Scientific falsehoods in the Bible

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Just to make a quick reference for people, this is a quick list of some of the brilliant scientific "facts" (read blatant flasehoods) found in the Bible. Feel free to ask for explanations.

Said by one who's only reading of the Word is to discredit other people's faith.

You're on.

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)

Perhaps some more study is in order for you.

Mind you, the account is given with a point of view from our planet . . .

In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth.

Before the first day, the heavens (universe, stars, sun, planets, etc) and earth were created.

Job 38:33 refutes geo-centrism. It says "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?"

Genesis 1:2 has God brooding over the waters of the earth (how can He do this,if nothing was created yet?). That means it was already created. This verse also tells us that there was a darkness over the waters. The darkness was a cloud (likely of dust and gas), as evidenced in Job 38:4-9. It says "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band."

God parted the cloud (Let there be light), separating the darkness from light, and giving earth her day cycles.

Genesis 1:6-10 describes what we call the water cycle, and the formation of land through plate tectonics.

Then God created plant life, followed by the cloud completely taken away to reveal the stars, the moon, and the sun.

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

Nope. The Hebrew word is בִּרְקִ֣יעַ which means expanse. It is a bad translation

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Again, bad translation. The word in Hebrew is נָגַהּ which means to shine. The moon does shine, but not on it's own accord.

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Again . . . wrong translations. It was a local flood, but it affected all of humanity because humans were centered in on region, which is proven scientifically.

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

What is the issue here?

--Philology

First, language studies have led many scholars to the conclusion that the varied human tongues ultimately can be traced to a common source. Max F. Muller (1823-1900) was one of the world’s foremost comparative philologists, i.e., one who studies ancient languages and observes their similarities and differences. He taught at Oxford University. In his book, Science of Language, the celebrated professor wrote: “We have examined all possible forms which language can assume, and we now ask, can we reconcile with these three distinct forms, the radical, the terminational, the inflectional, the admission of one common origin of human speech? I answer decidedly, Yes” (Muller 46-47).

Sanskrit was the ancient and classical language of India. Sir William Jones (1746-1794), was an accomplished scholar in this language, and in 1786 he wrote:

The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source which no longer exists (10).

Jones also suggested that Gothic, Celtic, and Persian belonged to the same linguistic family, now known as Endo-European.

In his respected two-volume work on Genesis, Dutch scholar G. Ch. Aalders has this comment:

A famous Assyriologist made the amazing discovery that there is a clear relationship between the languages of some of the native people in Central and South America and some of the Islands, on the one hand, and the ancient Sumerian [the oldest known language] and Egyptian languages, on the other. This scholar, who formerly had considered the account in Genesis 11:1-9 to be no more than a myth, came to the conclusion that the biblical narrative is more credible than had been supposed (1981, 254).

Dr. Harold Stigers has an interesting summary of this matter:

Though there are countless languages and dialects [approximately three thousand currently known], yet ultimate derivation from a parent language is revealed through the continuing studies being made across the boundaries of the major language families. Common features of syntax and vocabulary, which are similar enough, yet different enough not to be labeled borrowings, indicate that one must posit a common ancestor (1976, 130).

Interestingly, secular journalists recently discussed the work of certain linguistic scientists who, using computers to compare languages, are speculating that there may indeed be a mother tongue, which they are calling “proto-World.” One writer went so far as to say: “Maybe the Bible is right, and there really was a Tower of Babel. Or at least, maybe there really was once a single human language, before we were all cursed with a confusion of tongues” (Dyer 1990).-- Source

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

It does not say that. It just says that God caused the languages to change.

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

The time they were in Egypt was 430 years.

Dozens? There were 70 men(Genesis 46:8-25), which needs to be doubled for their wives . . . so 140.

Genesis 47:27 says that "the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen, they acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.'

By the time of the birth of Moses about 118 years after Jacob's death the Hebrew population explosion was alarming the Egyptians. The Pharaoh of that time pointed out to his people that the Israelites have become much too numerous for us (Exodus 1:9). The Israelites, at this time in their history, had long life spans well over 100 years. The three generations before Moses averaged 135 years. If old age was the only factor causing death then by the time of the death of Joseph only a few of the first 140 people would have died. (Levi lived to an age of 137 years, his younger brother Joseph only reached 110 years.)

To attain Israelite population growth to 3 million in 215 years requires a yearly birth rate of at least 57 babies along with a yearly death rate of 11 people for every 1000 people . . . you can figure out the rest of the math, I am sure.

If not, here is my source, and the formula's, and modern proof that his is OVERLY possible

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

Refection, my friend. Look it up. It is not what you normally think of as chewing the cud (which is how ruminants are classified), but it does fit scriptural definition of an animal re-eating its food (which is what chewing the cud is), and is scientifically sound.

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Typical. The answer is staring at you in the very verses you used as reference.

Leviticus 14:2 says "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing (טָהֳרָה, not גֵּהָה which is the word for cure). He shall be brought unto the priest.

This was for ceremonial cleansing, not an end-all-be-all cure.

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

Not all snake bites, and not for all people. Context clues man.

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

Mistranslations of Hebrew to English . . . again.

The word is רָפָא, which is just a tribe of people. Dunno where the giants came into play in the translations.

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

תַּנִּין is the correct word, which is a serpent or a sea monster. Translation error . . . again.

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

Read it

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Metaphors. I suppose Hauling ass really means that I am hauling donkeys as opposed to going really fast. Amirite?

Please refer to Job 26:7, where it says "He suspends the Earth over nothing."

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

Misinterpretation again.

Circumference (C) = Pi*Diameter (D)

Line in Hebrew is קָוָה.

