Scientific Mistakes in the Bible?

[lightbeamrider]

Are you sure? Because I seem to be the one going over these arguments in a rational and methodical manner.

LOL! Personal attacks along with distortions are not rational. I did not ask for your psychological evaluation which is nothing more than another cheap shot. You are simply attempting to provoke with sniveling insinuations.

Are you denying that in defense of slavery you went into detail as to the practicality of whips?

I already answered that and you did not get it the first time. Whips on a massive scale were impractical. They bring revolt in many cases. Slavery was universal. Foreign slaves were provided refuge in Israel because they were treated far worse. This all adds context. Slavery happens today and if you have such a problem with it then what are you doing about it? Most atheists do not care about slavery enough to do anything about it. They reference it from Scripture as a means to discredit the same which is their real agenda. This is all out of a particular book surrounding events they believe to be fiction.

You didn’t get into the rights of people not be beaten or even a reasonable explanation why people should be beaten.

As an atheist what rights of people? Where do these supposed rights come from? Moralizing atheists.

Instead you responded to when I said slaves were beaten that Solomon did use a whip but that for the most part they were impractial. This ignores that people are not beaten solely with whips, and far more importantly: We shouldn’t beat people.

Right. You should not moralize and judge with no objective basis to do so.

 

[lightbeamrider]

I’m not saying that Exodus is definitively a myth. We may find something that shows it is real, but as it stands right now no evidence exists. This has to be somewhat concerning as (based on the number of men said to have been part of it) that there was an estimated 3 million Jews who left Israel, yet we see no evidence of this. There are no bones, no pottery shards, no records from the Egyptians. Again that’s not to say that they won’t turn up, but the evidence is glaringly lacking.
You’re confusing theoretical physicists with fiction writers.

Your last statement presupposes all the ancients, including Jesus could not tell fact from fiction. Again you have no ancient precedent for any of your assumptions. They wrote it as history. They included a host of laws on how they were to live. This does not happen in fiction writings.

When someone supposes that there are multiple universes it’s because the math at this time bears it out. It’s a possibilty. No one is saying definitively that there are multiple universes, but it’s not a concept pulled out of thin air. As scientists study the matter more we may find more information to support the idea or refute it. But we’re leaving the door open based on what we know at this time.

Yeah i think Hawkins uses imaginary numbers. You leave the door open to multi-verse and close the door to God. Because you do not like Him. That is a God you do not believe exists. The problem with atheists is they do not want accountability. There is a psychological attraction in assuming they can live and believe whatever they want and if they can escape human justice then they are home free. There is no real justice for all under atheism. Many are killed or abused and escape human justice. The murderer does not have to answer for his crimes. Rights do not come from God. The statement, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, has no meaning.

---

it is no problem for you to misuse the Bible to justify your myth assumptions. In the same manner a rapist would misuse the Bible to justify rape. Or a southern racist slave owner would misuse the Bible to justify beating slaves. Do you own a dog? Why is it objectively wrong to own a human when it is not wrong to own a dog? That is, since there is no God and we are nothing more than big brained ape like creatures here for no real reason and cease to exist post death?

And there it is. When the question at hand becomes to difficult to attack head-on the subject will invariably turn to atheists allegedly having no moral framework. Have you ever met an atheist face-to-face? You know, just a regular guy shooting the breeze? I think you’ll find that atheists and other non-christians aren’t robots. They have compassion and concerns. They have lives and relationships. I have to think this belief that all atheists as uncaring sociopaths is related to a very disturbing belief: Those christians who say that without God in their lives that there would be nothing to stop them from raping and murdering. THAT’S scary, the idea of being good only for fear of otherworldly punishment. Look are atheists perfect? Heck no. There are flawed atheists just as there are flawed christians, muslims, jews, mormons. Still this claim that there is nothing keeping atheists from going on the warpath is shown to be false by the overall morality of unbelievers that is no worse than other groups.

This is all self serving distortions and did not answer my question about owning dogs or people under atheism.

 

[biplnkase9]

What is truth?
I believe the Word Of God is truth; a mystery that will never be revealed until we shed these bodies.

