Scientific Mistakes in the Bible?

[Mike_from_NJ]

Frankenfurter, I apologize for not responding to you until now. Your post got lost in the shuffle.

Bad example I think. That is a story of how Jacob successfully used animal husbandry. Jacob was a sophisticated farmer. Follow the story a bit more and you see that he used the marker of the reeds in the trough to only allow the strong animals to breed when they were near the trough. The animals knew over time that if you go to the marked watering trough you get to breed. The marker was an important cue for the animals. Tricks like that are used by farmers today. It is a matter of association in the mind of the animal. Trough with white reeds = good. Go there when in heat!

So the animal husbandry technique was basically this: when the strong animals were drinking, allow them to breed when in heat. They can see the reeds, and will come there to breed again. That is the breeding spot. Weak animals were kept away and separated, not allowed to breed. The weak ones have their own unmarked watering holes.This way the animals come to one place to breed. That way the farmer doesn’t have to roam around all over chasing spotted animals!

Since he started with animals taken from a herd that DID contain spotted animals, he knew from experience that he could get more spotted ones. Remember there is intentional deception going on here. He is starting with a flock where all the speckled animals have been removed. ‘Any sheep that is NOT speckled will be considered stolen’. He is outsmarting someone here. He wants people to think that the rods in the water were were some kind of magic, but actually he is just a great animal breeder.

Obviously as time passed, he selected for the spotted ones, and the strong ones using his system. He ended up with a herd of strong spotted animals. He knew exactly what he was doing. He effectively stole someone’s herd. That’s how they played back then!

There are several problems with your explanation:

1. There is no indication that Jacob was dividing between spotted and non-spotted animals. The passage notes that he is separating the strong from the weak as to whether they get to mate by the striped rods. You are adding to scripture, which is not allowed according to scripture.
2. You claim that the striped rods were there to deceive others into magical thinking. What others? The Bible makes no mention of any others who have been led to believe that the striped rods are causing striped/spotted offspring. Remember, the Bible will go into great detail about one’s deception over another – especially when Jacob does it (e.g. with Isaac and the birthright).
3. Even if Jacob were trying to fool others (which again there is absolutely not a whif written about) he wouldn’t want people to know that he is trying to fool Laban by generating spotted offspring from Laban’s cattle.
4. As written there is a clear cause and effect with the rods to the appearance of the offspring. In this case if you’re correct it appears the author of Genesis was trying to deceive its readers.
5. There are biblical commentaries up to the 19th century which show that the passages were meant to be understood as written, and not as a deception not only of Laban but also of unmentioned others. It’s only when real science showed that the theory that what one experiences at the point of conception doesn’t affect one’s offspring did people start making up flimsy explanations after the fact.

 

[marymary1975]

As Jim correctly stated the bible is not a science book hence it does not contain scientific errors and the reason it can’t contain a scientific error is because the intention of the author was never to talk about anything scientific. If I say that is raining cats and dogs, would you consider that as a scientific error? If my intention is to say that it is heavily raining outside and you state that I have a scientific error when I say is raining cats and dogs, the one with the error is not me, is you because you are giving your own personal interpretation to what I say…which has nothing to do with what I mean.

That is exactly what happens with the bible. People’s personal interpretations assume that the bible is giving a scientific fact when it is not right which seems is what this person in Brazil is doing. Two clear examples, the for corners/ends of the earth. The Hebrew word used in the bible means extremities corners and end and the same expression is used both in Isaiah and ezequiel to refer to the “four corners/end of Israel”. Does that mean that Israel was square? Ezequiel knew Israel was not square so he obviously does not mean that Israel is square. He is talking about north south east and west. The four cardinal points. Same happens in genesis where the bible refers to the four cardinal points. Nowhere in the bible there is an explicit statement that says “the earth is square.”. People reads four ends and they deduce erroneously it says the bible is square hence it is scientifically incorrect, when the bible nowhere says that and is not even talking about that.

Another example, the bible nowhere says specifically that “god created the earth before the sin” again that is someone making assumptions over the bible. The bible only says that god created the earth and that he puts all the starts above. The bible never says that he “first” created earth and “after earth he created” neither gives any indication at all that the author is intending to give you a strict order. The intention of the author is to transmit that God creates the earth and the universe he does not intends to tell you that god created first earth and then the sun. Again is someone’s personal interpretation from the order in which it was placed in a verse, that the bible says earth first sun second…despite that the author doesn’t even have the intention to mean that.

And Luke that you can go with evert verse of genesis. So as Jim stated the bible does not contains scientifically errors.

 

[marymary1975]

Satan brings Jesus to a mountain to view the wholethe masses the earth, indicating that it wasn’t a sphere. It shows that some Chrisearth and ignore those verses that run counter to science but greatly embrace those that even remotely hint at matching with known science.

The Bible says there are waters above the earth separated by firmament. Not only is there no firmament but there are no waters above the earth. As our collective knowledge grew some apologists reinterpreted this as clouds, even though that doesn’t make sense. It shows that some Christians will reinterpret verses within an inch of their life to align them with known science.