The word in the verse is קָוה.

If you take the gematria letter ratio from קָוָה to קָוה, you will get a ratio of 111/106 . . . or 1.0471698. Multiply taht times your 3, and you get . . . 3.14

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

Or the shadow moved backwards, as the text says. Twisting words much?

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

Learn to metaphor in Hebrew, please.

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

Now you are just being dense. Heart is conscience.

לֵב is the word, which translates to inner man, mind, will, heart

aka . . . conscience.
Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

Again, metaphor . . . unless you want to say that the writer of that psalm really means that the day utters speech and the night shows knowledge.

YOu know . . . today, we even say that the sun rises and sets . . . right?

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

Is a metaphoric psalm, as most are.

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

כָּנָף is the word, and it means extremities.

It was a mistranslation that threw in a metaphor. lol

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

Translation errors. Look em up yourself, since you did not list specific verses.

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

It was definitely a dream. Daniel even says so in the opening words. I guess dreams = reality?

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

Yep . . . Daniel is still dreaming since the last time we touched on his book.

Fantastic things happen in dreams . . . did you know?









Any other "falsities" you would like to have debunked?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Science has made more mistakes than the Bible

I'm sorry, I don't even know why I post in these threads, but it is too late because my GOD loving fingers are already typing.

Yeah man awesome... that'll show dem!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why do you spend your life trying disprove God?
I'm not a scientist, and I'm not a philosopher.
I am however smart enough to grasp the concept that God's way of thinking is not our way of thinking.
I'm not someone who thinks just because God doesn't answer every single one of my prayers He doesn't exist.
Why turn your back on Jesus when his arms are open to anyone who wants to come to him?
I know that some of you will criticize me and laugh but It is written as such. John 15:18-21

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."

John 17:14-18

"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one."

But you don't want accept in God because you are afraid. you don't want to accept God's rules so you live by your own.

Hell! I'm not even perfect I sin all the time as do you.
Who are you but a mere mortal to try and disprove an all knowing God?
I pray that every single one of you find Jesus and have a relationship with him before you die, I wouldn't want my worst enemy to spend an eternity in hell separated from God's perfect love. In Jesus Name I pray, Amen.

You have a choice and it's a free gift, Don't throw it away and spit in God's face.
The truth is right there in front of your eyes!! but you choose not to accept the truth, because you do not like the truth.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Where does the Bible say that the Earth is 5000 years old? i'm sure it states that the Earth is much older then that.

Originally posted by havok

Atheists or believers always have on thing in common, arguments.

Why does anyone still try to prove a point from either side still?
Don't we have better things to worry about?
This country is drowning in debt and you're worried about Bible 'falsehoods'?

Its not the atheists that make me sick, its what seems to be instigators.
Looking for an argument...

Well the reason some Atheists present arguments showing mistakes in the bible is for balance. For each Atheist argument there is 1000 Christians knocking on doors, standing on corners, going on crusades etc all to argue why the bible is the truth and Jesus should be worshipped

i had to chuckle when i read the topic.

explain the finding of troy, whatever.

i think it goes deeper than what we can see right now.

so what, become a muslim.

Whats the point?

PS - please dont tell me we aren't supposed to take this 'literally', that is a cop out.

why does there have to be a point to everything, why does everything need a purpose is it not enough to simply exist?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Just to make a quick reference for people, this is a quick list of some of the brilliant scientific "facts" (read blatant flasehoods) found in the Bible. Feel free to ask for explanations.

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

No to nitpick, but go back & read it again: "light" existed before the sun & the moon. So the plants had some sort of light source. What the hell does this mean? I dunno. Just pointing it out.

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
...actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

Point 2: Wayellll, it is wrong according to theory. But since you & I weren't there when it happened, I guess we don't really know for sure, now do we?

What I do know for sure is that when science becomes too arrogant to consider all possibilities, learning stops.

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)
The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Yawn... blah blah blah explained to primitive peoples blah blah blah...

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Lots of ancient societies have flood stories. Did they all make it up, too? I for one think it's quite interesting that so many disparate peoples share a common story.

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)
Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

Refer to Point 2, above.

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

Four hundred years, actually. And the translations are in question as to the number of people. Numbers says it was just over 600k --> a totally different number. The estimate of a few million is based on a lot of assumptions - it isn't actually given in the bible.

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

I went to my Tanakh for this. That is, you know, the original Bible. It says the "hare" and the "rock badger" are vegetarian but do not have parted hooves, so are not permissible food. It does not say they are ruminants at all. This is in a section explaining that permissible food must be both vegetarian AND have split hooves, not either/or.

*Beware of all translations*

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Actually, you've read this wrong. There is a difference between "cured" and "ritual cleanliness". This passage actually gives the ritual cleaning method that should be used AFTER the leper has been found to have healed from the leprosy spontaneously. In which case, the person probably did not have leprosy but something that looked like leprosy. Or a damned fine immune system.

Why did the Israelites have to perform rituals for cleanliness? I dunno. But I do know they were clearly only rituals, and stated as such in the Bible itself, and the effect was spiritual, not physical. I have my own theory on maybe why (psychological), but it isn't important here.

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)
Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)
Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

Since the snakes were magically sent from God, couldn't they be magically cured by God? Just sayin'.

I guess until we find a skeleton of a giant, we can't really say. Also keep in mind that the Israelites (and all people at this time) are believed to have been very short. Someone as tall as my brother is (6'5") would have qualified as a giant. Even only a thousand years ago vikings were considered giants (just sayin').