 

[marymary1975]

Also “100 Years” was written in the magic realism style and it wasn’t meant to impart universal truths of actual events. The same level of critique for a novel isn’t applied to a holy book.

By the way, you still haven’t answered this question: What is the water above the firmament? Even if it’s figuartive it still has to represent something, so what is it?

Wrong! You are incorrect as to 100 years of solitude! 100 years of solitude is heavily about actual events! It is a political novel that depicts actual political events that happened in Colombia. The vast majority of the events described in the novel, the train event, the marks etc… Are events that happened and the novel is a political criticism about all those actual events that happened. You think that it is “ficticious” because you have no knowledge of what actually happened and you don’t know the history and culture behind the novel so your interpretation of 100 years of solitude is wrong…and you think as most people who have no clue about the culture that the novel is ficticious when the novel was indeed an intent to show the world the depiction of events that happened in Colombia. So your interpretation is completely wrong because you are interpreting without knowing and most likely the same is happening to toy with the bible.

You seem to he completely stuck in reading the bi me as a science book and as long as you keep insisting in reading the bible as a science book you will keep finding mistakes in your heads. Again the error is not in the bible which was never intended as science and which shouldn’tbe read as science, the error is in you who is insisting as seeing ssomething the way you want to see it, not the way it is, and with there is very little that I or anyone for the matter can do about.

I already told you that the bible does not say there was water in the firmament. You came back and posted from a bible that is Protestant – that means incorrect --and which content has been modified by protestants. I wrote to you what the actual bible says and it doesn’t say that. Again you are insisting on reading what you want to read (principally after me telling you that this forum is not Protestant and you keep insisting on a protestant bible). Sincerely I think you are barking at the wrong tree. If you want to argue about the protestant bible’s content then talk to a Protestant.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Oh sure there are some verses (not in God’s voice) that say to be nice to slaves but none of them overturn the brutality that allows one to manslaughter a slave among other vile acts.

Jesus implied it is better to be a slave with Him then a rich man who has everything and without Him. You are enslaved to atheism. Your appetites.

Again even if ancient Israel and few to no slaves the story itself – which is said to be divinely inspired – shows God as a true uncaring beast. It’s not a pretty picture.

Do you believe those of us who have taught children about God are performing a form of child abuse? Lying to children? Should we be punished?

Third, as a non-believer I’ll often get asked where I get my morals from if not from a god.

No. You assume absolute objective morals applied to all humans at all times with zero objective basis to do so. If you are saying slavery is only wrong in a subjective sense. IOWs slavery is wrong based solely on your belief then your judgements carry no more weight than your opinion. They can change any time since atheists have no objective basis to have any real convictions about it. If morals are subjective then to own or not to own is either option A or B. If Richard Dawkins can claim he is an ‘‘African ape’’ and Hitchens can address his audience as ‘‘My fellow primates’’ and you can call, with impunity, the living God an uncaring beast? Well most of us wonder, what are you not incapable of? God who is depicted as love in the New Testament.

I tell them how the use of history, communication, sympathy, and the golden rule (which is not exclusive to Judeo-Christianity) at least sets me on the right path. I tell those people proudly that while my morality is not perfect thankfully at least it’s non-biblical.

Right. Sodomy is not biblical.

I’m sorry. Are you saying that any sex act that is non-reproductive is non-scientific? If I’m wrong let me know, but I think that just because it’s something that you don’t approve of doesn’t mean that there isn’t science behind it.

I wrote your minimization of the harmful effects of sodomy is unscientific. Links provided.

