Talk:Biblical scientific errors

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon bible.svg

This Bible related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Baseless Arguments[edit]

Several points attempting to be added are not backed by Biblical evidence. Since no one has yet to make an argument in the talk page for their inclusion I'm cleaning it up. The Bible not mentioning the value of Pi is not an error. That's like suggesting a chemistry textbook is incorrect because it doesn't talk about quantum physics. The views of ancient Jews about the firmament is irrelevant. The Bible itself gives no description of it other then the name. Canaanites are already mention on this talk page.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Keyboarder The article is responding to claims by Biblical literalists. The point is that certain key subjects are absent or are presented in an incorrect manner by the Bible, such as math and geography. I oppose the proposed removal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie The page is about Bible errors, thus any point made needs to actually be Biblical, not just the irrelevant incorrect views of the people who happen to read it. In any case the claims attempting to be added are not about Biblical literalism anyway. A fact not mentioned cannot be taken literal. Pi not being mentioned cannot be taken as a Biblical errors since it never claims to mention Pi. The argument about the firmament is solely based on Jewish/Christian culture, not Biblical statements. As such it cannot be taken as a Bible error. An argument about the firmament needs to be about Biblical statements. The Canaanite argument is, again, already mentioned in the talk page and is clearly not Biblically supported.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm going try my damnest not to lose my patience with you, though I suspect that will be difficult. In the opening lines of the article it says "Biblical scientific errors refer to Biblical claims that go against scientific data, usually as a result of a literalistic reading. Biblical scientific errors are external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) as opposed to internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message).
Biblical scientific errors amount to evidence against Biblical scientific foreknowledge and Biblical literalism. ", Thusly establishing the article's premise. If you do not like the premise, then I suggest you present reasons for a major rewrite or deletion. Alternately, you could simply acknowledged that something in the world isn't how you wish it to be and move on. Again, for the now repeated reasons, I oppose the removal of content. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieI think you need to again review the changes that have been suggested. These changes have nothing to do with Biblical literalism, as I've already said. It's true that God never states the value of Pi, but there are also many other scientific facts that God doesn't mention either. How is pointing out that God doesn't say something a response to a literal Bible interpretation? Likewise, the points about the firmament are culture not Biblical and, thus, have nothing to do with Biblical literalism. As such, these changes are not in line with the article's premise. If you wish to expand the article to include the false beliefs of Christians (Biblically based or otherwise) you are free to make a proposal. But as it is now, like I said, the attempted changes are not in line with the article's premise, which is about Bible statements vs science, not about Christian's beliefs. If you wish to have these changes add then you need to make a case for them from Biblical content. --Keyboarder (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The changes were not suggested. The one about the value of Pi has been in the article since it was created in 2007, the section concerning the Canaanites has been in the article since 2017, and the section concerning the firmament since July 26, 2007. Now, if you would be so kind as to justify your removal of long standing content, that would be lovely. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I don't care when these were first added, but they have been removed and restored several times in the past months with no justification either way. All I'm doing is cleaning the page. I have already given you a thorough explanation why the Pi and firmament arguments need to be removed and you can already find on this talk page a detailed explanation against the Canaanite argument that dates back to 2019. You, however, have so far failed to provide a reason to keep any of these points other then pointing to the article's premise, Biblical literalism, which is in fact the exact reason these points need to be removed, as they are not base in Biblical facts. As such, these points will be removed until someone can provide a case for them.--Keyboarder (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I very much disagree with your position. As such, a consensus has not been reached, and no action may be taken. Further, if you were to engage with a large number of articles you'll quickly find that many of them suffer from recurring edit wars due to many unregistered users taking the subjects poorly. The solution is not simply to act as if both sides have merit, but to assess each edit war on a case by case basis. In this specific case, the reasoning you have given is at odds with the premise of this article, which is explained in the article's opening sentences, which I have already quoted. I frankly don't give a shit if someone doesn't like the premise, or the evidence presented. If their explanation is poor or incorrect, then it is insufficient grounds for removing article content, period. Your stated position is merely the repeated assertion that the content does not fit the premise of the article, which I have repeatedly stated my disagreement with, and as such, the onus falls upon you to either explain your position better or drop the matter. in light of the reasons I've just laid out, further edit warring will likely result in yet more locking of the article, which would be unproductive for all parties, as it will result in wasted time and energy that could be better spent elsewehere. I encourage you to either improve your argument beyond mere assertion or to drop the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Essentially you and I disagree over whether or not these points match the Articles premise. I have pointed out that since the premise is about Biblical facts, therefore any point in there articles must be about Biblical facts. Since no evidence can be provided that these points are from Biblical they thus go against the article's premise. I cannot provide evidence that something doesn't exist other then suggesting that you read Bible and see for yourself. This conversation would end much faster if you on the other hand would provide evidence for your 3 claims namely:
Where does it say the Canaanites were wiped out?