Regarding dragons, see point #2. If you believe in evolution and not creationism, then you must believe people & dinosaurs likely overlapped, right? And if they did, I can easily see a pterodactyl or something similar being passed into legend with the name "dragon".

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

I.e., God is all powerful, etc. Do I believe this actually happened? I dunno. Could it? Sure, why not. I don't know if Jacob wrestled with God (an angel?) and hurt his hip and was renamed Israel, but it could have happened. Anything is possible.

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Yawn... blah blah blah explained to primitive peoples blah blah blah... POETRY... sigh.

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

I don't know anything about this site in general, but his math appears to work out: ad2004.com...

For those who don't go visit, it has to do with the item in question not being a perfect cylinder, and the fact that it had a width of several inches, which is not taken into account. If you do account for its width, it appears these people understood pi after all.

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

Point 3: Sigh. These are poems. That are basically saying that nothing can move the earth but God. Your'e referring to allegories and poetic devices. What has more permanence in the history of man than the fact of the earth beneath our feet? Really, if you're going to try to discredit the Bible, you should know enough about it to ignore the obvious poetry. I know of a poem that says the moon is a ship, but that don't make it so.

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

This is cultural symbolism. Some cultures believed that emotions were in the stomach. I don't know of any early cultures who associated emotion with the head. Please inform me if there is one. Modern western belief associates emotion with the heart, I think. You know, all those crazy symbols on Valentine's day and what-not.

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

Please reference Point 3, above. The entire book of Job is POEM. Also, this section says that ostriches make their nests on the ground (which they do) and that they don't cry if their eggs get eaten or crushed, because they don't have emotional understanding. I've never seen an ostrich cry or seen any kind of bird get emotional, so I guess I'll have to agree with this one. Either way, it's a POEM, man!

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

I don't know what version you're working from, but these verses don't say that. And again, they are poetry. They say the sun is a "strong man" that runs its course and other things. But never what you're supposing.

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

Snails do melt: go to youtube and search "snail salt". All of the videos are too icky to link here. I've seen them melt in nature, but I dunno what caused it. I was just a kid who spent a lot of time outdoors.

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

Isaiah 11:12 says "four quarters of the earth" in NIV. The Tanakh does say "from the four corners of the earth".

I grew up hearing this as a saying that meant the "four directions" - N, S, W, E.

But however you look at it, there's no evidence this people believed the earth was flat.

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

You're so funny. Again, references to these animals (mostly from Greek mythology) I can't find in the Tanakh. In the NIV the only reference to satyrs I can find is referring to idols. The cockatriece is only mentioned in the Tanakh as part of a strange messianic prophecy that isn't well understood, clearly not meant literally.

I believe you are getting this information from here: www.deism.com... I will just say that choosing as your sole source someone who is obviously trying to discredit something, is not wise. You need more than one source. Please find actual references in a real bible and let me know what you found. I searched several different versions and didn't find anything that was claimed on that site.

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

Again, I looked in multiple versions, Tanakh & a few Christian versions, and all I found was a dream-prophecy about a giant tree and an angel coming down from heaven. No idea what you're referring to.

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

Again, this is a magical dream-prophecy with many fantastical elements, and which no one understands well.

---

So, I've taken some time here & addressed your points (as you requested but which I don't think you expected!), and I must say. If you wanted to discredit the Bible, you failed miserably. I think of MANY more credible passages that could have been used. You've picked poetry, dreams, weird prophecies, and bad translations that I can't even find. This list is rather silly.

I've heard the original Bible (the one the Jews wrote) described as a history of man's feeble attempts to understand God and his relationship with God. The original Bible is full of poetry, allegory, prophecy, and oral history that was written down hundreds of years after the fact. It can only be understood in this context.

The only reason threads like this come up is that Christians try to falsely claim that every word of the Bible is the perfect word of God straight from heaven. That argument is one made either 1) in an attempt to control the ignorant masses and keep collection plates full, or 2) by ignorant people who don't know anything about their own faith and are too frightened to question anything.

Instead of working to condemn it as literal history (which it obviously is NOT), you could be studying it for the scientific history contained within. It is a long history of how man understood his surroundings and the universe. Looking at how many cultures believed in a great flood, for example, is fascinating. And intriguing. The Bible has long been studied by non-believers for its cultural and historical value. There is no doubting its value as such, whatever your opinions on God are.

I guess you can keep making these arguments, but you're trying to prove that a false statement is false, using bad proofs. Honestly I think you're just trolling for S&F, and you didn't expect anyone with any knowledge to respond intelligently.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Flood Myth () - The generally accepted explanation of the story of the Flood is that it told of a local event experienced by ancient Sumerians who spread the tale by diffusion to the surrounding cultures.(abubu = Flood). NOTE: This predates Noah’s story in the Bible.
"In 1929, the English archaeologist Sir Charles Woolley reported finding water-deposited layers as much as ten feet thick in excavations near the Euphrates..." - Isaac Asimov, In The Beginning, (1981) pp. 153-154
There are approximately 175 flood myths. 14 of them specifically mention a full solar eclipse, these date to May 10th 2807 BC. That particular date coincides with an asteroid impact off the coast of Madagascar. The Tsunami would have been in excess of 600 feet and likely double that in depth. Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami. Four wedge shaped chevrons or wedge shaped sediment deposits in Madagascar indicate such an upheaval, they point to an 18 mile wide crater some 12,500 below the water surface demonstrate that such an impact point. That crater is in the middle of the Indian ocean. See Noah, Deukalion. Some newer scientific speculations lean toward dates between 7 and 10,000 years ago.
Flood myths are generally found to be overlapping in the near east. However in many island myths the origin of life is not from a flood but rather a watery chaos. In the Americas the flood myths are an adaption of Christian mythology.
The flood truly comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh 2600 BC.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm sure you know of at least one person who has changed their mind...... It's really for the people who are in the 'flock', not the people who are actively arguing against me here. It's for the people who will stop by and flag threads and maybe read them but not participate. And those people exist.

