Talk:Biblical scientific errors
Man, is God dumb!--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:19, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- God is an engineer. Only an engineer would round down like that to make the equations work out.
Naval engineer's slogan:
- Draw by hand
- Cut by eye
- Bash to fit
--Kels 20:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- This seems to be the engineer's rep chiefly in the English speaking world. In Germany the designation 'Engineer' is very highly rated, as I believe is also the case in Benelux & Scandinavia. Keepthe faith 20:59, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- Well, there's also a difference in what they call an engineer on board naval vessels and in the civilian world, from what I gather. --Kels 21:17, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- What we have is a guy in an oiled up overall with a hammer and spanner (wrench?). What they have is a (wo)man at a desk with a computer. Dunno about sailors though. Keepthe faith 21:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- I heared that KY jelly, (personal [personnel?] lubricant) was invented by Navy men for Navy men. Dunno if'n they done Astroglide® too. CЯacke® 22:00, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- What we have is a guy in an oiled up overall with a hammer and spanner (wrench?). What they have is a (wo)man at a desk with a computer. Dunno about sailors though. Keepthe faith 21:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- Have you ever read Spellsinger? The paragraph on Clothahump is the bit I'm referring to. Fun series until it gets taken too far. --Shagie 03:13, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Don't forget, the bible predicted how lions hunt their prey, so therefore all this is moot! --Kels 05:38, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
[edit] Where is the error?
You need to demonstrate that the error is in the original and not a problem with translation. For example, a Hebrew word that was eventually used to describe grasshopers might have once been used to describe a now extinct bug with four legs. (This is just a hypothetical example--I haven't dug into many if any of these.) Heart♥GoldCry Like a little girl 17:29, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
- The bible gives us four examples "locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper" all four are observed to have more than four legs. The chance that the Hebrews had different names for all these insect is hard to believe. Also there has never been an arachnid observed to have four legs. If it was an error in the translation we would expect to find differing versions because the chance of every bible version having translated the Hebrew text the same erroneous way is very unlikely. Read this for a comparison of the this part of the text in 6 different translation's.- Icewedge 10:13, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
- As J.P. Holding demonstrates, the 2 hind legs weren't thought of as legs in the same sense, since they had a separate and unique function. So essentially they had 4 legs. No error to be found there. --74.77.80.214 05:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- So... because the front and back legs of, for example, a horse, have a different structure and a different function (and they do, the way they move and the function they serve in each gait is totally different), a horse is two-legged? Even our ancestors, who had not the advantage of our two thousand years of cutting edge research into such areas as leg numbers, could have spotted that they were all legs. I say chop out the rationalisation, leave in a small discussion of the explanation. The apologetics should not be taking up more space than the debunking thereof. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 11:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- As J.P. Holding demonstrates, the 2 hind legs weren't thought of as legs in the same sense, since they had a separate and unique function. So essentially they had 4 legs. No error to be found there. --74.77.80.214 05:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, I did forget part of the quote that explains what I'm saying. But seriously, what do you think? Horses and insects are similar in some way? These types of insects walk on their main four feet as Holding says, and then use the back two for "leaping". That's quite a difference in function! Not only that, these hind legs don't even touch the ground, when they are walking. The hind legs of a horse do touch the ground... Seriously, you guys need to do some real research rather than simply quote skepticspervertedbible. Oh, and yes, this kind of thing still happens in our language, not just the hebrew language! --74.77.80.214 17:33, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, and you need to do some real research... just do some research. Horses' legs are different in shape, the way they move, the job they do... but they're still both called legs. Hell, Kangaroo's front legs are still called legs. And the thing about the bible is that it's not just another book. It claims to be infallible. And when you make claims like that, you need to make sure there's no room for misunderstandings. AT ALL. Getting stuff rationalised after the fact is not the way you get to be infallible. These explanations always pissed me off in pastoral class, because they always smacked of desperation. People shouldn't be that desperate to convince me that God really meant "Legs you walk with when you're on the ground, and not other kinds of legs, even when they look exactly like legs". The point with this page is: the bible gets this wrong, so maybe genesis isn't 100% accurate either. We're just saying. On the other hand, we can't see anything wrong with "Love your Neighbour", so maybe that's the infallible bit we're always hearing about. