Scientific errors in bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
easy the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook, don’t try and explain the science away say to people who may bring this up. "you are correct, science does contradict this. Does that matter? Does the bible have to be correct in everything when it comes to science? How can you expect a 2000+ year old book to have any scientific accuracy? most rational christians don’t beileve the bible is a scientific textbook, I don’t.
 
I opened up a dusty physics textbook and there was not even one mention of God. Explain that. 😉
 
Lots of theological errors in modern science writing too. That doesn’t invalidate the science.

As the CCC says, the purpose of scripture is to “firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Does anybody really think that these “scientific” statements in the bible are truths which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished us to know?
 
Neither the Scriptures nor the Church make the claim that the Scriptures are scientific texts. In fact, the opposite. They are not scientific texts at all.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
This seemed to be related to the discussion. How are these to be explained?
thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

On those who said it doesnt matter, what if they say that since its the word of God it should be valid?
Click to expand...
You should take note that science is not as far advanced then as it is today.

Did you bother to take note of this from the link your first post:

Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above – referring to “legs above the feet” for leaping. The “feet” are being differentiated from the “legs above the feet” because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the “four” legs which are just called “feet.” We are being told of two types of legs: The “on all four” legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called “feet” [v. 23]), and the “leaping legs.” It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hindlimbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate “beetle” as “cricket”), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around. (Shifts of terminology like this happen even today; check this proposal to redefine “planet”.)" [2]

The error with the proposed rebuttal above by J.P Holding is a double standard. To claim that birds or fowl by having wings have four legs, then the same is to be applied to insects giving them a total of eight legs, rebutting his own argument by internal inconsistency. It should be taken as a good example of a theist attempting to make an argument that appears intelligent, but in fact is poorly thought out and constructed.

Obviously, Jesus did not mean here that he who was smallest in size would be greatest! So we suggest that the mustard seed description is not an evaluation of size at all (or exclusively), but an evaluation of worth - which is a matter of personal judgment that is quite acceptable and cannot be charged as erroneous.

Two other objections may crop out of this one. First, some versions refer to the mustard as a “shrub” but the word here is lachanon, meaning a vegetable or an herb. The KJV does get this closer to correct. (Rom. 14:2 “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.”) A second objection is that mustard becomes a tree. Of course we need to remind objectors that the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented – classification was by appearance and function, not by biology. In that regard, the mustard plant of Palestine (Sinapis nigra) could grow to a height of several (2-6) feet and be considered a tree – if not by the scheme of modern science (Question: Is a bonsai a “tree”?), then assuredly by the descriptive classification scheme of the ancients. [4]
 
1ke said:
Neither the Scriptures nor the Church make the claim that the Scriptures are scientific texts. In fact, the opposite. They are not scientific texts at all.
Click to expand...
No but I thought it was our view that it was the word of God. As the word of God shouldn’t it be scientifically accurate?
 
pablope said:
You should take note that science is not as far advanced then as it is today.

Did you bother to take note of this from the link your first post:

Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above – referring to “legs above the feet” for leaping. The “feet” are being differentiated from the “legs above the feet” because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the “four” legs which are just called “feet.” We are being told of two types of legs: The “on all four” legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called “feet” [v. 23]), and the “leaping legs.” It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hindlimbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate “beetle” as “cricket”), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around. (Shifts of terminology like this happen even today; check this proposal to redefine “planet”.)" [2]

The error with the proposed rebuttal above by J.P Holding is a double standard. To claim that birds or fowl by having wings have four legs, then the same is to be applied to insects giving them a total of eight legs, rebutting his own argument by internal inconsistency. It should be taken as a good example of a theist attempting to make an argument that appears intelligent, but in fact is poorly thought out and constructed.

Obviously, Jesus did not mean here that he who was smallest in size would be greatest! So we suggest that the mustard seed description is not an evaluation of size at all (or exclusively), but an evaluation of worth - which is a matter of personal judgment that is quite acceptable and cannot be charged as erroneous.

Two other objections may crop out of this one. First, some versions refer to the mustard as a “shrub” but the word here is lachanon, meaning a vegetable or an herb. The KJV does get this closer to correct. (Rom. 14:2 “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.”) A second objection is that mustard becomes a tree. Of course we need to remind objectors that the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented – classification was by appearance and function, not by biology. In that regard, the mustard plant of Palestine (Sinapis nigra) could grow to a height of several (2-6) feet and be considered a tree – if not by the scheme of modern science (Question: Is a bonsai a “tree”?), then assuredly by the descriptive classification scheme of the ancients. [4]
Click to expand...
Ok thanks.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
No but I thought it was our view that it was the word of God. As the word of God shouldn’t it be scientifically accurate?
Click to expand...
Why? It is the Word of God and His relationship with us. It is not a history book nor a science book. It is not the purpose. The purpose is to reveal God to us and His will for us.
 