And that's why I do it too, only I am on the other team. There are some that will pick up on the arguments that have the"ring of truth" to them personally. People perspectives and life experiences effect what they choose to want to believe or disbelieve. There all kinds of people that used to believe in the bible and now don't for whatever reason. And some that used to not believe in the bible and now do.

In 1803, United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“To the corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.”

Words to meditate on.

I will respond to these points later when I have more time, but the basic answer for many of them is simply miracles performed by God, you either have faith that he can accomplish them or you don't.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Thomas Jefferson was not a man of Christ. He was a man of "reason."

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

I don't use this website but they have it on there so here it is. He was a man who believed in "a God" but not the Creator of the Biblical texts. He believed more in GAOTU (Great Architect of the Universe) which is the masonic belief. Of course that God is false.
Letter To John Adams

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Just to make a quick reference for people, this is a quick list of some of the brilliant scientific "facts" (read blatant flasehoods) found in the Bible. Feel free to ask for explanations.

Said by one who's only reading of the Word is to discredit other people's faith.

...actually, I first read the Bible as a devout Christian, it was the experience of trying to get to know the deity I thought existed really well that lead me to realize that the supposed word of the supposed creator of the universe was not only blatantly wrong in some places, but internally contradictory. I still respect it as a document that reflect some interesting cultural aspects about people throughout history, I just don't realize that it's wrong.

...and people's faith, if their faith is in something that is demonstrably wrong, should be discredited.

You're on.

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)

Perhaps some more study is in order for you.

...except that it isn't. The passages clearly state that the act of creation of Earth (and plants) proceeds the creation of the Sun. Any further passages which refute this would merely highlight inherent contradictions between two passages in the Bible.

Mind you, the account is given with a point of view from our planet . . .

Genesis 1 is given from a third person omniscient narrative view. Please don't talk about point of view when you don't understand the literary convention.

In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth.

heaven and the earth. Singular.

Before the first day, the heavens (universe, stars, sun, planets, etc) and earth were created.

...no. I swear, blueletterbible.com should give me a sponsorship for how much traffic I give them during these threads. I've addressed this objection before. One needs only read Genesis 1:16-19 to realize that the Sun isn't created in the first day.

Genesis 1:16-19

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Job 38:33 refutes geo-centrism. It says "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?"

That doesn't refute geocentrism one bit. That merely states that either heaven or the heavens have an influence on the Earth, not that the Earth is in revolution around the Sun...and again, there are all sorts of passages that relate directly to geocentrism, so you're (at best) highlighting the contradictions within the Bible.

Genesis 1:2 has God brooding over the waters of the earth (how can He do this,if nothing was created yet?).

...the Earth is created. I didn't say that nothing was created, I'm saying that the Sun and Moon are created on the fourth day as clearly stated in Genesis 1:16-19. I'm not refuting that the first day involves the creation of the Earth (without dry land) and the "sky" so to speak...but not the contents of the sky, which are created separately and after the creation of plants.

That means it was already created. This verse also tells us that there was a darkness over the waters.

Well, clearly there's darkness when the Sun was still four days away from being created. Seriously, the following logical loop you have to tie yourself in to get around this is ridiculous.

The darkness was a cloud (likely of dust and gas), as evidenced in Job 38:4-9. It says "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band."

God parted the cloud (Let there be light), separating the darkness from light, and giving earth her day cycles.

...I'm sorry, but that passage doesn't say that. Let's break it down.

Job 38:4 states that the Earth has foundations (that would mean it is fixed in place, hooray for trying to cover up one wound by causing another). You skipped 5-7....so I will too, except to mention that 6 reiterates that the Earth is definitively fastened to something with foundations....which means that it definitely cannot be moving, much less moving around the Sun.

And the cloud is referring to the doors of the sky...because of the ancient Hebrew belief that rain was caused by doors opening in the sky and letting out water that exists above the sky out...we've been above the sky, there isn't any water there.

Genesis 1:6-10 describes what we call the water cycle, and the formation of land through plate tectonics.

Genesis 1:6-7 reiterates the idea that there is water above the sky. I don't see how you get the rest of the water cycle from there, nor is there any reason for the commandment of a divine being for the land to be in one place and the water to be in another place to explain continental formation via plate tectonics.

Then God created plant life, followed by the cloud completely taken away to reveal the stars, the moon, and the sun.

Except that I already pointed out that Genesis 1:16 clearly states that the fourth day involves God making two lights and then lesser lights. The word for make has no possible translation as to reveal. These lights are later placed in the firmament (solid sky thing) that separates the waters above from the waters below.

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

Nope. The Hebrew word is בִּרְקִ֣יעַ which means expanse. It is a bad translation

...no, it's a fairly good translation. Raqiya` (the Hebrew word you cited) has a root in the word (raqa') which means "to hammer out".
Citation 1 (Raqiya')
Citation 2 (Raqa')

Last I checked, something which is hammered out and can physically separate "waters above" from "waters below" would be physical in and of itself. Now, the word can mean expanse...when it refers to a base. There is no evidence that the original Hebrew word meant anything other than a solid barrier in this context.

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Again, bad translation. The word in Hebrew is נָגַהּ which means to shine. The moon does shine, but not on it's own accord.