 

[1newcatholic]

Mike from NJ,

I came across this in my reading today. I thought you might appreciate it. This is from Origen, an early and influential Bible interpreter. His solutions were largely imperfect, and cannot be wholly imported into modern hermeneutics, but his summary of the problem is pretty apt:

“To be specific: What intelligent person can believe that there was a first day, then a second and third day, evening, and morning, without the sun, the moon, and the stars; and the first day–if this is the right term–even without a heaven? Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human farmer, God planted a garden to the east in Eden and created in it a visible, physical tree of life from which anyone tasting its fruit with bodily teeth would receive life; and that one would have a part in good and evil by eating the fruit picked from the appropriate tree? When God is depicted walking in the garden in the evening and Adam hiding behind the tree, I think no one will doubt that these details point figuratively to some mysteries by means of a historical narrative which seems to have happened but did not happen in a bodily sense. By the same token, when Cain “went out from the Face of the Lord,” it is quite clear to the insightful that this expression stimulates the careful reader to inquire what the face of God is and what it means for someone to go out from it. What more needs to be said? Those who are not totally dull can collect innumerable examples of this kind, where something is presented as having happened but did not happen in terms of the literal meaning of the text.”

“Even the Gospels are full of passages of this kind, such as the devil leading Jesus up to a high mountain in order to show him from there all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Now who but the most superficial reader of a story like this would not laugh at those who think that the kingdoms of the Persians, the Scythians, the Indians, and the Parthians as well as the way their rulers receive glory from their subjects can be seen with the eye of the flesh which requires elevation in order to perceive things located down below? The thorough investigator can find enough similar instances to convince himself that the stories which happened according to the letter are interspersed with other events which did not actually occur.”

Origen, On First Principles, 4.3.1​

 

[Darryl_B]

Mike from NJ,

I came across this in my reading today. I thought you might appreciate it. This is from Origen, an early and influential Bible interpreter. His solutions were largely imperfect, and cannot be wholly imported into modern hermeneutics, but his summary of the problem is pretty apt:

“To be specific: What intelligent person can believe that there was a first day, then a second and third day, evening, and morning, without the sun, the moon, and the stars; and the first day–if this is the right term–even without a heaven? Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human farmer, God planted a garden to the east in Eden and created in it a visible, physical tree of life from which anyone tasting its fruit with bodily teeth would receive life; and that one would have a part in good and evil by eating the fruit picked from the appropriate tree? When God is depicted walking in the garden in the evening and Adam hiding behind the tree, I think no one will doubt that these details point figuratively to some mysteries by means of a historical narrative which seems to have happened but did not happen in a bodily sense. By the same token, when Cain “went out from the Face of the Lord,” it is quite clear to the insightful that this expression stimulates the careful reader to inquire what the face of God is and what it means for someone to go out from it. What more needs to be said? Those who are not totally dull can collect innumerable examples of this kind, where something is presented as having happened but did not happen in terms of the literal meaning of the text.”

“Even the Gospels are full of passages of this kind, such as the devil leading Jesus up to a high mountain in order to show him from there all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Now who but the most superficial reader of a story like this would not laugh at those who think that the kingdoms of the Persians, the Scythians, the Indians, and the Parthians as well as the way their rulers receive glory from their subjects can be seen with the eye of the flesh which requires elevation in order to perceive things located down below? The thorough investigator can find enough similar instances to convince himself that the stories which happened according to the letter are interspersed with other events which did not actually occur.”

Origen, On First Principles, 4.3.1​

Genesis, in the beginning the light vs darkness, heaven vs abyss (Septuagint of deep) of the early days of Genesis 1 seems to be a creation of final abodes, heaven and hell, a spiritual dwelling place which is furnished. It is a vertical division. Opposite to this is the day and night of the sun moon and stars which is a horizontal division.

So even before man physically takes his abode in this physical earth God has prepared in advance a final spiritual abode, heaven (light and day) and hell (dark and night) and they are divided by a great expanse.

Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

This is set opposite hell, which has been prepared (presumably at the same time) for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:31-46.

They are divided by a great expanse. Luke 16:26.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1newcatholic, what’s interesting about what the quote you gave from Origen is how willing he is to call those who believe in the literal interpretation of these passages as fools and dullards. While Origen wasn’t the only contemporary to disagree with such a reading (I believe Augustine felt the same way about the creation) there are other church fathers both then and later who strongly agreed in reading it literally.