.

However your first paragraph is missing that Jesus said that the devil is lying. So why do I have to believe that something the devil is saying is right if Jesus and the bible had repeatedly stated that everything the devil says is a lie??

As to your second paragraph. Reflects exactly what I said above. The bible nowhere says that " there are waters above the earth" and little less “separated by firmament” you ate adding your own personal deduction to the bible and making your personal idea but that is not what it is written. Now let’s look at what the bible actually says:

1.“God created the dome” and
2. " god separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome"

So what the bible actually says is that God created the dome and God separated the masses of water. Nowhere in the passage says that “there are” waters above the earth and the author never intended to transmit anything similar to what you stated. All the authors wants you to know is that god created earth period nothing else. You are adding and changing what it says and that is the problem with most people who find so called scientificall errors…that the bible does not have an error they add their own personal interpretation

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If I say that is raining cats and dogs, would you consider that as a scientific error?

It would be if the phrase was used to describe something other than rain. I agree that we can’t get crazy about the use of idioms, but they have to at least be apllicable. In the two examples I gave (firmament and Jacob making spotted offsrping) there are no idioms in use. There are several sentences of descriptions to tell the reader that this is said to have happened. No one can just handwaive these as idioms or allegory without evidence.

I clipped out the part about the part about the four corners of the earth, as I agree with you that it’s just an idiom.

Another example, the bible nowhere says specifically that “god created the earth before the sin” again that is someone making assumptions over the bible.
The bible only says that god created the earth and that he puts all the starts above. The bible never says that he “first” created earth and “after earth he created” neither gives any indication at all that the author is intending to give you a strict order. The intention of the author is to transmit that God creates the earth and the universe he does not intends to tell you that god created first earth and then the sun. Again is someone’s personal interpretation from the order in which it was placed in a verse, that the bible says earth first sun second…despite that the author doesn’t even have the intention to mean that.

This is quite interesting. Genesis 1:9-13 says God creates the land masses and the vegetation on Earth in “the third day”. Genesis 1:14-19 says God creates the sun (the greater light to govern the day) and moon in “the fourth day”. Are you trying to say that denoting the days does not giving a strict order of creation? If they don’t indicate order what do the days indicate? I simply have a hard time believing that the problem is “someone’s personal interpretation” and not the fact that the words first, second, third, fourth, etc. have an agreed-upon meaning.

However your first paragraph is missing that Jesus said that the devil is lying. So why do I have to believe that something the devil is saying is right if Jesus and the bible had repeatedly stated that everything the devil says is a lie??

Read the passage again. Let’s assume that everything the Devil says is a lie. Matthew 4:9 says “‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’”. We will assume that the Devil really wouldn’t give the world to Jesus. But the issue is the passage just before that. Matthew 4:8 reads “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Note how it doesn’t say that the Devil was telling Jesus that. He wasn’t lying to him. This is the author of Matthew telling us what happened including the things Jesus and Satan spoke. It’s a description of events that were said to occur. Matthew is telling us that Satan took Jesus up to some geographically impossible mountain and then made a promise to him (which we will assume is a lie). You are acting as if the author of Matthew is lying to us. If so, can we ignore Matthew 4:23 where it talks about Jesus teaching in Galilee?

As to your second paragraph. Reflects exactly what I said above. The bible nowhere says that " there are waters above the earth" and little less “separated by firmament” you ate adding your own personal deduction to the bible and making your personal idea but that is not what it is written. Now let’s look at what the bible actually says:

1.“God created the dome” and
2. " god separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome"

So what the bible actually says is that God created the dome and God separated the masses of water. Nowhere in the passage says that “there are” waters above the earth and the author never intended to transmit anything similar to what you stated. All the authors wants you to know is that god created earth period nothing else.

Are you saying that the Bible says that God separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome, but I’m adding additional information by assuming that this means there is water above the dome? Your 2nd part *literally *means that there must be water above the dome. All I’m asking is what is that water above the dome.

You are adding and changing what it says and that is the problem with most people who find so called scientificall errors…that the bible does not have an error they add their own personal interpretation

By your understanding words to describe ordinal numbers have lost all meaning. “Separated” has lost all meaning. If a story features a character that lies than we have to assume that every descriptive sentence in that story trying to convey information to the reader is false, even if it doesn’t involve the character speaking.

I don’t consider this personal interpretation, but instead it’s a reaction to a desperate call to completely give up on the rules of language in order to portray the written word to mean the opposite of what is actually written.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As Jim correctly stated the bible is not a science book hence it does not contain scientific errors and the reason it can’t contain a scientific error is because the intention of the author was never to talk about anything scientific.