Ma'owr (מאור) is used, not the word you're citing, in Genesis 1:16. The moon in Genesis 1:16 is a light in and of itself, just as the sun is. It is presented as equivalent to the moon, if not

Nowhere in Isaiah does the word 'shine' not mean that the moon doesn't give light of its own accord, it would merely be consistent with both the idea that it reflects the light of the sun (something that Hebrews couldn't accept because the sun was in transit to the place of its rising at night) or the idea, as given in Genesis 1:16, that the moon is a light in and of itself.

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Again . . . wrong translations. It was a local flood, but it affected all of humanity because humans were centered in on region, which is proven scientifically.

Nowhere in the flood account of Noah is it given that the flood is of local proportion. Not a bad translation one bit. Water covering the peak of the highest mountains? Definitely not a local flood. And by the time of human agriculture (which is definitely past the point of the global flood account of Noah, as he plants a vineyard), humanity was definitely not centered in one region.

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

What is the issue here?

....that nothing in contemporary philology actually fits the Babel account.

snip large external quote

Notice that linguistic groups are centers, not a single individual language.

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

It does not say that. It just says that God caused the languages to change.

...to the point where people scatter about and immediately cease the construction of the tower in the story. The change couldn't have come gradually.

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

The time they were in Egypt was 430 years.

...like I said, a few hundred years. 430 = a few hundred. In fact, anywhere in the range of 200 to 900 is a few hundred years. Granted, there's actually no historical evidence to support the assertion that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt.

Dozens? There were 70 men(Genesis 46:8-25), which needs to be doubled for their wives . . . so 140.

...140...or just over 11 dozen. Dozens. And since when were Hebrews of that period non-polygamist? Or does the founding of the twelve tribes from the two wives (who are sisters) and concubines of one man mean that they stopped polygamy?

Genesis 47:27 says that "the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen, they acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.'


By the time of the birth of Moses about 118 years after Jacob's death the Hebrew population explosion was alarming the Egyptians.

*Sigh*...I know the story.

The Pharaoh of that time pointed out to his people that the Israelites have become much too numerous for us (Exodus 1:9). The Israelites, at this time in their history, had long life spans well over 100 years.

Which is claimed...yet entirely unsupported by any evidence.

The three generations before Moses averaged 135 years.

Which is also claimed...yet unsupported by any evidence.

If old age was the only factor causing death

Which it wouldn't have been for a people that didn't understand anything about proper medicine. Hell, we've doubled the human lifespan in the last 150 years of human history. There's no evidence of any society in history having an average lifespan beyond what the average life span is in the modern western world beyond claims.

then by the time of the death of Joseph only a few of the first 140 people would have died. (Levi lived to an age of 137 years, his younger brother Joseph only reached 110 years.)

To attain Israelite population growth to 3 million in 215 years requires a yearly birth rate of at least 57 babies along with a yearly death rate of 11 people for every 1000 people . . . you can figure out the rest of the math, I am sure.

So your claim is based on the idea that every single Hebrew individual who lived at that time (if they were even there to begin with) somehow all managed to live to the age reported for a single family even though those accounts are based on mythic idealization.

Oh...and everyone who witnessed the golden calf incident (except for two) dies in 40 years...so the average lifespan of 100+ doesn't make any sense.

If not, here is my source, and the formula's, and modern proof that his is OVERLY possible

Except that it's full of unsupportable assumptions...like that bronze age people lived beyond the age of 40 on average.

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

Refection, my friend. Look it up. It is not what you normally think of as chewing the cud (which is how ruminants are classified), but it does fit scriptural definition of an animal re-eating its food (which is what chewing the cud is), and is scientifically sound.

So where's the evidence that all hares and coneys re-eat their own food?

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Typical. The answer is staring at you in the very verses you used as reference.

Leviticus 14:2 says "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing (טָהֳרָה, not גֵּהָה which is the word for cure). He shall be brought unto the priest.

This was for ceremonial cleansing, not an end-all-be-all cure.

Except that the passage treats the ceremonial cleansing as if it is an "end-all-be-all cure".

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

Not all snake bites, and not for all people. Context clues man.

...again, in any context, this passage is ludicrous.

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

Mistranslations of Hebrew to English . . . again.

The word is רָפָא, which is just a tribe of people. Dunno where the giants came into play in the translations.

You keep saying that it's a mistranslation...without providing evidence that it's a mistranslation. You just have us take your word for it. If the king of this tribe has a giant bed to fit his great stature...how is he not a giant? If his bed is required to be 16 feet long, how is he not a giant? Hell, the giants are even mentioned as being polydactyl.

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

תַּנִּין is the correct word, which is a serpent or a sea monster. Translation error . . . again.

...dragons are classified as serpents. Dragons, particular in near Eastern traditions...are serpents. And again, giant sea serpents and sea monsters? Not exactly a scientific fact.

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

Read it

Wow, you're just asking me to read a whole article? I'm sorry, but the mechanism proposed here is (aside from being founded in some very bad mathematics that somehow separate the continental masses of the Earth entirely from the gravity of the Earth), would cause massive worldwide earthquakes that would be recorded in the geologic record.

Furthermore, there aren't worldwide contemporary accounts of this event. I'm quite sure the sudden stopping of the cycle of day and night for an observable period would be noted by any literate culture. The Chinese and Mesopotamian peoples spring to mind as the sorts that would have recorded such an event.

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Metaphors. I suppose Hauling ass really means that I am hauling donkeys as opposed to going really fast. Amirite?

Please refer to Job 26:7, where it says "He suspends the Earth over nothing."