Where does it give a description of the firmament?
How can the lack of mentioning Pi be interpreted a incorrectly?
If the article does not contain any actual proof that these that these errors are Biblically present then it is guilty of distributing false information, and as such they need to be removed warring or not. --Keyboarder (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Keyboarder Are you just fucking with me? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Reading the article over and looking at both sides arguments, I think I'm gonna have to go with Keyboarder on this one. The ones that Keyboarder mentioned aren't really an "error" on the Bible's part, they just aren't mentioned (in the Bible.) It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Farmhand "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."
Firmament, specifically, is mentioned three times. And again, the article clearly lays out its premise. If you wish to dispute that premise and call for a complete rewrite, fine. If you wish to call for deletion, fine. However, the reasons given are not grounds for the removal of the subsections, the assertions that the subsections are additions is demonstrably false, at least one of the contested subject is in fact in the Bible, and clearly stated as to what it's referring to, leaving no room for "interpretation". Now, the article's premise is that the Bible is a poor source for information regarding reality, as it has multiple pieces of information, or lack thereof, that conflict with reality. It explains this in the opening paragraph. If you want to argue that the Bible doesn't internally conflict with itself, that belongs on the talkpage for Biblical contradictions, not here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Don’t see the harm in the pi subsection, it’s not an inaccuracy itself but it doesn’t claim to be. The Bible clearly describes the firmament as real, you can’t just redefine the word to get around that. Don’t know enough about ancient middle-eastern history to talk authoritatively on the Canaanites bit, seems like the argument for removal might have some merit, I’ll ping @Bongolian as he wrote the section and no one else has. Christopher (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the Pi section is that it's just pretty much off-topic. It's not a Biblical error, it's just a Biblical fact. The firmament is clearly mentioned in Genesis, but the problem with the article's argument is that it doesn't critique The Bible, it just critiques the Jewish/Christian culture. The firmament is fair game for criticism, but it needs to be about Biblical claims, not cultural ones. I'll let Bongolian answer about the Canaanites, but there are Bible verses that claim they survived as can be seen in the argument on this page.--Keyboarder (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagree with vast majority of Keyboarder's criticisms. Looks like a troll. Regarding Caananites, the arguments are obviously valid. Justifying the existence of Caananites today has seen Christian apologetics bending over backwards. (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I generally defer to others who are more knowledgeable on Bible details, having successfully mostly avoided the book until I came to RW. Bongolian (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The Bible explicitly states that the Israelites failed to kill all the Canaanites (Judges 1:27-33)--Keyboarder (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone able to refute the fact that the Bible never said the Canaanites were all killed? I still think the other bits should stay, but it seems like the Canaanites one is a misinterpretation; if it is removed it’s worth a mention in “Incorrectly regarded as errors”, but I wouldn’t know enough about the Bible to write it. Christopher (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Reading the quoted passages shows God commanding that the Canaanites be killed, but as far as I've been able to tell there's no mention of Israelites succeeding. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If no one objects I’ll remove that bit now. Christopher (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Since I see no further objections to removing the Pi and firmament sections, can I safely assume we are in agreement on their removal as well?--Keyboarder (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No, none of the existing objections have gone away. Christopher (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Please use the talk page before giving out bans. If either of you had used the talk page to state you objection earlier I would not have kept reinstating the changes. I am very willing to have an honest discussion about this but that can only happen if you are willingly to communicate. If you still have objections please state them. Specifically, you need to demonstrate how the Pi and firmament sections criticize any Biblical claims. As I have already shown neither section attempts to address any actual Biblical statements, which is the point of this article as stated in it's premise. Thus, these sections are outside this article's scope and should therefore be removed.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The pi section is a bit of a tangent, but it’s not completely off-topic and doesn’t really fit anywhere else. This just comes down to personal opinions on how much people think an article can stray from its premise, most people are less strict than you.