The Bible does contain actual history. It records things God actually did. And archaeologists have found evidence that confirm certain things in the Bible. However, facts are facts and not to be embellished.

amazon.com/The-Stones-Cry-Out-Archaeology/dp/1565076400/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1371165536&sr=8-5&keywords=the+archaeology+of+the+bible

biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

So, Catholic or not, archaeologists are finding things.

A popular topic here is the book of Genesis. For non-theists, the confusion or questions arise from a belief that no deity exists at all, so the accounts in Genesis are just dismissed as poetry or symbology or analogy since those stupid people 2,000 years ago could not possibly understand anything at our current level of understanding.

Strangely, the New Testament is a bigger problem and rarely discussed. I mean, does any Catholic here believe Jesus did not raise the dead, give sight to the blind, cleanse/cure the lepers and defy the laws of physics by commanding wind and wave to cease in a storm? I mean, he could not do things only a God could do?

So I find it very strange that those who do not believe in God somehow find the Bible worth bothering with. I mean, it’s just a book of stories, right? Cobbled together by a bunch of sheep herders.

But stay tuned for the next episode of “Your Bible Is Wrong, According To Science.”

Ed
 
FireFromHeaven said:
No but I thought it was our view that it was the word of God. As the word of God shouldn’t it be scientifically accurate?
Click to expand...
Did you not read the quote I provided from the CCC as to the purpose of scripture? What is your authority for expecting scientific accuracy from scripture?
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I was surfing the web and I found this. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible How are these errors to be explained?
Click to expand...
Such “errors” tend to “found” by assuming that Bible is written in an extremely formal and precise scientific style, where nothing like rhetorical devices (for example, hyperbole) could be used. The same method would find out that Churchill must have been lying when he said “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”, since he was not giving away blood or tears in jars. 🙂

Of course, there are exceptions - in case of pi, one must also forget about approximate numbers (that is, “ten” can also stand for, let’s say, 9.5)…

And, by the way, the article you linked to actually does mention some problems with the “errors”… Speaking of which - do you have some particular problems with any of them…?
 
adrift said:
Why? It is the Word of God and His relationship with us. It is not a history book nor a science book. It is not the purpose. The purpose is to reveal God to us and His will for us.
Click to expand...
👍
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I was surfing the web and I found this. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible How are these errors to be explained?
Click to expand...
This is just silly. For example:
Illumination
In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a “light” (“lesser light” actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun’s light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds. Of course, when talking to tribal nomads and other desert-dwellers, the concept of referring to the moon as a light was commonplace.
Click to expand...
So reflected light is not light? Something that Guess what - very little of the light produced by a flashlight comes directly from the bulb. Most of it is reflected by a parabolic mirror (which is why a flashlight beam is much more coherent).

This whole page is replete with similarly kooky claims.
 
snarflemike said:
Did you not read the quote I provided from the CCC as to the purpose of scripture? What is your authority for expecting scientific accuracy from scripture?
Click to expand...
I understand an agree with the church’s teachings. The thing is looking at it from an atheistic perspective, on it’s own, it seems like a cop out. Thus it would be advantageous to disprove the points they bring and then tell them that anyway it doesn’t matter. I don’t know if it would work in real life I just know that, that is what I would think if I were an atheist. I’m not trying to claim authority.
 
DavidFilmer said:
This is just silly. For example:

So reflected light is not light? Something that Guess what - very little of the light produced by a flashlight comes directly from the bulb. Most of it is reflected by a parabolic mirror (which is why a flashlight beam is much more coherent).

This whole page is replete with similarly kooky claims.
Click to expand...
The reflection one didn’t make sense to me either. The big one, for me was the legs on animals. That one was refuted earlier.
 
MPat said:
Such “errors” tend to “found” by assuming that Bible is written in an extremely formal and precise scientific style, where nothing like rhetorical devices (for example, hyperbole) could be used. The same method would find out that Churchill must have been lying when he said “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”, since he was not giving away blood or tears in jars. 🙂

Of course, there are exceptions - in case of pi, one must also forget about approximate numbers (that is, “ten” can also stand for, let’s say, 9.5)…

And, by the way, the article you linked to actually does mention some problems with the “errors”… Speaking of which - do you have some particular problems with any of them…?
Click to expand...
Not really. You covered the only thing left on that list. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top