Intention has nothing to do with whether something is in error. Let’s say my sister asks my nephew to clean the garage. She pulls our her wallet and says she’ll give him “President Jackson” ($20) to do it. He responds that he won’t do for anything less than “President Franklin” ($100) to do it. My nephew made an error in identifying Ben Franklin as a president. His intention was to bargain with his mother and not to discuss the history of the presidency, yet her still made an error. We do this all the time. We misremember dates and places when telling stories. We’ll mispronounce names of people. We make mistakes big and small that are not the intention of what we are trying to say or do, but they’re mistakes nonetheless. To try and offer things like this as non-mistakes only comes with a fervent need to be error-free. This is demonstrably true when it comes to christians defending mistakes in the Bible. These people who feel this way simply can’t allow even the tiniest hint of error in the Bible and will even redefine the word “mistake” to do so.

 

[1newcatholic]

?
That makes no sense. Just because it’s not a science book, doesn’t mean it can’t contain erroneous science on its pages.

If T.S. Eliot had a scene in his novels in which a character adds two plus two equals five…that would be a mathematical mistake.
It may not make a difference in the plot of the book…but still, the error as we know it would be there.

.

Three cheers for DaddyGirl

 

[1newcatholic]

Bad example I think. That is a story of how Jacob successfully used animal husbandry. Jacob was a sophisticated farmer. Follow the story a bit more and you see that he used the marker of the reeds in the trough to only allow the strong animals to breed when they were near the trough. The animals knew over time that if you go to the marked watering trough you get to breed. The marker was an important cue for the animals. Tricks like that are used by farmers today. It is a matter of association in the mind of the animal. Trough with white reeds = good. Go there when in heat!

So the animal husbandry technique was basically this: when the strong animals were drinking, allow them to breed when in heat. They can see the reeds, and will come there to breed again. That is the breeding spot. Weak animals were kept away and separated, not allowed to breed. The weak ones have their own unmarked watering holes.This way the animals come to one place to breed. That way the farmer doesn’t have to roam around all over chasing spotted animals!

Since he started with animals taken from a herd that DID contain spotted animals, he knew from experience that he could get more spotted ones. Remember there is intentional deception going on here. He is starting with a flock where all the speckled animals have been removed. ‘Any sheep that is NOT speckled will be considered stolen’. He is outsmarting someone here. He wants people to think that the rods in the water were were some kind of magic, but actually he is just a great animal breeder.

Obviously as time passed, he selected for the spotted ones, and the strong ones using his system. He ended up with a herd of strong spotted animals. He knew exactly what he was doing. He effectively stole someone’s herd. That’s how they played back then!

This is the first time I’ve heard this particular explanation for this passage, and on the surface it sounds almost plausible. Can you give specific examples of farm animals/farmers that use similar husbandry methods? Us city folks would like to know.

 

[1newcatholic]

Take a globe and imagine there is a mountain 20 times as large as Mt. Everest in the middle of London. Would a person standing on that mountain be able to see Sydney, Australia even with a telescope? No, it’s on the other side of the world. The verse indicates that the entire surface of the world could be seen from a single vantage point (i.e. not a sphere).

The scriptures don’t say Jesus could see the entire world. Matthew and Luke (the only two gospels to contain the story) agree that the devil showed Jesus all the “kingdoms of the world.” Obviously this is not supposed to suggest that somehow Jesus has super-eyesite, but Luke even contains the important qualifier “in a moment of time.” This particular temptation is a visionary one, in which Jesus beholds not only all the kingdoms of the present world, but all the kingdoms of the past and future, all at once, “in a moment of time.”

Mystical trips to the mountaintops are a pretty common happenstance, even in the modern world–I’m a little surprised that people would still imagine Jesus standing on top of a literal mountain.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I never saw any “scientific” mistakes in the bible.

I did however read that scientists mistakenly called Pluto a planet.
Apparently the empirical evidence they used to decide that wasnt so reliable after all.

…ah, the beauty of science correcting its own mistakes.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Genesis 30:37-42 would have us believe that both the appearance and strength of a flock of sheep’s offspring can be determined by what they stare at when mating.

Are you saying there is no scientific correlation between the successful growth of a herd and its appearance?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The scriptures don’t say Jesus could see the entire world. Matthew and Luke (the only two gospels to contain the story) agree that the devil showed Jesus all the “kingdoms of the world.” Obviously this is not supposed to suggest that somehow Jesus has super-eyesite,

I would not say that is obvious. You feel that it’s obvious because we in today’s world know that it is impossible. The writers of Matthew and Luke did not know it was impossible. This argument you make essentially boils down to saying that I can’t use these verses to show scientific errors in the Bible because then it would show scientific errors in the Bible.

You have to provide some evidence that this is allegorical or mystical other than the fact that if it’s not that I’m right.

And therein lies the problem. Let’s take this story bit by bit. Jesus is in the desert and is hungry. The Devil comes along and tells him to turn a stone into bread (or more precisely to tell a stone to become bread ). The Devil isn’t showing him a vision of a stone. He’s not telling Jesus to transform an image of a stone into real bread, but a real stone.

Next, he takes Jesus to the top of the temple and tells him to jump off. Clearly this is meant to be the real temple for the Devil wants Jesus to summon his angels to prevent him from hitting the ground and dying. This is very real and not a vision.