The writers of the Bible meant “a big roof over the world” when they wrote “firmament”, that’s what the word means. “This issue disappears if you redefine all the words” is a terrible argument. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the Pi argument would be better placed in the introduction? It doesn't really warrant it's own heading for this kind of article.
There's no evidence that Biblical writers meant "“a big roof over the world” though. The etymology of the word does not suggest that either. More to the point, from a Bible literalism perspective the writer is God who invented the idea, with cultural beliefs about the firmament coming later. Basically what I mean is that a Biblical literalist would disregard any culture beliefs about the firmament and base their beliefs solely on Biblically statements (even if that doesn't make sense). That's the perspective this article needs to argue against. Like I said, points about the firmament are fair game, they just need to focus on addressing actual Bible statements.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If you want to fiddle with positioning that’s fine (although I don’t trust you to edit the article at all).
“Firmament means sky roof” isn’t a cultural belief, it’s the definition of a word. You cannot ignore the definitions of the words in the Bible in the name of biblical literalism. Christopher (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
But "sky roof" isn't the meaning of firmament. Where did you get that definition from? I've never seen it used that way (Biblically or otherwise) and, like I said, the etymology doesn't suggest that either. The word in Hebrew has a more literal meaning of "spread" or "beat" or maybe even "expanse". If the article argued against those terms it could be valid but right now it doesn't. Additionally, you are correct that the meaning of a word cannot be separated from the culture it came from, however that is exactly what Biblical literalism attempts to do, which is what this article is meant to refute. One of the biggest issues with Biblical literalism is that it ignores the intended meaning of the text. A better argument might be to point out how some people attempt to Biblically justify the firmament being something other than a solid roof, which is (supposedly) the obvious intended meaning. (Although, again you would also need to show that Jewish culture did consider the firmament to be a solid roof).--Keyboarder (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The evidence for the definition is citation 14 and 15. If you want to get anywhere I’d suggest disputing them as your line of argument. Christopher (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those sources provide any evidence for their claim that the firmament was considered solid by the Jews at the time Genesis was written. Source 14 tries to prove it by referencing other cultures, not Jewish culture. The only Jewish works it mentions were written much later then Genesis. The fact that the firmament is described as having lights placed "in" it suggests that it was not considered solid. It's also said to have a "surface" (or "face") which matches Genesis' description of water. Furthermore, neither source describes it as a "roof" or provide evidence that it covers the whole Earth. The RW article implies that Genesis 1:6-8 describes the firmament as a "solid roof" which it does not as can be seen in the already provided quote. The fact is the article is clearly misrepresenting Genesis' description of the firmament as well as oversimplifying the cultural understanding of it. Thus the argument needs to either be rewritten, or simply removed to avoid confusion.--Keyboarder (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Since there haven't been anymore objections in several days I'm going to go ahead and remove these sections. If you do have objections feel free to reinstate them and state you argument for them here.--Keyboarder (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why Bother[edit]

I am, and always have been, baffled by some of the west's clinging to the bible. Who the hell is bothered by what ignorant peasants at any time between two and four thousand years ago wrote? The whole book is of less interest than the much later Arthurian legends, the Mabinogion or even Kalevala. Ninety nine percent of the 'historical' details in the bible are untrue so why should any of the geography or mathematics etcetera be expected to be valid. The sooner we leave this book to the students of mythology the better Scream!! (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Here here! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you be more clear on what your suggestion is? You don't have to contribute to this page if you don't want to. The truth is that many Biblical claims are considered historic fact, even by secular scholars. King Josiah, for example, is regarded as a key figure in the development of Judaism despite the fact there is no evidence of his existence outside Biblical texts. Maybe there should be a page dedicated to Bible facts that are accepted as history? --Keyboarder (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Are we to use Homer's Odyssey as a history textbook now? Oh right, that one doesn't have a massive whiny fanbase who thinks the events depicted within a work of fiction are reliable. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not you accept Homer's Odyssey as history is up to you. But any page dedicated to discussing errors within the Odyssey should only criticize things actually found in the Odyssey. Like it or not, most historians, both secular and religious, agree at least some Biblical facts are reliable. This conversation is getting off-topic from the article now though.--Keyboarder (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Great, so why did you remove the parts about the firmament? It's in the Bible, I proved it by... Quoting the bible. Actually, I would have gotten six more hits if I'd just quoted the entirety of Genesis 1. Have you even read the Bible? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As I have already explained several times, the arguments about the firmament don't focus on Biblical statements. The article makes no attempt to refute Genesis' description of the firmament, instead in just argues against extra Biblical beliefs about it, which are outside the scope of the article. The Bible never describes the firmament as a "roof" or as "solid" and Christians beliefs about the firmament are irrelevant to actual Biblical statements about it. Yes I have read the complete Bible, but at this point I am starting to doubt you have.--Keyboarder (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah they do. The article's reasons are laid out. I don't give a fuck if you don't like it, that's how it is. And yes, I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times, as demonstrated by my ability to quote it, with context. Again, I don't give a fuck if you don't like it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Except it doesn't. The article correctly points to Gen 1 and 7 but fails to criticize them or even quote them correctly. The very quote you provided shows that the firmament is not described as a "solid roof", contrary to the article. The rest of the argument focuses on Christian beliefs rather than Biblical claims, which are not the same thing. There is no justification for keeping this section.--Keyboarder (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before I don 't really like this article very much. It's like picking apart the science in the Marvel Universe. The Marvel Universe is set in a sort of "real" world so some of the things in the story are real. But some of them being real doesn't mean that all of them are real or scientifically plausible. It's like the bible - a work of fantasy.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If there were millions of people who believed everything in the marvel universe actually happened, we probably would have that article. The point of the article is to prove that the Bible is a work of fantasy. Christopher (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand that. My specific reference to some facts being real in the Marvel Universe was more in response to Keyboarder arguing that "some Biblical facts are reliable". So what? That is to be expted in any work of fiction. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
My point about it containing reliable information was just a response to GrammarCommie's claim that "Ninety nine percent of the 'historical' details in the bible are untrue". I pointed out that some accepted historical facts are only found in Biblical sources. Your right that just because it contains many historical facts doesn't necessarily prove the entire thing is true though. But, again, this is getting off-topic. --Keyboarder (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, but if some of it it true and some of it is not true - what use is it? It just means that it's a flawed source of information. Which is the point of the article to those not already convinced.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I never claimed that "Ninety nine percent of the 'historical' details in the bible are untrue...". Scream did. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, that right, my bad. My apologies. You did seem to agree with their statement though. --Keyboarder (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
”The whole book is of less interest than the much later Arthurian legends, the Mabinogion or even Kalevala. Ninety nine percent of the 'historical' details in the bible are untrue…” Both of these ideas are your opinions and you give no evidence for any of these statements. That you have stated them as facts does nothing but suggest antipathy (however justifiable) towards the people who believe it to be divinely inspired. There are only two explanations I can come with for this hyperbole and GrammarCommie’s endorsement of it. Both of you are either ignoring everything between the Pentateuch and New Testament, or both of you are extreme biblical minimalists more similar to Professor Thompson (who’s full of sh*t) than to Professor Finkelstein (who isn’t). Biblical minimalists, even those who aren’t extreme, tend to irritate me. Allow me to give examples as to why. No serious person would ever suggest that the latter parts of Genesis are NOT filled with