuckeye]

What facts contradict the Bible? Well here are just a few:

1) A bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
2) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
3) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
4) Hares chew their cud (Lev. 11:6);
5) Camels don't have divided hooves (Lev. 11:4);
6) The earth rests on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
7) The earth won't be moved (1 Chron. 16:30);
8) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
9) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

a great laundry list from someone who obviously hasn't taken the time to read the passages in context.
1) the defining word in Hebrew was 'owph, which means 'winged thing.' bats are winged things.
2) covered by 1).
3) the Hebrew word sherets defines said creeping things. sherets is not limited to the insect world.
4) technically speaking, rabbits DO chew their cud. nocturnal pellets differ from fecal matter, and are ingested to further extract nutrients.
5) camels do not have true cloven hooves. they walk on their pads, and not on the 'toenails' as do true cloven hooved animals.
6) the Hebrew matsuwq also means 'situated.' BTW, Job 26:7 says "He hangs the earth on nothing."
7) the Hebrew kuwn also means 'upright.' i haven't noticed the world turning upside down any time recently. have you?
8) the Hebrew kanaph also means 'quarters.' in every day communication, we often refer to the eastern or western or northern or southern hemispheres.
9) once again, the same Hebrew word kanaph is used.

Many of these must have been clearly false to anyone living thousands of years ago who actually made an effort to study what they were writing about. But apparently they were either careless writers or were divinely inspired by an imperfect being.

perhaps if you took the time to look up what the original text actually says for yourself, rather than relying on some C&P B.S. proposed by someone else who didn't actually do their research, you wouldn't look so foolish for posting that nonsense. it only took me a few minutes to debunk that rubbish.

And as for your flat-earth argument, Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth in 240 BC when it was commonly assumed that the earth was a sphere. No credible historian claims that people thought the earth was flat in the Middle Ages. But as you know the Bible wasn?t written in the middle ages. The Old Testatment was written long before Eratosthenes made his measurements and at a time when the earth was thought to be flat. If God wanted to effectively communicate his divinity and inerrancy, why would He be so vague in his descriptions of the earth (referring to edges, corners, pillars, etc) and not clearly state that the earth is a sphere? Could it be because the Bible wasn't divinely inspired and that ordinary falible men actually wrote it?

i think i already have this covered. just for fun, here's a few verses that mention a round earth: Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:21-22 (22 specifically mentions "the circle of the earth"), Proverbs 8:27, and Luke 17:31.

have a nice day.

 

[Brewtus]

a great laundry list from someone who obviously hasn't taken the time to read the passages in context.
1) the defining word in Hebrew was 'owph, which means 'winged thing.' bats are winged things.
2) covered by 1).
3) the Hebrew word sherets defines said creeping things. sherets is not limited to the insect world.
4) technically speaking, rabbits DO chew their cud. nocturnal pellets differ from fecal matter, and are ingested to further extract nutrients.
5) camels do not have true cloven hooves. they walk on their pads, and not on the 'toenails' as do true cloven hooved animals.
6) the Hebrew matsuwq also means 'situated.' BTW, Job 26:7 says "He hangs the earth on nothing."
7) the Hebrew kuwn also means 'upright.' i haven't noticed the world turning upside down any time recently. have you?
8) the Hebrew kanaph also means 'quarters.' in every day communication, we often refer to the eastern or western or northern or southern hemispheres.
9) once again, the same Hebrew word kanaph is used.

perhaps if you took the time to look up what the original text actually says for yourself, rather than relying on some C&P B.S. proposed by someone else who didn't actually do their research, you wouldn't look so foolish for posting that nonsense. it only took me a few minutes to debunk that rubbish.

i think i already have this covered. just for fun, here's a few verses that mention a round earth: Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:21-22 (22 specifically mentions "the circle of the earth"), Proverbs 8:27, and Luke 17:31.

have a nice day.

Thanks, now you've convinced me that there are no factual errors or inconsistencies in the Bible.

So your argument is essentially that the Bible was incorrectly translated to English. That the men who transcribed the Bible hundreds of years ago knew less about Hebrew than you do? My understanding is that these were highly skilled and educated men who spent considerable time and effort to correctly translate the Bible. If so, why did they screw up so badly? You would think that they wouldn't have arbitrarily chose to translate 'owph as "bat" if that's not what the word really meant. And why didn't anyone proofread their work over the last few hundred years to correct their supposed errors? I'm not denying that your interpretation of Hebrew is correct, but it just seems like very sloppy work for something so important and I'm interested to learn why this could have happened.

And the last time I checked a circle is a flat two-dimensional object. The earth is a sphere, not a circle.