Also why would the Devil need to take Jesus to a mountain to show him a vision? My movie theater didn’t need to actually be in outer space when I saw Guardians of the Galaxy.

So we go from a real stone to the real temple to an imaginary mountain. Why is it only a vision? What tells us that the Devil is showing a vision and not a real stone or real temple like before? There is nothing in the text that state this is a vision. It’s written in the same language as the stone and the temple parts. No, the only thing that makes you think this is a vision is that if it’s not then it’s wrong. Again, just because something would be shown to be wrong (and you very much don’t want that to be the case) doesn’t mean you can state it’s not as it’s written without anything to back it up.

but Luke even contains the important qualifier “in a moment of time.” This particular temptation is a visionary one, in which Jesus beholds not only all the kingdoms of the present world, but all the kingdoms of the past and future, all at once, “in a moment of time.”

“In a moment of time” doesn’t mean that he’s showing kingdoms from the past and present, but merely the quickness to which he whisked him to the top of the mountain to show all of the kingdoms. Why would the Devil show him empires of the past? How was he to rule any empire that had already fallen? There is simply nothing to suggest that the Devil was showing Jesus anything more than the kingdoms from all over the world (even ones on the opposites sides of the globe).

Mystical trips to the mountaintops are a pretty common happenstance, even in the modern world–I’m a little surprised that people would still imagine Jesus standing on top of a literal mountain.

I’d hold back on disparaging people for accepting ridiculous-sounding claims. Fireballs from the sky destroying cities, she-bears attacking children, giant hands writing on walls are all said to be quite true.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I never saw any “scientific” mistakes in the bible.

Start with Genesis 1.

I did however read that scientists mistakenly called Pluto a planet.
Apparently the empirical evidence they used to decide that wasnt so reliable after all.

Here’s an introductory science lesson: Pluto was discovered back in 1930. This was the farthest planetoid object found with 1930’s technology. At the time cosmologists did not know that there were other objects of a similar size that far away and revolving around our sun. As our technology improved we found more and more of these objects. Pluto was one of the largest of these objects which explains why it was discovered before the others, but it was clear Pluto was not that special. One of two things had to be done. Either we had to consider all of those objects like Pluto as planets, or set a minimum size limit on what can properly be considered a major planet. The latter was done and now Pluto and its similar neighbors are referred to as minor planets or dwarf planets.

If you have any other science questions I’ll be glad to assist you as best as I can.

…ah, the beauty of science correcting its own mistakes.

It is a beautiful thing. It’s important that we don’t rest on our laurels and just assume that what we know is completely true. As our knowledge expands we constantly experiment and test the rigors of what we think is true. It’s how we advanced beyond the Greek understanding of elements. It’s how we know that there are points where Newtonian physics doesn’t hold up and relativity takes hold (as evidenced by GPS tracking sattelites among other things). Mock science’s correction and admitting of its errors and mistakes if you want, but you and me and everyone benefit from that lack of dogma every day.

Are you saying there is no scientific correlation between the successful growth of a herd and its appearance?

Speaking of offering assistance on science questions, here’s another one. The stripes on zebras came about due to the process of mutation. Those herbivores that were able to blend in with their surroundings were more likely to survive and have offspring with the same characteristics. With each generation there was a slight chance that an offspring might have a mutation that would make him blend in even better. So on and so on until we get the zebras we know today.

As Frankfurter noted earlier these changes can also happen due to selective breeding. In that a person sees a trait in an animal that he wishes to continue and breeds that animal to produce as many offspring as possible to try and pass on that trait. In the same way if a person sees a trait he doesn’t want passed on he may prevent that animal from breeding.

The problem with your question is that the Bible story is neither evolution in action or selective breeding. It’s a dumb parody of selective breeding where instead of finding traits and getting those with those traits to breed, it tries to suggest that through staring at objects that possess these traits they will be passed on to the offspring. I hope you understand that’s not how it works. Look up Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. His ideas were somewhat similar to those in Jacob’s story (and just as wrong).

So to answer your question, sure there can be a correlation between an animal’s surrounding and it’s appearance. The method in the Bible is absolutely not one of them. Think of it this way. If a bear breeds in or by a stream does the cub come out with blue fur?

 

[1newcatholic]

I would not say that is obvious. You feel that it’s obvious because we in today’s world know that it is impossible. The writers of Matthew and Luke did not know it was impossible. This argument you make essentially boils down to saying that I can’t use these verses to show scientific errors in the Bible because then it would show scientific errors in the Bible.

There ARE scientific errors in the Bible. You’ve completely misjudged my position.

You have to provide some evidence that this is allegorical or mystical other than the fact that if it’s not that I’m right.

“In a moment of time.” The reader is supposed to envision Jesus seeing all of the kingdoms of the world in a single moment. This is a mystical experience, not Jesus getting a bird’s-eye view of the world from a really high mountain. They had mountains in the ancient world, and eyes; they knew you couldn’t see everything just because you climbed to a high place. It’s common sense.