anachronisms, but there’s a major problem with dismissing the Patriarchal narrative as 100% fictional. It describes a society that is completely different to the one it was written in. It is, for the most part, a believable, albeit very heavily editorialized, account of the life of Bronze Age semitic speaking pastoralists, and the society it was written in was an agricultural one whose customs were not entirely the same. Much is made about how the Exodus is 100% fictional and minimalists typically reject the idea that their was even a migration in the first place. The arguments of biblical minimalists to this end, or rather, the arguments I HAVEN’T seen from them, do not inspire confidence in their methods. For instance, Manetho gives a much more believable account of the Exodus story, but minimalists keep insisting on ignoring him and refuting the biblical story, and using that as proof that there was no migration. Medieval Christians burned Talmuds by the cart-load because of mere rumors that it mentioned Jesus in a negative light. Yet Ehrman inexplicably expects me to believe that Christians scribes would have preserved ANY and ALL sources that proved the existence of their savior, the existence of whom was never denied even by Jewish polemicists who had the most motivation to do so. 2600:1700:38E0:A040:A054:A2B6:F7D8:236A (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC) A

What I dislike about this article[edit]

What I dislike about this article is its focus.

The nuttiness of the bible is not shown with arguments about ants, the definition of "firmament", or the classification of mustard plants or bats. The nuttery is in the the seven day creation; all the silliness with talking snakes and apples in the Garden of Eden; The Tower of Babel; The Great Flood and so on.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Bible-writers-and-polishers (who may well have been using definitions which were logical to them, including idioms etc (how many dollars is a fistful?), interpreting 'usages from the olden days' etc), or the modern Bible-interpreters, who fail to take on board scientific and knowledge advances in the intervening several thousands of years? Anna Livia (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about the bizarre stories in the bible which I mentioned above.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Those don't really contradict scientific data though. People don't believe that all snakes can talk, they just believe THAT snake could through supernatural means. What scientific evidence is there that a global flood or a tower didn't happen?--Keyboarder (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"What scientific evidence is there that a global flood or a tower didn't happen?" You know, I could go on about proving a negative, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, or even philosophy of science, or I could point out that there's fuck all evidence for these claimed events and call it a day. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm using the lattermost option. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You (Kb) just lost all credibility with one word: supernatural! Scream!! (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
God could apparently hide evidence of the tower but couldn't hide evidence of evolution and stuff that directly contradicts with parts of the Bible. Funny that.
Anyhow, what kind of rewrite do you want to change the focus from that to nuttier stories? Or vice versa? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are asking me, then the really silly stuff should go first with a small paragraph each and the existing stuff later.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit: Okay I'm confused now. Are you referring to Keyboarder's revision or was the article an issue before that? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Who are you addressing LGM? Scream!! (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Keyboarder derailed so I just want to address the original question/concern Bob M was asking. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
My point was that this article is meant to contrast Biblical statements with scientific data. I doubt claims such as a supernatural snake can be refuted with scientific data (hence the term "supernatural"), so such a point doesn't belong on this page. If anyone provides data that refutes things like the flood or tower then it would make sense to have them on this page.--Keyboarder (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC
And mine is that the most glaring, gob-smackingy "scientific" failures in the bible barely get a mention. It's obvious the Earth was not created in seven days, there is no evidence for a global flood and no linguistic evidence for a Tower of Babel episode. And if we are talking science it is necessary to provide positive data for a claim. If you've got anything to support a seven day creation, a global flood or a Tower of Babel event - then bring it on. Meanwhile, If you want to see what we already have on these topics check out Evidence against a recent creation, Global flood and Tower of Babel.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
And allow for poetic license - eg [1].