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 17:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. This isn't a page for apologetics, this is a page for pointing out things that God damn well should have known better. Like the mustard seed being the smallest seed... come on, Jesus with all his omniscience didn't know there was a seed smaller than the mustard seed? Now, to point, the Bible doesn't itself claim to be infallible, that's the Biblical literalists that believe such. Sure, it's a pedantic point, but a valid point nonetheless. Either way, taking things after-the-fact to make them valid is apologetics and it's just as worthless as apologetics in Science Fiction. In Star Wars the Millennium Falcon is said to have made the Kessel run in under 4 parsecs... even though parsecs are a unit of distance not of time... so naturally, Star Wars apologists come along and create a Kessel run such that since it passes so near to black holes, the distance traveled of the ship is what should really be counted (ignoring that Black Holes bend space-time and that by getting closer to a blackhole you actually start traveling further than traveling in a straight line) That's the problem with apologetics of anything... there's always a counter argument, and a counter-counter argument, and a counter-counter-counter argument. Get over it... this is suppose to be the foremost authority on life and Christianity available... why does it require three doctorates just to understand what it really means, when it's being pushed upon the masses as "read this, and you will understand." --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:08, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Okay, the idea of apologetics as a bunch of Bible fanboys making up theories about how something written off-the-cuff could be made to work made me laugh. Sad part is, that's pretty much what's happening. Is it any wonder why academics who seriously study the bible are so likely to lose their faith in the end? --Kels 19:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- How likely? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:30, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I can't give you chapter and verse, I'm just going by some articles I've read on high level biblical scholars, and that most have significant changes in faith as they study more. Some turn atheist, many turn away from the harder line sorts of Christianity, some turn Jewish or whatever. There's an excellent interview I remember with a group of them, and only one had retained faith at all, and he'd turned Jewish. --Kels 19:41, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- How likely? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:30, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Okay, the idea of apologetics as a bunch of Bible fanboys making up theories about how something written off-the-cuff could be made to work made me laugh. Sad part is, that's pretty much what's happening. Is it any wonder why academics who seriously study the bible are so likely to lose their faith in the end? --Kels 19:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. This isn't a page for apologetics, this is a page for pointing out things that God damn well should have known better. Like the mustard seed being the smallest seed... come on, Jesus with all his omniscience didn't know there was a seed smaller than the mustard seed? Now, to point, the Bible doesn't itself claim to be infallible, that's the Biblical literalists that believe such. Sure, it's a pedantic point, but a valid point nonetheless. Either way, taking things after-the-fact to make them valid is apologetics and it's just as worthless as apologetics in Science Fiction. In Star Wars the Millennium Falcon is said to have made the Kessel run in under 4 parsecs... even though parsecs are a unit of distance not of time... so naturally, Star Wars apologists come along and create a Kessel run such that since it passes so near to black holes, the distance traveled of the ship is what should really be counted (ignoring that Black Holes bend space-time and that by getting closer to a blackhole you actually start traveling further than traveling in a straight line) That's the problem with apologetics of anything... there's always a counter argument, and a counter-counter argument, and a counter-counter-counter argument. Get over it... this is suppose to be the foremost authority on life and Christianity available... why does it require three doctorates just to understand what it really means, when it's being pushed upon the masses as "read this, and you will understand." --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:08, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I've typically heard that when you tackle the bible, you end up getting exactly what you weren't before. Skeptics tackle the bible, and come out believers, and believers tackle the bible and come out skeptics. It kind of makes sense. The skeptics are looking for any reason to believe, and the original apologetics starts them going, and their mind naturally fills in the rest, ending up a believer. Meanwhile the believer already has faith and beliefs, then reads the bible and finds inconsistencies and other such stuff, and the apologetics get to them like it's backhanded explanations of stuff that doesn't fit... basically, the bible says "you will fit a square peg into a round hole" and the apologists note that if you have a round hole large enough (where if the square peg has width X, then a round hole with a radius of at least 2*sqrt(2)*X) that a square peg would fit into it... the answer is correct, and logical, but it still doesn't fit. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- There might also be an element of representativeness there; we read about the people who change, because the people who don't change aren't news. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 21:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I can see the headlines already: "Renowned Theologian Reads Bible, Does NOT Lose Faith! Full story on pg. 2" --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
- Atheist reads bible; calls it "d-grade waffle ending in a mushroom dream"Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:44, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
- I can see the headlines already: "Renowned Theologian Reads Bible, Does NOT Lose Faith! Full story on pg. 2" --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
- There might also be an element of representativeness there; we read about the people who change, because the people who don't change aren't news. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 21:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Smallest seed
Come on, isn't that just a little petty? He's making a parable, not holding a lecture on scientific botany. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 09:21, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- I'm with you Anders! Dei atheists, dei! ·· ° . ° 10:18, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[edit] String Theory
String theory is not science because it has no testable (falsifiable) hypothesis. At best, it is a crapload of mental masturbation. RoundRobyn 20:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)
I was referring to the attempts to use science to further an hypothesis in metaphysics.
ListenerXTalkerX 21:27, 19 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] Joshua and the Sun standing still
I came across this quote from Martin Luther: "This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
The verses in question are Joshua 10:13-14
- 12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
- 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
I don't have access to the original text, but this seems to be a major scientific error, as Martin Luther so stupidly pointed out.