....so it's a metaphor there...what is it a metaphor for? For the Earth being stuck in one place? And, if anything, the second passage is (as I've repeatedly stated) at best evidence for the internal contradictions within the compilation of texts known as "The Bible".

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

Misinterpretation again.

Circumference (C) = Pi*Diameter (D)

Line in Hebrew is קָוָה.

The word in the verse is קָוה.

If you take the gematria letter ratio from קָוָה to קָוה, you will get a ratio of 111/106 . . . or 1.0471698. Multiply taht times your 3, and you get . . . 3.14

Except...no, you don't get to play with the numbers of the words here.

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

Or the shadow moved backwards, as the text says. Twisting words much?

For a shadow to move backwards the light source has to move backwards...and the light source given is clearly outside.

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

Learn to metaphor in Hebrew, please.

So it's a metaphor where it's convenient? And the metaphor would be "the Earth doesn't move". If the Earth has foundations, what are the other metaphorical implications?

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

Now you are just being dense. Heart is conscience.

לֵב is the word, which translates to inner man, mind, will, heart

aka . . . conscience.

Says the person who just turned a Hebrew word into numbers to alter an equation. The Hebrew (and many other ancient) conception for the center of emotion and thought was at the heart. To contest this is beyond dishonest.

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

I like that this passage was ignored.

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

Again, metaphor . . . unless you want to say that the writer of that psalm really means that the day utters speech and the night shows knowledge.

YOu know . . . today, we even say that the sun rises and sets . . . right?

Again, if it is a metaphor then where is the contradicting passage? Why is there no indication within the Bible that the Earth is in motion?

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

Is a metaphoric psalm, as most are.

So there's a difference between metaphoric and non metaphoric psalms now? I like how you get to pick and choose like that.

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

כָּנָף is the word, and it means extremities.

It was a mistranslation that threw in a metaphor. lol

...the Earth has four extremities...except that it doesn't. Oblate spheroids don't.

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

Translation errors. Look em up yourself, since you did not list specific verses.

Cockatrices are mentioned specifically as serpents hatched from the egg of a chicken. Isaiah 11,14,59.

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

It was definitely a dream. Daniel even says so in the opening words. I guess dreams = reality?

Then why does the world of this dream in a divinely inspired vision not even loosely fit reality? Hell, where is the evidence within the Bible that shows that the Earth isn't flat?

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

Yep . . . Daniel is still dreaming since the last time we touched on his book.

Fantastic things happen in dreams . . . did you know?

And the language used within the rest of the Bible is somehow entirely consistent with the language within this dream. Please, show me a passage where it even hints at the incomprehensibly distant size and nature of stars.

Any other "falsities" you would like to have debunked?[

Since you didn't really debunk any....how about you handle my objections to your attempts?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So your answer is of equivalent explanatory power to an Insane Clown Posse song...wow. What about the fact that the miraculous occurrences intrude into the physical world and thus would have physical evidence. I mean, I didn't include "A dude walks on water" or "Food magically rains down from the sky" or "A sea is parted" or other such miracles, I merely commented on the parts where the physical world is described or directly acted upon.

reply to post by Schkeptick

Originally posted by Schkeptick

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Just to make a quick reference for people, this is a quick list of some of the brilliant scientific "facts" (read blatant flasehoods) found in the Bible. Feel free to ask for explanations.

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

No to nitpick, but go back & read it again: "light" existed before the sun & the moon. So the plants had some sort of light source. What the hell does this mean? I dunno. Just pointing it out.

The photosynthesis question wasn't an objection, the typical answer is that the light source is the deity mentioned....but it's not consistent with the evidence at hand.

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
...actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

Point 2: Wayellll, it is wrong according to theory. But since you & I weren't there when it happened, I guess we don't really know for sure, now do we?

Circuit theory is a theory too. I hate that underscoring of the word theory because it demonstrates an ignorance of science. Just because we weren't there doesn't mean that all conceptions are equal in possible validity. The scientific theories that relate to the order of events fit with all of the evidence, whilst the events as described in Genesis are entirely inconsistent.

What I do know for sure is that when science becomes too arrogant to consider all possibilities, learning stops.

Science doesn't consider all possibilities, it considers all possible explanations that fit with the evidence.

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)
The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Yawn... blah blah blah explained to primitive peoples blah blah blah...

I was quite primitive when I was first explained the truth about the sun and moon. I believe I was actually 3 years old when my father explained it. Sure, I didn't get all of the physics about it, but I got that the Sun is bigger than the Earth, so the Earth goes around it, but the Moon is smaller than the Earth, so the Moon goes around it. I understood that the two only appear as small as they do because they're really, really far away too. Wouldn't be all that hard to explain it to a primitive people when you can explain it to a three year old.

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Lots of ancient societies have flood stories. Did they all make it up, too? I for one think it's quite interesting that so many disparate peoples share a common story.

It's not a very common story. And lots of ancient societies experienced local flooding. Local flood + mythic retelling = big ol' flood. Did they make up that a flood happened? Definitely not. Did they make up the part about it covering the whole globe, including the tallest mountains? Yes.

If they didn't make it up, there would be evidence for it.

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)
Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

Refer to Point 2, above.

I guess I'll repeat myself too: If they didn't make it up, there would be evidence for it.

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

Four hundred years, actually. And the translations are in question as to the number of people.

...four hundred is a few hundred. If I asked for a few dollars, would four be a totally wrong amount to give me? And the contradiction isn't a translation issue, it's between accounts.

Numbers says it was just over 600k --> a totally different number. The estimate of a few million is based on a lot of assumptions - it isn't actually given in the bible.

Yes, that's merely an internal discrepancy. I went with the first account. Numbers still gives an account that seems a bit far fetched, though clearly less so.