The problem with the creation story is that if we want to present what cosmologists view as the origin of celestial bodies in an allegorical way it can be done so without adding extra incorrect elements. A story where God created the stars (including the sun), then the Earth and moon, then the land and plants, then animals would work. It isn’t science, but as a way to allude as to what really happened it would essentially be correct. Yet the story is very deliberate as to what order they were created. Details are added to the story and in some ways is the focal point of the story (so they can then be used to explain the Sabbath). Again, I’ll accept a figurative story, but one which places emphasis on wrong information – even in a figurative sense – is a mistake. It can’t be handwaved just by saying it’s allegorical. It is a scientific error that a story just said that God created everything without the wrong details would not be.

As to the mountain viewing all kingdoms story, Origen is absolutely correct. Though it would have been interesting to see how he felt about the other parts of the story, since that would give us some insight into how he goes about separating fact from fiction. What is the bright line that he used to say whether something in the Bible did or did not happen?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Instead of figurative there is a theory that the edge of the universe is reflective in nature which because of that reflection, objects can sometimes appear further away than what they really are. The current school of thought on dark matter is that there is not enough stuff within space to hold it together, therefore dark matter was proposed to solve the problem. But with a reflective extremity of the universe, we are incapable of seeing the edge, we can only see reflections which would appear to us to be outside the actual extremity of the universe, even though they are potentially inside, and there is no longer a vastness where there should be matter, dark matter becomes a redundant theory. That is the firmament.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying:

1. The edge of the universe is reflective
2. That edge is the firmament talked about in the Bible
3. The water below the firmament is the water we know of
4. The water “above” the firmament isn’t other water but a reflection of that same water?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

LOL! Personal attacks along with distortions are not rational. I did not ask for your psychological evaluation which is nothing more thananother cheap shot. You are simply attempting to provoke with sniveling insinuations.

My breaking down your threadbare arguments were rational. The fact that I called you out on your projecting is just an added bonus.

I already answered that and you did not get it the first time. Whips on a massive scale were impractical. They bring revolt in many cases. Slavery was universal. Foreign slaves were provided refuge in Israel because they were treated far worse. This all adds context.

That sure sounds like moral relativism to me. If slavery is wrong – which it is – then the call should have been to abolish it not make it slightly less awful than that of other nations. God can demand that the Israelites have certain fringes on their clothing (Numbers 15:37-39) but can’t tell them to not own people? Priorities, priorities.

Slavery happens today and if you have such a problem with it then what are you doing about it? Most atheists do not care about slavery enough to do anything about it. They reference it from Scripture as a means to discredit the same which is their real agenda. This is all out of a particular book surrounding events they believe to be fiction.

You’re right there are no non-religious organizations in place to combat slavery and other human trafficing… oh wait there are many.

As an atheist what rights of people? Where do these supposed rights come from? Moralizing atheists.

The origin of rights? The answer might lie in cooperative evolution. As each species evolved those that worked together for survival in some cases survived more often and passed on those traits onto their offspring. A single piranha does little damage while a school of them is ferocious. It’s important to note how piranha don’t attack other piranha. Wolves tend not to attack other members of the pack, and so on. As we developed it’s clear that homo sapiens and the species that preceded us were more prone to survival when working together. We went from loose groupings to societies and eventually towns. The more we as a species developed both intellectually and psychologically we turned these base ideas of working and protecting each other into rules and laws. Built into us a subconscious need to protect our young and to empathize.

Of course that’s somewhat more nuanced than saying a man no ones sees told a few select people to be nice to each other (and make the people in the neighboring town your subjects if they let you in).

Instead you responded to when I said slaves were beaten that Solomon did use a whip but that for the most part they were impractical. This ignores that people are not beaten solely with whips, and far more importantly: We shouldn’t beat people.

Right. You should not moralize and judge with no objective basis to do so.

A few years ago there was a judge in The Philippines that said he consulted with invisible dwarf friends on cases he was judging. Was his objective basis to judge reasonable. or is it possible that just because something is objective (and in this case unprovable) doesn’t make it right?
Here’s the info on the judge.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your last statement presupposes all the ancients, including Jesus could not tell fact from fiction. Again you have no ancient precedent for any of your assumptions. They wrote it as history. They included a host of laws on how they were to live. This does not happen in fiction writings.