But going back to one of the original topics of this thread: the Bible isn't a science book. It's a book of God, faith and morals that shows you how to live your life and how to get into heaven. It's not intended to tell you the detailed natural history of the universe and the earth. Science and religion can peacefully coexist when each stays within its limited scope of inquiry and recognizes its restrictions. Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God and can't answer questions related to values, morals and the supernatural. And the proper concern of religion is not declarations of truth about the natural world, but the search for meaning.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Thanks, now you've convinced me that there are no factual errors or inconsistencies in the Bible.

well, you haven't done a very good job of convincing us otherwise.

So your argument is essentially that the Bible was incorrectly translated to English. That the men who transcribed the Bible hundreds of years ago knew less about Hebrew than you do? My understanding is that these were highly skilled and educated men who spent considerable time and effort to correctly translate the Bible. If so, why did they screw up so badly? You would think that they wouldn't have arbitrarily chose to translate 'owph as "bat" if that's not what the word really meant. And why didn't anyone proofread their work over the last few hundred years to correct their supposed errors? I'm not denying that your interpretation of Hebrew is correct, but it just seems like very sloppy work for something so important and I'm interested to learn why this could have happened.

i did not state the the Bible is incorrectly translated.
first off, they didn't translate 'winged thing' into 'bat.' they translated 'winged thing' into 'bird.' is there any other class of animals in which every member has wings?

let me ask you this: does the salvation message change if the original Hebrew classification for winged things was read as 'birds' in the 17th century? the problem lies mostly in the fact that Hebrew is a consonant language, and there are quite simply limitations in the total number of words.

but to go on, i still don't think you have bothered to READ that passage in Leviticus in context, because you are completely missing the point of what it was saying. regardless if whether you deem the translation to be sloppy or not, the message was "you can eat any winged thing except:" and then it goes on to list those winged things that are not to be eaten, and bats are a part of that list. incidentally, the vast majority of those winged things are still not eaten even till this day, but feel free to eat a cormorant or a (gasp!) pelican (which isn't explicitly listed, but is covered under the Hebrew word) but don't come complaining to me if it tastes nasty.

seriously, you are making an issue where none exists.

And the last time I checked a circle is a flat two-dimensional object. The earth is a sphere, not a circle.

good grief. more picking of nits. do this: walk onto The Oval, pick any person at random, hold a baseball out in front of them and ask them to describe it in one word.

But going back to one of the original topics of this thread: the Bible isn't a science book. It's a book of God, faith and morals that shows you how to live your life and how to get into heaven. It's not intended to tell you the detailed natural history of the universe and the earth. Science and religion can peacefully coexist when each stays within its limited scope of inquiry and recognizes its restrictions. Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God and can't answer questions related to values, morals and the supernatural. And the proper concern of religion is not declarations of truth about the natural world, but the search for meaning.

ah, but you consistently attempt to invalidate the Bible by stating that is has no basis in science, as evidenced by your erroneous statements addressed above, and declare your beliefs to be superior because you think that yours do have a basis in science. the problem is that your beliefs are of just as religious and dogmatic a nature as the creationist's, whether you choose to see it or not.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

ah, but you consistently attempt to invalidate the Bible by stating that is has no basis in science, as evidenced by your erroneous statements addressed above, and declare your beliefs to be superior because you think that yours do have a basis in science. the problem is that your beliefs are of just as religious and dogmatic a nature as the creationist's, whether you choose to see it or not.

I've heard this argument many times before, and I don't think it's exactly the correct argument. It would be more accurate to say that one's absolute faith in science is comparable to one's absolute faith in God ? for example if one believes that science is absolutely correct just as one may say the Bible is absolutely correct.

Science, because it is based on an ongoing process that is constantly revising itself, is different than the Good Book. The Bible is static. There are many different ways to interpret what's written in the Bible, but it?s always the same book written at the same time(s). Conversely, there is not one Book of Science, and the many different scientific theories and hypotheses are constantly being tested and updated based on the scientific method (thank you 7th grade science). Beliefs based in science are by definition beliefs that are based on empirical evidence or theories that are rooted in empirical evidence and expanded by logical reasoning (math, for example). Beliefs based on the Bible are by definition based on Faith, and therefore are also by definition not based on empirical evidence.

The superiority of either science or Faith as a belief system is obviously subjective, but it?s just not accurate to say one?s beliefs, when rooted in science, are religious or dogmatic, because they are, by definition, not.

Anyways, the difference between the two can be summarized by Indiana Jones: ?Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.?

 

[Brewtus]

ah, but you consistently attempt to invalidate the Bible by stating that is has no basis in science, as evidenced by your erroneous statements addressed above, and declare your beliefs to be superior because you think that yours do have a basis in science. the problem is that your beliefs are of just as religious and dogmatic a nature as the creationist's, whether you choose to see it or not.