- Here? The entire quote from Luther is as follows:
- "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
[edit] Thermodynamic
I think that one isn't fair. First off, quantum particles do seem to pop in and out of existence, and secondly, if somehow a god existed it would be possibly they could change the laws of physics to allow such a creation. While we have no reason for thinking this is the case, this certainly isn't a "scientific error in the bible".
[edit] Stars of Revelation 8:10
According to Rev. 1:1, the book of Revelation is "signified" to John, which means that the writer understood it as symbolic, or consisting of "signs". So I don't think it's accurate to refer to Rev. 8:10 as unscientific, since the writer's intent is symbolism. There are many "stars" mentioned in Revelation. Just a few verses later (in 9:1), a "star" is said to receive a "key". This is obviously not meant to be taken as a literal star in the physical universe. So why does the reference 4 verses earlier have to be taken literally? --Elias (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Further on this:
Revelation 9:1
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Revelation 12:3-4
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
So why aren't these verses included as examples of "stars" being out of harmony with science? The star reference needs to be deleted, because no reference to stars in Revelation can possibly be taken literally. If that's the case then we also have to include sections about these other verses that describe a dragon taking the stars out of heaven, and a star being given a key. Don't these go against the science of stars also?
--Elias (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Sun Was Not "Created" in Genesis 1:16
Genesis 1:16 says the Sun and Moon were "made". The Hebrew for "make" or "made" is not the same as "create" (used in Genesis 1:1). The entire universe was created in 1:1 (including sun, moon, and stars). All heavenly bodies are included in the word "heavens", as is shown by the statement in Genesis 2:4 which uses the word "heaven" to refer to everything in the physical universe besides the earth. --Elias (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Interpretation errors, pendantic horseshit
A so-called scientific error in the Bible, of course, may merely be an interpretation error. Nifty example in the section about pi.
Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.[3][4][5]
The numbers being given are obviously round approximations. Or was the "cubit" some very precise unit, did they have a Bureau of Standards for the "international cubit," accurate to ... what? If it was actually 9.9 cubits in diameter, would they have said, "ten cubits less a tenth?" Is the purpose of the verse to give precise measurements? Was it to establish the value of pi? Like, isn't that a tad .... preposterous. Isn't this supposed to be rational criticism?
If we take the thirty cubits as accurate for the circumference, perhaps because it predicts encirclement, then the diameter would be 9.55 cubits. Round off to the nearest cubit, it's 10 cubits.
Q.E.D. --Abd (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- For non-literlists, yes they would veiw it as an interpretation error. This article is more inline with biblical literalists. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. But then it's not a "scientific error in the Bible," it is an error in mindless over-the-top literal interpretation of the Bible. Or, perhaps, "the Bible" is not an ancient book, it is a creation in the mind of fundamentalists. They are worshipping themselves, their own handiwork.
- On the other hand, is it fair to rational Christians that we give these idiots the "Bible," as if it was their property? --Abd (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- When the Bible is consonant with science: "Look, the Bible predicted this scientific advance!" When it isn't: "Oh, well, you know that passage isn't supposed to be read literally." Heads I win, tails you lose. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the world is just unfair. However, N, it's not generally the same people making those different claims. I've been over and over this with the Qur'an and Muslims. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then, i guess you're stuck. This is what the wiki says. Clearly, again, you know more then the people here, you should go make your own wiki. We do not have your eduction level, your experience, your mind, or your insight.
Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is what the wiki says, WfG? I do know that some here have a "higher" educational level than I. Stuck? On what? I've made a suggestion about the section in question. I might make an edit, I might not. I find the idea of that section as showing an "error" in the Bible quite interesting. And I explained why.
- It's a bit like someone saying that pi is 3.14, or, a bit better, 22/7, and then someone says "BRAACK! ERROR!" But, of course, any numerical value for pi is going to be "wrong." Right?
- Next case .... --Abd (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then, i guess you're stuck. This is what the wiki says. Clearly, again, you know more then the people here, you should go make your own wiki. We do not have your eduction level, your experience, your mind, or your insight.
- Yeah, the world is just unfair. However, N, it's not generally the same people making those different claims. I've been over and over this with the Qur'an and Muslims. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- When the Bible is consonant with science: "Look, the Bible predicted this scientific advance!" When it isn't: "Oh, well, you know that passage isn't supposed to be read literally." Heads I win, tails you lose. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- On the other hand, is it fair to rational Christians that we give these idiots the "Bible," as if it was their property? --Abd (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add this interesting source, I may also add this to the section to give a balanced view on the matter.
Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie as making this interesting observation: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi-diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.” (Notes on the King James Version, London, 1887) Thus, it appears that the ratio of three to one (that is, the circumference being three times the diameter) was a customary way of stating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate. RoryWatt (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)