As to “proving” there are mythical or allegorical elements in the composition of the 3 temptations, it might be interesting to you to note that all three of these “temptations” revolve around competing interpretations of Jewish scripture: the devil “reads” scripture literally, and Jesus finds a deeper meaning in all three instances; the scenes of Christ’s temptation privilege symbolic interpretation over literalism.

Next, he takes Jesus to the top of the temple and tells him to jump off. Clearly this is meant to be the real temple for the Devil wants Jesus to summon his angels to prevent him from hitting the ground and dying. This is very real and not a vision.

And how do you know this is “very real”?

Also why would the Devil need to take Jesus to a mountain to show him a vision?

Because “the mountaintop” is a common symbol of encounter with God common to the Jewish prophets.

“In a moment of time” doesn’t mean that he’s showing kingdoms from the past and present, but merely the quickness to which he whisked him to the top of the mountain to show all of the kingdoms. Why would the Devil show him empires of the past? How was he to rule any empire that had already fallen? There is simply nothing to suggest that the Devil was showing Jesus anything more than the kingdoms from all over the world (even ones on the opposites sides of the globe)

Which is it, the kingdoms of the world, or the flat plain of the non-spherical earth? Your own reading has shifted quite a bit all of a sudden.

Look, there are definitely scientific errors in the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that every allegorical or spiritual or metaphorical passage can be reduced to clinical history or pseudo-science and interpreted as folly according to some loose empirical positivism. Stick to better examples of clear error and you’ll make your point.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There ARE scientific errors in the Bible. You’ve completely misjudged my position.

That I have. My apologies.

“In a moment of time.” The reader is supposed to envision Jesus seeing all of the kingdoms of the world in a single moment. This is a mystical experience, not Jesus getting a bird’s-eye view of the world from a really high mountain. They had mountains in the ancient world, and eyes; they knew you couldn’t see everything just because you climbed to a high place. It’s common sense.

I don’t know how you derive this mystical experience from the phrase “in a moment in time”. The phrase indicates the merest fraction of time – the exact opposite of all time past, present, and future. A plain reading either shows that the time it took to bring Jesus to the mountain was a mere moment, or the time it took to show all of the kingdoms was a mere moment. This leaves the term all kingdoms, and to read into it that this means all kingdoms within all times is to find something which is simply not there. Is there a use of the term “in a moment of time” other than this verse (either in the Bible or outside of it) which demonstrates this understanding?

As to “proving” there are mythical or allegorical elements in the composition of the 3 temptations, it might be interesting to you to note that all three of these “temptations” revolve around competing interpretations of Jewish scripture: the devil “reads” scripture literally, and Jesus finds a deeper meaning in all three instances; the scenes of Christ’s temptation privilege symbolic interpretation over literalism.

Still that doesn’t allow us to just brush aside inconsistencies as symbolic. What we are being told is a story, and while there may be underlying symbolic messages behind the story (which also occurs in Jesus stories which are purported to be literally true) we can’t use Jesus’ love of parables to declare certain parts of the story as solely symbolic without cause.

And how do you know this is “very real”?

I don’t believe it is real, but it is presented to the reader as being real. Not a single word tells the reader that we have ventured from the devil presenting literal temptations to virtual ones. As I noted, as written the Devil placed Jesus at the top of the temple. It had to be the physical temple since he wanted Jesus to risk his life and have angels save him. In the same tone as with the temple the Devil whisks Jesus to a high place to show him the world.

As an unimportant aside, it’s only now that I noticed that Matthew and Luke have the temptations in different orders.

Because “the mountaintop” is a common symbol of encounter with God common to the Jewish prophets.

Does that mean that Moses didn’t actually climb the mountain to transcribe the 10 commandments? If this encounter on the mountaintop is symbolic why not that one?

Which is it, the kingdoms of the world, or the flat plain of the non-spherical earth? Your own reading has shifted quite a bit all of a sudden.

My reading hasn’t shifted in the slightest as I believe it’s trying to say that Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world and that it must be a flat plane to do so. My parenthetical add-on wasn’t to suggest that I thought the Bible was trying to say that the world was spherical, but to point how absurd the passage is by comparing how we today know that there were kingdoms on opposite ends of the earth.

Look, there are definitely scientific errors in the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that every allegorical or spiritual or metaphorical passage can be reduced to clinical history or pseudo-science and interpreted as folly according to some loose empirical positivism. Stick to better examples of clear error and you’ll make your point.

I agree that we can’t attempt to pounce on every tiny inconsistency. Trust me, I’m not hanging my hat solely on Matthew 4 or Luke 4 to demonstrate the scientific flaws of the Bible. As I noted above I don’t take issue with the phrase “four corners of the earth”. Nor do I get in a huff about pi “equaling” three. That’s clearly not a big deal. I still think there is some merit to the verses that we’ve discussed, and that it indicates more than just a vision but a bit of insight into the flawed human (name removed by moderator)ut that went into writing the Bible.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12340063:

I never saw any “scientific” mistakes in the bible.

Start with Genesis 1.

Why? Are there scientific mistakes in there?