The definition/perceived extent of 'the world' in Biblical times was probably rather smaller than the one we use - so what would now be seen as an extensive regional flood (or several such, conflated in the re-telling) would be seen as theoretically global then.
Interpretations of the universe do change over time - the molten Venus (planet) was only revealed within the lifetimes of (a proportion of) people living today. Anna Livia (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added a "Gross Errors" section at the beginning.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to remove these additions. The main issue with them is that they try to prove a negative by pointing to a lack of evidence, which is against the point of this article. I know you mention that in the intro but it's still a bit off topic. Remember one could easily claim that God could make a 4 billion year old Earth in only 7 days. As well as make Humans and animals that give the appearance of evolution. Sure that might be a stretch, but not impossible from a Biblical perspective. The Tower of Babel argument seems particularly poor imo though. There's no scientific consensus on the origin of language, but many theories suggests multiple source languages, which matches the Babel narrative. --Keyboarder (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal. Taking the first one there is a complete lack of evidence for a seven day creation. That alone is sufficient for it to be a non-scientific claim. But there is in fact a mountain of evidence for an old earth as our article points out. The same argument can be made for each one. The scientific approach is to reject claims for which there is no evidence and to accept claims for which there is evidence. I strongly suggest you look for consensus before removing those lines. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The age of the Earth has nothing to do with it's creation, those are two separate points. Just because the Earth in 4 billion years old, doesn't mean it wasn't created in only 7 days. Also, again, God could simply made it so it was already old when it was made. Remember the premise of the article is that "Biblical scientific errors refer to Biblical claims that go against scientific data", not Biblical statements that lack any evidence. Points that cannot be contrasted with scientific data are outside the scope of this article. Since it is impossible to prove that God didn't create Humans and animal that looked like they evolved, or prove that God didn't create multiple languages, then those points don't belong in this article. I strongly suggest you look for consensus before adding those lines.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
"Just because the Earth in 4 billion years old, doesn't mean it wasn't created in only 7 days. Also, again, God could simply made it so it was already old when it was made." Personally, I think the Earth was made last Thursday with everything in place so it looks like it wasn't created last Thursday.
Slightly more serious: lol seriously stating the omphalos hypothesis in $YEAR. 主要行事月 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The point is that every argument in the article needs to be backed up with scientific data. If a Biblical statement can't be disproven with data, then it should not be listed in this article.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
All the evidence we have is that the Earth is old. We have no evidence that the earth was created last Thursday, last month, or 6,000 years ago. Have you read: Evidence against a recent creation and Last Thursdayism?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The section you added doesn't mention young Earth theory. You try to argue that a 7-day creation is disproven by the age of the Earth, which doesn't really make much sense. When the Earth was made is separate from how long it took to do it. Further more, like I said, why couldn't God create a 4 billion year old Earth in a single day? There is no evidence to disprove that idea.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence to disprove the idea that the Earth was created last Thursday, either. 主要行事月 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, Keyborder. It's time for you. Where is your evidence that the Earth was created in seven days? I have asked you for this before and got nothing. Now please give it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence to suggest that the Earth was made in only 7 days are was not not last Thursday, I never said the was. My point is that these claims can't be proven or disproven scientifically either way, and thus don't belong in an article meant to demonstrate scientific data. --Keyboarder (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
But you agree the bible makes this unsubstantiated claim? And that humans came into being at the same time?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, clearly it does. But it also says that one thousand years is like a day to God. And just because it's unsubstantiated doesn't mean it belongs in this article.--Keyboarder (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Given the differing orders of magnitude between the the big bang and the formation of the earth - seven days or seven thousand years is equally hilariously wrong.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The point is that God is able to work outside time. Plus you're still conflating the duration of creation with how long ago it happened. The age of the Earth is irrelevant to how long it took to be formed.--Keyboarder (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
From your comments I'm not sure if you understand that, from a scientific perspective, positive evidence is what is required in order for us to provisionally accept a claim. You have been asked for evidence of a seven-day creation, for a young earth and for the Tower of Babel. In each case your response has been to deflect and to ask that people disprove these claims. Science doesn't actually work this way and the burden of proof lies with you. Nevertheless we have given you links to our articles which support positions which differ to your own.