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

I went to my Tanakh for this. That is, you know, the original Bible. It says the "hare" and the "rock badger" are vegetarian but do not have parted hooves, so are not permissible food. It does not say they are ruminants at all. This is in a section explaining that permissible food must be both vegetarian AND have split hooves, not either/or.

*Beware of all translations*

This is actually the first legitimate objection. Can you please go into further detail?

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Actually, you've read this wrong. There is a difference between "cured" and "ritual cleanliness". This passage actually gives the ritual cleaning method that should be used AFTER the leper has been found to have healed from the leprosy spontaneously. In which case, the person probably did not have leprosy but something that looked like leprosy. Or a damned fine immune system.

Why did the Israelites have to perform rituals for cleanliness? I dunno. But I do know they were clearly only rituals, and stated as such in the Bible itself, and the effect was spiritual, not physical. I have my own theory on maybe why (psychological), but it isn't important here.

This I'll accept...if you can provide a citation for it.

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)
Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)
Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

Since the snakes were magically sent from God, couldn't they be magically cured by God? Just sayin'.

I guess if you go with the "unsupported magical explanation" for all of this, then you have an inarguable point. Not a correct one, just one that doesn't leave room for argument.

I guess until we find a skeleton of a giant, we can't really say. Also keep in mind that the Israelites (and all people at this time) are believed to have been very short. Someone as tall as my brother is (6'5") would have qualified as a giant. Even only a thousand years ago vikings were considered giants (just sayin').

Except...no, we really can say. We actually can mathematically calculate the maximum height for a person, which is somewhere no greater than 9 feet...well, the health problems that would arise at 9 feet could be managed by modern medicine...but one king is given as being so tall in stature that his bed is 16 feet long...let's say that puts him at 13 feet tall. He'd suffer from such horrible medical problems that he wouldn't be able to do much of anything.

Regarding dragons, see point #2. If you believe in evolution and not creationism, then you must believe people & dinosaurs likely overlapped, right?

I'm just going to stop you right there...no. Not at all. If you examine the fossil record, there are tens of millions of years between the last dinosaur and the first hominid.

And if they did, I can easily see a pterodactyl or something similar being passed into legend with the name "dragon".

Except...no. That's just a blatant misunderstanding of the timescales involved.

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

I.e., God is all powerful, etc. Do I believe this actually happened? I dunno. Could it? Sure, why not. I don't know if Jacob wrestled with God (an angel?) and hurt his hip and was renamed Israel, but it could have happened. Anything is possible.

Anything is possible? Then why is it that we find consistent limitations on possibility throughout science?

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Yawn... blah blah blah explained to primitive peoples blah blah blah... POETRY... sigh.

I like that it's poetry when it's convenient and divine commandment and supreme moral law when it's convenient too. And again, I understood the universe better as a three year old than this book explained things when it was supposedly inspired by an omniscient being. My father explained it quite well to me, you'd think a supreme being would do a better job.

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

I don't know anything about this site in general, but his math appears to work out: ad2004.com...

Seen this before.

For those who don't go visit, it has to do with the item in question not being a perfect cylinder, and the fact that it had a width of several inches, which is not taken into account. If you do account for its width, it appears these people understood pi after all.

Except that it doesn't.

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

Point 3: Sigh. These are poems.

The whole Bible says the Earth is fixed. Nowhere is this contradicted.

That are basically saying that nothing can move the earth but God. Your'e referring to allegories and poetic devices. What has more permanence in the history of man than the fact of the earth beneath our feet? Really, if you're going to try to discredit the Bible, you should know enough about it to ignore the obvious poetry. I know of a poem that says the moon is a ship, but that don't make it so.

And what I'm saying is that there is nothing contradictory within the rest of the text, so why should I bother to assume that this is a metaphor rather than a mentioning of the world insofar as these primitive people understood it.

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

This is cultural symbolism. Some cultures believed that emotions were in the stomach. I don't know of any early cultures who associated emotion with the head. Please inform me if there is one. Modern western belief associates emotion with the heart, I think. You know, all those crazy symbols on Valentine's day and what-not.

Except that the modern heart symbol refers to a female's rear end (seriously, turn it upside down), rather than a heart. The modern western non-scientific tradition, which was heavily influenced by Biblical writing. Modern thought associates emotions with the head. We even have some cultural phrases like "hot-headed" or "air head" or "head in the clouds" etc that refer to mental states and the head.

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

Please reference Point 3, above. The entire book of Job is POEM. Also, this section says that ostriches make their nests on the ground (which they do) and that they don't cry if their eggs get eaten or crushed, because they don't have emotional understanding. I've never seen an ostrich cry or seen any kind of bird get emotional, so I guess I'll have to agree with this one. Either way, it's a POEM, man!

...except that ostriches stay in attendance of their eggs until they hatch. It's just the using of something that people of the region should have noted and wouldn't have made any sense in a poem unless they thought it was something that actually happened with those animals.

And it's a poem insofar as the language is poetic. Poems back then reflected the understanding of the world.

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

I don't know what version you're working from, but these verses don't say that. And again, they are poetry. They say the sun is a "strong man" that runs its course and other things. But never what you're supposing.

What? Are you not reading it clearly?

I'll give you a version of it here

Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun.
It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.

It's an oddly worded passage, I know. But the sun bursts forth from its home in the sky (and is quite happy about it) then rises on one of the the heavens and then goes to the other end. Now, this sounds like an explanation of the sun moving rather than the Earth.