Then Islam isn’t fiction?

Yeah i think Hawkins uses imaginary numbers.

Two questions: 1) When you say “imaginary numbers” do you mean numbers like i (which is the square root of negative 1), or do you mean that he’s making it up his math? 2) If the latter, when you say you “think” Hawking makes up his numbers do you have any evidence. I’m not expecting you to be a world-class scientist/mathematician but is there someone knowledgable that you know of that has such a background to find fault in Hawking’s math?

You leave the door open to multi-verse and close the door to God. Because you do not like Him.

I’m not ruling out a god (yours or any other). I’m still waiting for even tiniest shred of evidence. Beside my not liking him has nothing to do with my belief in him. God is evil and I hate him in the same way I would any other fictional creature that tortures people on Earth and beyond.

That is a God you do not believe exists. The problem with atheists is they do not want accountability. There is a psychological attraction in assuming they can live and believe whatever they want and if they can escape human justice then they are home free.

This is like religious bingo. One square for “atheists don’t have morals”. Now another square for “atheists reject got because they want to sin”. Last time you shrugged my question as to whether you’ve ever met an atheists and had a pleasant chat with him or her. I think I have my answer.

There is no real justice for all under atheism. Many are killed or abused and escape human justice. The murderer does not have to answer for his crimes.

While it is more comforting to think that god or karma or reincarnation will provide cosmic justice where human justice fails doesn’t make it true.

Rights do not come from God. The statement, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, has no meaning.

Rights don’t come from god. That statement has no meaning to those who don’t believe there is a god.

it is no problem for you to misuse the Bible to justify your myth assumptions.

Misuse it, or treat it as given without the whitewashing we’re so used to when people talk about the Bible?

In the same manner a rapist would misuse the Bible to justify rape. Or a southern racist slave owner would misuse the Bible to justify beating slaves.

Yes, the part where it says you can beat slaves so long as they don’t die the same day. I’m surely misusing that verse to say you can beat slaves.

Do you own a dog?

I used to.

Why is it objectively wrong to own a human when it is not wrong to own a dog?

At some point in the past some humans developed a symbiotic relationship with some wolves where each protected the other and hunted together. As generations went on the wolves became more domesticated and became less wolf and more dog. There are still wolves and there are wild dogs, but domesticated dogs exist. That spark in man that yearns to be free doesn’t seem to be in the makeup of domesticated dogs. Plus as I mentioned before, cooperative evolution works within a species. It’s wrong to own a person as we know that we ourselves would not want to be owned.

That is, since there is no God and we are nothing more than big brained ape like creatures

I will admit that I’m a big brained ape creature. I will let you decide if any of that works in describing you.

here for no real reason and cease to exist post death?

Is doing a good deed worthless if there isn’t some higher being to judge you on it, or some afterlife to reflect on it? I don’t know what my future holds. I don’t know what humanity’s future holds. It may all be for naught but I do what I do and I live how I live because it is good. To do something based on seeking reward or avoiding punishment is how children behave.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is all self serving distortions and did not answer my question about owning dogs or people under atheism.

I just answered your questions about dogs and people. Now can you answer me if you’ve ever interacted with a live atheist like you would any other human being?

Jesus implied it is better to be a slave with Him then a rich man who has everything and without Him. You are enslaved to atheism. Your appetites.

First of all you’re equivocating the uses of the word slavery. The second usage involves addiction or stubborness (of which you are wrong about me). The first usage involves selling your daughter to some man and forcing her to please him sexually. See the difference?

Second, being with God and being a slave are two totally different things. Committing one’s self to god doesn’t mean one can’t strive for freedom… or does it? Jesus tells slaves to obey their masters. He says not one word against slavery even though he could easily do so and still tell people to follow him. It’s as if the authors of the Bible saw nothing evil about slavery. Hmmm.

Again even if ancient Israel and few to no slaves the story itself – which is said to be divinely inspired – shows God as a true uncaring beast. It’s not a pretty picture.