Lion IRC;12340063:

I did however read that scientists mistakenly called Pluto a planet.
Apparently the empirical evidence they used to decide that wasnt so reliable after all.

Here’s an introductory science lesson: Pluto was discovered back in 1930…

Yeah, yeah. I can use Wikipedia too.

Lion IRC;12340063:

…ah, the beauty of science correcting its own mistakes.

It is a beautiful thing.

That’s what I said.

Mock science’s correction and admitting of its errors and mistakes if you want, but you and me and everyone benefit from that lack of dogma every day.

Nobody is mocking science. I’m simply contrasting it with the unchanging statements of fact made in the bible which doesn’t have the luxury of “correcting” the stuff which atheists mock.

Speaking of offering assistance on science questions, here’s another one.

I didn’t actually ask for your ‘assistance’ but I read all bible-skeptic counter apologetics with interest.

The stripes on zebras came about due to the process of mutation.

Mutation. That’s right. In the offspring. Just like Jacobs sheep. The ‘process of mutation’.
We all know how mutations occur.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Why? Are there scientific mistakes in there?

Genesis has as much to do with the formation of the sun, moon, and Earth as Abraham Lincoln has to do with skydiving.

Nobody is mocking science. I’m simply contrasting it with the unchanging statements of fact made in the bible which doesn’t have the luxury of “correcting” the stuff which atheists mock.

Sure it’s unchanging. If something is found to be inaccurate or immoral or contradictory, then it’s poetry, or allegory, or it’s misunderstood. It’s downright Orwellian at times.

I didn’t actually ask for your ‘assistance’ but I read all bible-skeptic counter apologetics with interest.

That’s good to know.

Mutation. That’s right. In the offspring. Just like Jacobs sheep. The ‘process of mutation’.
We all know how mutations occur.

If you haven’t had a chance, look over my rebuttal of Frankfurter’s suggestion that Jacob was doing selective breeding on the sly. To add to scripture and say the details given about the reeds was really a ruse to fool onlookers is a post hoc explanation, and a poor one at that.

 

[marymary1975]

It would be if the phrase was used to describe something other than rain. I agree that we can’t get crazy about the use of idioms, but they have to at least be apllicable. In the two examples I gave (firmament and Jacob making spotted offsrping) there are no idioms in use. There are several sentences of descriptions to tell the reader that this is said to have happened. No one can just handwaive these as idioms or allegory without evidence

Read the passage again. Let’s assume that everything the Devil says is a lie. Matthew 4:9 says “‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’”. We will assume that the Devil really wouldn’t give the world to Jesus. But the issue is the passage just before that. Matthew 4:8 reads “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Note how it doesn’t say that the Devil was telling Jesus that. He wasn’t lying to him. This is the author of Matthew telling us what happened including the things Jesus and Satan spoke. It’s a description of events that were said to occur. Matthew is telling us that Satan took Jesus up to some geographically impossible mountain and then made a promise to him (which we will assume is a lie). You are acting as if the author of Matthew is lying to us. If so, can we ignore Matthew 4:23 where it talks about Jesus teaching in Galilee?

.

As to your first paragraph, and how do you know the idioms are not applicable? So you realize that the people that wrote the contents of the books we are talking about lives about four or five thousands years ago, Spoke an old language which I am pretty sure you don’t speak and lived in a completely different era to ours. How do you know without having knowledge of the language they spoke and without having been at the place and the time they lived that xyz is exactly what they mean and whether an idiom…in a language you don’t know probably used at a time you don’t know…is applicable?

As to the second parrag aph, I think I understand your point. You point is that it would be impossible to go to a physical mountain in the physical earth and from there look at every kingdom from the world? Correct. I see the point but your point has a mayor flaw. That would be a great point if we were talking about physical human being. The problem is that thepassage is not talking about material human beings. The devil is nnot a material human being. The devil is a spirit who you cannot see with material eyes and who lives on a non material world. Hence the passage you are objecting is obviously not happening in the physical world because the devil is not material like you and me. Yes the devil could show Jesus all the kingdoms because they were outside of the physical world and Jesus despite being human, he remained fully God so Jesus unlike you and me could be outside of the material world. So that is the explanation. They were not in the material physical world you and I know.

The rest I am doing a separate post because is too long.

 

[marymary1975]

This is quite interesting. Genesis 1:9-13 says God creates the land masses and the vegetation on Earth in “the third day”. Genesis 1:14-19 says God creates the sun (the greater light to govern the day) and moon in “the fourth day”. Are you trying to say that denoting the days does giving a strict order of creation? If they don’t indicate order what do the days indicate? .

Your interpretation that “God created the sun on the fourth day” is the protestant interpretation of the bible. I will go further over that later but here you are talking to catholics not proyestants so you cannot use a protestant interpretation of things because it is the wrong. You are reading the passage using a wrong interpretation hence reaching wrong conclusions and yes I am saying that you are adding your own words and putting ideas ideas into the bible that are not there which is exactly what Protestants do and that is why you have a millions protestant churches because each person comes with their own way to interpret things. In your last paragraph you say is a desperate call to give up on the rules of language…the big problem is that you are applying the rules of English to a language that you don’t know and that you cannot read and trying to understand the thinking of a person from a. Different civilization under the rules and circumstances of the year 2010. It is if try to read a book in Chinese writteng in the ming dinasty trying to use English rules and thinking that the ming dinasty lived in the year 2000. I am probably going to do it all wrong because I don’t speak Chinese and I have no idea what people in the ming era meant.