As I stated previously, I view the Bible as a book of faith and morality, not as a factual science book that describes how the universe and everything in it came to be. And the issue I have is when the Bible (specifically Genesis) is proclaimed as literal fact, when the overwhelming physical evidence is to the contrary. So either the Bible is wrong or God planted overwhelming evidence to make it look like the Bible is wrong. Science only deals with the "natural" and consequently has nothing to tell us about the supernatural or the existence of God. I don't believe in a personal God, but not because science has shown us one does not exist.

And my beliefs with regard to explaining natural phenomenon are superior to any beliefs based on a static religious document. As 'BusNative wrote above, science is not static or dogmatic because it is open to revision based on new evidence. This is what makes it a superior method of explaining the world around us. Theories in science must also be falsifiable whereas faith and religion by their very nature are not. I fully accept the possibility, no matter how slight, that the Big Bang, evolution and a 14 billion year old universe could all be wrong. I even accept the possibility that a personal God might exist and that Jesus was/is His son. But as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you open to the possibility that your God doesn't exist and that the Bible is nothing but a collection of ancient parables? If not, aren't you the one with dogmatic beliefs? And if so, what hypothetical evidence would make you change your beliefs?

 

[lvbuckeye]

evidence of abiogenesis would be a great start. where is the evidence that life can spontaneously come from non-life. remember, with great claims, must come great evidence.

(waits for Miller's experiment to be trotted out.)

 

[Gatorubet]

Sure, as long as your angle is atheism.

What facts do you have that contradict the Bible? And leave out that straw man about the "flat earth". The Bible does not teach it and the idea that people used to believe it is just a myth.

Which Bible? Parts of Genosis and the Noah and the Ark story are really two different stories mashed into one at a later date. Which is cool, but hardly a foundation for literal belief in the words of what is an inconsistant, cobbled together story that is partly a lift of the Gilgamesh saga.

 

[Brewtus]

evidence of abiogenesis would be a great start. where is the evidence that life can spontaneously come from non-life. remember, with great claims, must come great evidence.

(waits for Miller's experiment to be trotted out.)

So you chose not to answer any of my questions and jumped right into abiogenesis. I'm disappointed; I was looking forward to your responses. :(

I hope your argument isn't based on the assumption that since science hasn't been successful so far in creating new life in a laboratory setting (we've only been trying for about 50 years and it took nature over a billion years to do so) that you discredit every scientific theory. What if an announcement were made tomorrow by some scientist that life was finally created from non-life? Would that make you an atheist? I don't think so. I'm sure your faith is supported by more than just gaps in our knowledge.

And there are many gaps in our scientific knowledge; I'm not denying that. But just because we don't know with certainty what sparked the Big Bang doesn't mean that we don't know with scientific certainty that the Big Bang did occur 14 billion years ago. And because we don't know exactly how the first forms of life appeared doesn't mean that evolution isn't a fact and that humans share a common ancestor with apes. But a claim that the universe and humans came about as literally described in the Bible is strictly a matter of faith. There is no theory of Creationism and no supporting evidence of the same. So once again I'll stand by my postion: science is a superior method of gaining knowledge about natural history than the Bible.

 

[MaxBuck]

Ah yes. The oft-recurring debate between those who regard the Bible as a book of facts vs. those who see it as a book of truth.

 

[GoBucks89]

And the issue I have is when the Bible (specifically Genesis) is proclaimed as literal fact, when the overwhelming physical evidence is to the contrary. So either the Bible is wrong or God planted overwhelming evidence to make it look like the Bible is wrong.

In your opinion. You state it as if it was a fact, but it's not. It's just your opinion.

Which Bible? Parts of Genosis and the Noah and the Ark story are really two different stories mashed into one at a later date. Which is cool, but hardly a foundation for literal belief in the words of what is an inconsistant, cobbled together story that is partly a lift of the Gilgamesh saga.

Again, all I am asking is that opinions not be posted as if they were facts. Brewtus, I know you believe very strongly that there is evidence against the Bible. Gator, you apparently believe this theory that Genesis was cobbled together from old myths. But these are not facts, they're just beliefs. You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am entitled to mine. End of story.

 

[BrutuStrength]

OK guys, I've sorted all of this stuff out now. Please remember to post material in the proper threads. Thank you.

 

[Brewtus]

In your opinion. You state it as if it was a fact, but it's not. It's just your opinion.

No, I'm not stating my opinion. These are scientific facts. It's a fact that the universe is around 14 billion years old. It's a fact that all life currently on the planet evolved and shares a common ancestor (or ancestors), including humans. This is all supported by evidence gathered from the fields of astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology. There is no credible evidence supporting a 6,000-year-old earth, or a universe that was created in 6 days, or a global flood, or the concept that man was created out of clay and woman from one of his ribs. These are the facts. If you want the story of Genesis to be taken seriously you must provide evidence supporting your position, not just try to discredit science and evolution. Where's your evidence?