Do you believe those of us who have taught children about God are performing a form of child abuse? Lying to children? Should we be punished?

So no comment on the fact that God was in no rush to abolish the laws of slavery that he put into place? Not even a word as to why God might freak out about Moses’ son going an extra day uncircumcised but not a murmur about children of slaves being born into slavery? Fine. Changing the subject is easier to deal with.

To answer your question, no, I don’t find raising a child to believe in a god is (in general) child abuse nor should such parents be punished. I was raised Roman Catholic and had wonderful Roman Catholic parents. My siblings are Roman Catholic. I and many more each day have and had trouble believing what was told to us and left. Now when that belief by a parent leads to harm to a child (e.g. not giving sick children medicine and relying solely on prayer) then the parents should be punished. While there is a lot I disagree with regarding the Roman Catholic Church there is nothing I can think of that the church teaches today about raising children that I feel warrants calls of child abuse.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand that you tried to divert from, parents today don’t believe in slavery like the Bible does. If they did I might be more reticent of teaching children in that way. Luckily, christian parents tend to ignore those verses except when an upstart kid finds out about them and the parents are forced to explain them away. I do find it interesting that in none of the readings does the Catholic Church go into Exodus 21:
Weekday readings
Sunday readings
Could it be that they are embarrassed by them?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No. You assume absolute objective morals applied to all humans at all times with zero objective basis to do so.

I was going to put a link to the tenets of secular humanism, but knowing you’re track history on reading links versus claims of reading links I felt it based to copy and paste them here in their abbreviated form from Wikipedia:

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Now I should point out that I myself am not a Humanist, in so much that I am cautious to link my voice to any particular organization. Still these make a sound foundation to base one’s ethics on. Using history and compassion to determine morals is not perfect. It can be flawed. The fact that your version of absolute morals doesn’t outright say slavery is bad shows a flaw there as well.

If you are saying slavery is only wrong in a subjective sense. IOWs slavery is wrong based solely on your belief then your judgements carry no more weight than your opinion. They can change any time since atheists have no objective basis to have any real convictions about it. If morals are subjective then to own or not to own is either option A or B.

When confronted with a question of whether something is or is not moral we have to ask ourselves numerous questions. Certainly the easiest one in this case is whether there is a good cause for the suffering that slavery creates. Clearly the suffering is great – inhumane – and the reasoning is hollow. All men have the right to basic liberty. This is especially true of children, who can be sold or born into slavery with not a bat of an eye from the so-called god of love.

If Richard Dawkins can claim he is an ‘‘African ape’’ and Hitchens can address his audience as ‘‘My fellow primates’’ and you can call, with impunity, the living God an uncaring beast? Well most of us wonder, what are you not incapable of? God who is depicted as love in the New Testament.

Yes, shuffle the question of god to the New Testament because the one in the Old Testament is a beast. But is Jesus a shining light of goodness? Surely he teaches us to love one another and to give of ourselves to help others. Those are all very noble, but the fact that he repeatedly says that only by believing in him can we escape an infinite torture that he put in place shows us a much more sinister side. Truly this god confuses threats and love and sees no difference between the two.

I tell them how the use of history, communication, sympathy, and the golden rule (which is not exclusive to Judeo-Christianity) at least sets me on the right path. I tell those people proudly that while my morality is not perfect thankfully at least it’s non-biblical.

Right. Sodomy is not biblical.

I was talking about the golden rule. I don’t know where sodomy came into play.

I wrote your minimization of the harmful effects of sodomy is unscientific.

Your exact words were “If it is non reproductive then there is no real science to it.” You equated a sexual practice’s ability to whether it is scientific or not. There is no mention here of harm or danger.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Wrong! You are incorrect as to 100 years of solitude! 100 years of solitude is heavily about actual events! It is a political novel that depicts actual political events that happened in Colombia. The vast majority of the events described in the novel, the train event, the marks etc… Are events that happened and the novel is a political criticism about all those actual events that happened. You think that it is “ficticious” because you have no knowledge of what actually happened and you don’t know the history and culture behind the novel so your interpretation of 100 years of solitude is wrong…and you think as most people who have no clue about the culture that the novel is ficticious when the novel was indeed an intent to show the world the depiction of events that happened in Colombia. So your interpretation is completely wrong because you are interpreting without knowing and most likely the same is happening to toy with the bible.