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

Snails do melt: go to youtube and search "snail salt". All of the videos are too icky to link here. I've seen them melt in nature, but I dunno what caused it. I was just a kid who spent a lot of time outdoors.

...except that the passage is that the 'melt as they go along' or something to that effect (I'm not going to bother to go back to get the reference again, but that's the gist), not that they melt if you put salt on them. I know that snails and slugs melt when they come into contact with salt.

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

Isaiah 11:12 says "four quarters of the earth" in NIV. The Tanakh does say "from the four corners of the earth".

I grew up hearing this as a saying that meant the "four directions" - N, S, W, E.

But however you look at it, there's no evidence this people believed the earth was flat.

....except that there is. All over the Bible. There's no evidence that they thought it was round. Hell, they thought that if something was tall enough you could see it from anywhere in the world...which would mean that the world is either flat or is a very, very gentle slope.

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

You're so funny. Again, references to these animals (mostly from Greek mythology) I can't find in the Tanakh. In the NIV the only reference to satyrs I can find is referring to idols. The cockatriece is only mentioned in the Tanakh as part of a strange messianic prophecy that isn't well understood, clearly not meant literally.

I believe you are getting this information from here: www.deism.com... I will just say that choosing as your sole source someone who is obviously trying to discredit something, is not wise. You need more than one source. Please find actual references in a real bible and let me know what you found. I searched several different versions and didn't find anything that was claimed on that site.

Leviathan, behemoth, and the cockatrice is still something that is from general near eastern myth. And I'm choosing my source as the KJV for a reason...there are a lot of KJV only literalist Christians on ATS, particularly in the creationist portions.

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

Again, I looked in multiple versions, Tanakh & a few Christian versions, and all I found was a dream-prophecy about a giant tree and an angel coming down from heaven. No idea what you're referring to.

A giant tree that could be seen from anywhere on the Earth. No matter how big a tree is...you wouldn't be able to see it from the opposite side of the Earth.

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

Again, this is a magical dream-prophecy with many fantastical elements, and which no one understands well.

And yet there's no evidence that the idea of stars being tiny being inconsistent with general near-eastern thought about the universe at the time. It's clear that the people thought that these objects were placed in a physical shell around the Earth, as mentioned in Genesis, so they couldn't have thought of them as that big.


I'm going to dismiss the rest, as you're somehow trying to say I don't realize that parts are poetry...I'm stating that these passages can't be taken as literal, nothing more. I realize that there are poetic portions of the Bible, I realize that most (if not all) of it is made up...some parts to greater degrees than others. I'm addressing a specific mindset, those that believe the Bible is a book that contains information about the reality of the natural world. You clearly don't fall into this category.

I guess you can keep making these arguments, but you're trying to prove that a false statement is false, using bad proofs. Honestly I think you're just trolling for S&F, and you didn't expect anyone with any knowledge to respond intelligently.

Wow, another accusation of trolling. Check my post count, check my star and flag counts, I don't care about the second set of numbers because they're clearly a lot lower than my post count. I say a lot of unpopular things and I write a lot of unpopular stuff. I'm here to point out that the Bible is not a source of scientific knowledge, not that it's a false book as a whole.

reply to post by Viking9019


It doesn't say it...but you can technically derive it as the generations from Adam to Jesus are given with a lot of ages (and so and so lived to X years and fathered Y etc etc)...and then you add 2011 years.

reply to post by Afterl1fe


...I don't. In fact, I don't try to disprove a being for which no positive proof has been given. Now, I do argue against religions. That is because I can show that some religious ideas like "Our holy book describes the natural world as it really is", are demonstrably false. Would this disprove the deity these people claim to believe in? Not really. But I don't have to disprove that which has been asserted without evidence.

reply to post by coldkidc

Originally posted by coldkidc
Wow...I feel really sorry for all you atheists...
There's nothing to live for...you have no purpose in life...you will die and be snuffed out never to exist again...

I just don't get it.

In the words of the great Matt Dilhunty: "Life is its own reason for living. Life is its own reward."

I'm not going to feel horrible because I realize that I have (hopefully) about 70-80 years on this planet to live my life. It's a lot more than some other organisms get and they really can't enjoy life the same way we can.

You act like having faith in something and believing just because you know in your soul there is a higher power is something to be looked down upon.

...yes, accepting claims without evidence is something to be looked down upon. Like the claim that there is a soul.

But apparently you already know everything to know and have decided that it all equals a great big nothing...

Straw man, nobody claims to know everything that can be known.

Fine...it's your life...but stop trying to force your cynicism on everybody else...

Forcing? Pointing out that the Bible is not a source for scientific knowledge is 'forcing' something? Doing it on a website where people are free to not actually bother with the reading the damn thread is 'forcing'?

Unless for some reason it bothers you that I believe?

...it's hurting people.

Now why in the world would you have a problem with someone else not believing what you believe when it all doesn't mean anything anyway?

Because life does have meaning...it's just not derived from the idea of an afterlife.

Don't forget that fowls (birds, etc.) and insects have four legs:

Lev 11:20-23 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Insects have six legs and birds have two.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

. . .

Mind you, the account is given with a point of view from our planet . . .

Genesis 1 is given from a third person omniscient narrative view. Please don't talk about point of view when you don't understand the literary convention.

Literary convention?



This is not an English class. All I am saying is that the account was written as if one is standing on the Earth watching it happen.

In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth.

heaven and the earth. Singular.

Wrong again.

הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם is the word. it is plural. Shamayim.

-im- denotes plurality.


. . .

and I am not going to go on.

I have given you more than enough evidence. It is quite clear that you will refuse what has been shown to you. You only wish to cause strife and discord.

Have a good day.