I am not to rewrite the entire language of the bible because it would take me forever. But what the bible says starting is that God created the heavens and the earth and them proceeds to give a description of the earth in the beginning dark and in caos. By heavens the author means universe, whatever is beyond the heaven we can see (heaven and heavens are two different ideas in old hebrew…heavens as in genesis refers to beyond the sky we can see which basically is anything outside the earth. Note the bible does not say : “god created first the earth and after heavens” so the idea that earth was created first is again a miss reading of the sentence because it says god created heavens and earth and then it describes the earth as dark and in caos. So far no scientifically statement -maybe that the earth in the beginning was caotic and dark but do you know if the earth was not dark at some point and not chaotic? So you can hardly argue any scientific error so far

Then it says basically that God created light. I am skipping that part to not extend to much but all it says and is referring to is that god created light and saw it was good. Then let’s go to the dome. Here there is a mention of water so obviously the writer is telling you that in the beginning there was water in the earth. Nothing else. The bible says let there be a dome in the middle of water. Then goes to the two statements i wrote to you. God created the dome and god separated the waters There is an inference here that in the beginning there was water on the earth. But nowhere implies that the water is “above the dome” that is your personal interpretation. What the bible says is that there was water on earth and god created the dome and he separated waters. Because this book was written about four thousand years ago in a different language and moreover, there are at least three different authors in the writings of genesis and there is no way to know what are the specifics of the situation, you cannot go and deduce that it means that water was above, on the side, etc. Little less if you are basing your deduction on diffetent language rules and diffetent circumstances. All the author is trying to tell you is that God created everything, including the sky and that there was water in the beginning and that god divided the water. Anything else is personal speculation.

After that in short God creates land, fruits etc. However note that if we want to look at scientific points here, the bible does says that water was the first element and scientifically we know that everything started from water. Quite interesting. But again the author us not trying to give you a science class his point is that god created the sky, separated waters, created, land, trees etc. Then says that the morning came and the third day started and here speaks about the sun. The catholic church has for a long time stated that the protestant fundamentalist literal reading of the bible is incorrect. The use of days one two three four, in the bible does not mean literally that it was done like that. The catholic church has a different interpretation (I am not going to now go and write it all because it would be too long but you probably would want to look at the catholic interpretation of the genesis insteadbof the fundamentalist Protestant interpretation). Genesis only gives you general fact not details about a process. The world was not created within a 24 hour period of six days. The word day in the genesis refers to a time period of unidentified length. Because the author doesn’t have a time length to place event, he uses days to refer to an unidentified time length and place the narrative there…in short. I would recommend you to read st Augustine who makes an excellent explanation on the topic (st Augustine was very rational.and very scientifically inclined) to help you understand because as long as you keep using a fundamentalist view of the bible you will continue to find errors not because the bible has an error but because you are using the wrong method.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As to your first paragraph, and how do you know the idioms are not applicable? So you realize that the people that wrote the contents of the books we are talking about lives about four or five thousands years ago, Spoke an old language which I am pretty sure you don’t speak and lived in a completely different era to ours. How do you know without having knowledge of the language they spoke and without having been at the place and the time they lived that xyz is exactly what they mean and whether an idiom…in a language you don’t know probably used at a time you don’t know…is applicable?

Which begs the question as to what we can and can’t trust in the Bible if we take that tack. Does the Bible ever mean what it says?

As to the second parrag aph, I think I understand your point. You point is that it would be impossible to go to a physical mountain in the physical earth and from there look at every kingdom from the world?

Yes.

Correct. I see the point but your point has a mayor flaw. That would be a great point if we were talking about physical human being. The problem is that thepassage is not talking about material human beings. The devil is nnot a material human being. The devil is a spirit who you cannot see with material eyes and who lives on a non material world. Hence the passage you are objecting is obviously not happening in the physical world because the devil is not material like you and me. Yes the devil could show Jesus all the kingdoms because they were outside of the physical world and Jesus despite being human, he remained fully God so Jesus unlike you and me could be outside of the material world. So that is the explanation. They were not in the material physical world you and I know.

I’ve explained this twice now but I’ll do it a third time. In the story Jesus is flesh. He is hungry. The Devil – who in the story may be intangible (like it’s the worst episode of Quantum Leap ever ) – tells Jesus to turn a stone into bread. The stone is material as would be the bread if Jesus transformed it. He takes Jesus to the top of the temple. Again, we know this is material since the Devil wants Jesus to risk his life by possibly crashing into the material ground. Then he takes Jesus to the top of a mountain to have a proper vantage point to see all of the kingdoms in the world. Desert and stone = material. Top of the temple and ground below = material. Top of the mountain = We supposedly have to then shift to a non-material world.