Yes, there are historical events in 100 Years. There are also fantastical events, which is why I said this is magic realism, as did my professor from 22 years ago when I read the novel, as does every review ever for the novel. It is an intermingling of truth with fiction. Not just allegory but out-and-out fiction. Many, many parts of the novel are not true and were made up by its author. Imagine trying to separate that which is fiction from that which is fact without knowing the history of Colombia. Let’s apply the same things to the Bible. Some of the fantastic elements are said to be absolutely true (e.g. Jesus’ miracles) and some are considered allegory by most (the Creation). What is the determining factor?

You seem to he completely stuck in reading the bi me as a science book and as long as you keep insisting in reading the bible as a science book you will keep finding mistakes in your heads. Again the error is not in the bible which was never intended as science and which shouldn’tbe read as science, the error is in you who is insisting as seeing ssomething the way you want to see it, not the way it is, and with there is very little that I or anyone for the matter can do about.

This is a standard fall back position. If something is not literally true and it’s not allegorically true (as I’ve laid out in painstaking detail repeatedly) then it’s not true. It may be partially true in allegorical sense, but then that would be admitting to at least some error and so few christians will do that.

I already told you that the bible does not say there was water in the firmament. You came back and posted from a bible that is Protestant – that means incorrect --and which content has been modified by protestants.
I wrote to you what the actual bible says and it doesn’t say that. Again you are insisting on reading what you want to read (principally after me telling you that this forum is not Protestant and you keep insisting on a protestant bible). Sincerely I think you are barking at the wrong tree. If you want to argue about the protestant bible’s content then talk to a Protestant.

The Douay-Rheims Bible, which I understand is appropriate for Catholics to use, has Genesis 1:7 as follows:

And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

So this idea of “above the firmament” only applying to Protestant bibles doesn’t hold water (pun intended). With that out of the way, what is the water above the firmament as noted in a Catholic bible?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Darn it. Several posts back I used the word reticent when I meant reluctant.

 

[truetofaith]

Mike from NJ - Reading all your extensive comments on mistakes in the Bible, I’m puzzled as to why you are on this website & why you are spending so much time in your replies, since you are an atheist. I see that you were raised as Roman Catholic by wonderful parents. It seems their parenting was good, so why do you feel it is necessary to bash the Catholic faith that we truly believe?

 

[Darryl_B]

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying:

1. The edge of the universe is reflective
2. That edge is the firmament talked about in the Bible
3. The water below the firmament is the water we know of
4. The water “above” the firmament isn’t other water but a reflection of that same water?

No the firmament is the area between the surface of the earth and the reflective edge of the universe.

 

[Darryl_B]

Mike from NJ - Reading all your extensive comments on mistakes in the Bible, I’m puzzled as to why you are on this website & why you are spending so much time in your replies, since you are an atheist. I see that you were raised as Roman Catholic by wonderful parents. It seems their parenting was good, so why do you feel it is necessary to bash the Catholic faith that we truly believe?

I suspect the answer to that my friend, is that there is nothing one can truly do positive as an atheist, it is only possible to truly be an atheist by being a negative of the positive. It is impossible to explain atheism without continuously employing the word “no” (certainly not by being reticent or reluctant) and the only way to say “no”, is if there is a “yes”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike from NJ - Reading all your extensive comments on mistakes in the Bible, I’m puzzled as to why you are on this website & why you are spending so much time in your replies, since you are an atheist. I see that you were raised as Roman Catholic by wonderful parents. It seems their parenting was good, so why do you feel it is necessary to bash the Catholic faith that we truly believe?

I think the part of your question where you wrote “truly believe” is the key. I don’t doubt the sincerity of believers either online or off, but I question if one truly believes if one is using false information or ignores information contrary to their beliefs. I’m not here to get anyone to give up their beliefs, but I do want people to approach those beliefs honestly.

The original poster asked whether the Bible contained scientific mistakes and whether these items should be apporached as metaphor. There were people who told him there were no scientific mistakes in the Bible, and I felt it necessary to probide the alternate viewpoint. That’s why this is a forum.

In a similar vein, there are many people out there who believe in the supernatural (such as ghosts, tarot, dowsing, ESP, ouija boards). There are others like James Randi who debunk claims of supernatural phenomena. He is often asked why bother doing all he does if for most it does little harm. He’ll note that it’s important to try and know as much about the world as possible, to discern what is true. If you research him you’ll find he never says the supernatural isn’t real (since like religion it is unprovable and unfalsifiable) but that there is no evidence of it and we must understand that when determining what is and what is not true,

To take it another why, I live in the United States. I am an American who is proud of this country. At the same time the country has many marks in its history. There are those out there who don’t wish to acknowledge those dark events. The patriotism of those people is flawed if they only see what they wish to see. It’s the same way with religion. It’s important to see the ups and downs, to acknowledge the flaws and contradictions that they bring to the table.

As to why I’m spending so much time in my posts, that’s just how I am. I feel that clarity is more important than brevity (although I strive for both). The last thing I want to do is say something muddled and then have to return back to it later with “What I meant to say…” Another reason is that these topics get broader and broader as each person will often go off on tangents. I want to address as much as I can with each post, not leaving it up in the air as to my position on each point.

Again, I’m not here to “bash” what anyone believes and I’m not trying to get people to give up christianity. But I will bash hypocricy, and I will bash inconsistency, and I will bash contradictions. Truth can withstand the rigors of such bashing, and if faith persists afterward than it is both stronger and truer.

I suspect the answer to that my friend, is that there is nothing one can truly do positive as an atheist,

I’m sorry. Did you just write that an atheist can’t do positive? That no atheist has or does anything postive whether it be in the fields of medicine, charity, science, economics, teaching, entertainment, the military, or any other field?

You’re going to need to clarify that statement because there are many atheists who have added positively to us all.

it is only possible to truly be an atheist by being a negative of the positive. It is impossible to explain atheism without continuously employing the word “no” (certainly not by being reticent or reluctant) and the only way to say “no”, is if there is a “yes”.

One of the classic explanations as to why that makes no sense is the idea of the “aunicornist”. I’m assuming that you don’t believe in unicrons. If so that makes you an “aunicornist”.

The thing is no one believes there are unicorns. The term, while accurate, isn’t used because there is no need to use it. Now imagine that there were billions of people out there who believed in unicorns. They wanted it taught in schools and wanted our governments to state that unicorns are real. Now the term “aunicornist” has weight. If you loved truth you would work to show that there were no unicorns, yet by your reasoning the only way to say “no” to unicorns is if there is a “yes”.

 

[fred_conty]

The original poster asked whether the Bible contained scientific mistakes and whether these items should be apporached as metaphor. There were people who told him there were no scientific mistakes in the Bible, and I felt it necessary to probide the alternate viewpoint. That’s why this is a forum.

As part of our faith we believe that there are no mistakes in the bible as far as faith is concerned. By that we mean that there are no mistakes in religious teaching.

As an example, I don’t know if we can assert that everything narrated in Genesis actually relates to the way the earth was really created. But then that isn’t necessary to do that to teach that all was created by God and that everything we see is aweinspiring. The book of Genesis is to teach us what happened to man in the beginning of his life on this planet in a spiritual way.

The human author of this book is expressing what he knows in his own mind, and writes it down according to the mentality that is going on around him. He expresses a spiritual truth in the way he best knows how from the thoughts of his day.

So the fact is, we go to the bible for spiritual knowledge, and we go to a science book for scientific knowledge. And then care is used to keep this in mind as we use them both so that we don’t expect one to do the other. So it really isn’t important that the bible be exactly correct on everything scientific since it is expressing spiritual truths.

Looking at the bible from this perspective, to provide spiritual knowledge, we can truthfully say that there are no mistakes in the bible, scientific or otherwise.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.