In short, even if the Devil himself was immaterial, the story tells us Jesus is quite material. It’s like in those cartoons where a devil sits on one shoulder and an angel sits on the other. The person in the middle is material while the two sides trying to influence the person are immaterial.

Your interpretation that “God created the sun on the fourth day” is the protestant interpretation of the bible.

I would classify it as a Protestant interpretation so much as a plain reading of the text.

I will go further over that later but here you are talking to catholics not proyestants so you cannot use a protestant interpretation of things because it is the wrong.

Any time that I take a passage as written then I’m using a Protestant interpretation? If I read “This is my body which shall be given up for you” as literally the body am I giving it a Protestant interpretation?

You are reading the passage using a wrong interpretation hence reaching wrong conclusions and yes I am saying that you are adding your own words and putting ideas ideas into the bible that are not there which is exactly what Protestants do and that is why you have a millions protestant churches because each person comes with their own way to interpret things.

I’m fine with going beyond a plain reading if an allergorical reading makes sense and it’s shown that we should do so. “One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez loses much of its meaning with a plain reading. The issue with trying to apply an allegorical reading to the Bible passages we’ve talked about thus far is 1) there are no indications in the text that we are to read them allegorically, 2) they were often taken literally for thousands of years, 3) the call for taking an allegorical approach often derives only when non-biblican truth shows a literal reading to be impossible.

In your last paragraph you say is a desperate call to give up on the rules of language…

Desperate is an understatement.

the big problem is that you are applying the rules of English to a language that you don’t know and that you cannot read and trying to understand the thinking of a person from a. Different civilization under the rules and circumstances of the year 2010. It is if try to read a book in Chinese writteng in the ming dinasty trying to use English rules and thinking that the ming dinasty lived in the year 2000. I am probably going to do it all wrong because I don’t speak Chinese and I have no idea what people in the ming era meant.

Does Chinese from the Ming Dynasty contain idioms? I would assume so. Linguists will look at other texts not only from the same time but also before and after to get a better handle on intended meanings.

Tell me, has there ever been a use in Hebrew where something written as happening “third” occurred after happening “fourth”?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I am not to rewrite the entire language of the bible because it would take me forever.

Are you saying that the reason you won’t rewrite the entire Bible is not because it has to stand on its own merits but because the time it would take?

Then let’s go to the dome. Here there is a mention of water so obviously the writer is telling you that in the beginning there was water in the earth. Nothing else. The bible says let there be a dome in the middle of water. Then goes to the two statements i wrote to you. God created the dome and god separated the waters There is an inference here that in the beginning there was water on the earth. But nowhere implies that the water is “above the dome” that is your personal interpretation.

Nowhere does it imply that there was water above the dome?

Let’s see what the Douay-Rheims Bible has to say about that (Genesis 1:6-8)

6And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

What the bible says is that there was water on earth and god created the dome and he separated waters.

The Bible said the thing that divided the waters was the firmament (dome or sky depending on what you believe). If I put up a fence to separate my neighbor’s yard from my own, then there are two pieces of property with one on each side of the fence. Both properties are not on one side.

Because this book was written about four thousand years ago in a different language and moreover, there are at least three different authors in the writings of genesis and there is no way to know what are the specifics of the situation, you cannot go and deduce that it means that water was above, on the side, etc. Little less if you are basing your deduction on diffetent language rules and diffetent circumstances.

The Catholic Church believes the Bible is true although sometimes that truth is allegorical and not necessarily literal. Yet there is not even allegorical truth if you are saying we can’t trust the words. You claim there is a mistranslation. If that is the case then the Bible contains a scientific error – just one from translation issues and not through incorrectly cited facts.

All the author is trying to tell you is that God created everything, including the sky and that there was water in the beginning and that god divided the water. Anything else is personal speculation.

The author is trying to tell me that there was water and that it was separated into two sections with water above and below the dividing firmament. It’s right there in every single Bible in black and white. You noted that the issue might be a mistranslation from an old language. You say we are to ignore that portion of the statement. Despite that uncertainty you say with absolute certainty what the passage really means. You can say without fail which portions are mistranslated and which are not. There is no possible chance in your mind that “water” or “God” or “Heaven” are perfectly translated. Astounding!

After that in short God creates land, fruits etc. However note that if we want to look at scientific points here, the bible does says that water was the first element and scientifically we know that everything started from water. Quite interesting.

A minor nitpick: Water isn’t an element, it’s a molecule. But I get what you’re saying when you say element meaning a fundamental part of something and not a chemical element. I’m going to assume when you say “everything” started from water you mean all life as we know it (and not everything as in everything because that would be hydrogen).

As far as whether it is interesting, it is but not in an isn’t-it-interesting-how-insightful-the-Bible-is-regarding-water-and-life. If that is what you’re trying to infer (and I honestly can’t tell if it is) then it’s not interesting in that way. These people lived in the desert. They understood that there was no life without water. Even the camel and the snake drink water at some point.