But now, let's go for the biggie. You have repeatedly made reference to "god"· So now my question is: what evidence do you have for your particular version of "god"? Given your previous inability to provide evidence for anything anything at all you have claimed in conversations about the the age of the Earth, The Tower of Babel or whatever I'm not expecting a lot - but this is your opportunity to surprise everyone.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No offense, but my god, you are stupid, Keyboarder. "My point is that these claims can't be proven or disproven scientifically either way" read up on falsifiability before continuing to embarass yourself. 主要行事月 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suspect Keyboarder subscribes to the idea of NOMA, based on their comments thus far. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I think he's just highly indoctrinated. I'm honestly interested in seeing his evidence for his god.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright, let's get something straight. I am not trying to prove anything. Nor am I suggesting that just because something can't be disproven it therefore must be true. There is no evidence for a 7-day creation, a young Earth, the Tower of Babel, or for God.
As I've said before, this article is solely about contrasting Biblical statements with scientific data. The reason I am asking you to disprove Biblical claims is because that is the entire point is of this discussion. If something is not falsifiable then it has no point being in this article. The page on falsifiability even explicitly states that creationism is not falsifiable. Any argument on this page must include both an actual Biblical claim and be contrasted with scientific evidence. Simply saying a Biblical claim lacks evidence is not in scope. That is not a NOMA argument, it's the exact opposite.--Keyboarder (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
While we are making some progress whith your acceptance for the lack of evidence for for all of the things you have previously supported with various tortured arguments; you have clearly failed to understand the concept of "falsifiability". If something is not falsifiable in principle then, definitionally, it it is not scientific. This is not a statement in support of a scientific view of creationism - it's a criticism. Non falsifiablbility is not a get-out-of-jail card for creationism in science - it's a death stroke. — Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs
I'm not sure what "progress" you're referring to, I have not changed my position. But your statement proves my point. Since creationism is not a scientific claim it has no business being mentioned in an article dedicated to scientific claims.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Creationism makes claims about material reality and bills itself as being equal to if not better than science. It is well within the scope of this article and this wiki's mission statement. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Except the page on falsifiability, again, explicitly states that science cannot be preformed on creationism. But if you do have any scientific data that does contradict Biblical creationism then you can present it. However, as I have already shown, the evidence that has already been proposed does not actually refute Biblical claims. --Keyboarder (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
If you have any evidence against my farts being a cancer cure, please present them. Also, you've shown fuck all. You've asserted that Biblical claims can't be addressed by science, you've asserted that the article fails to disprove Biblical claims, but you've proven fuck all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually I've thoroughly showed why the article fails to disprove Biblical claims in several places, as can be seen in this talk page. If a claim can't be disproved with scientific data, then it shouldn't be in this article. It's that simple. If you have data to show then please do so, otherwise these arguments should be remove.--Keyboarder (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Prove my farts can't cure cancer. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't, which is why there is no page dedicated to such a thing. The issue you're having is your attempt to maintain both a position of falsifiabilityf and anti-NOMA. Falsifiability suggests that claims such as creationism are not testable, while anti-NOMA suggests that they are. These are two contradictory ideas, yet you are still trying to satisfy both, a strategy that is destined to fail--Keyboarder (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a problem, since I can disprove either quite easily. Such claims contradict all known data, and as such must demonstrate extraordinary evidence so as to prove they are worth consideration. There, done. Principles of falsibiality adhered to, NOMA still shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The falsifiability page demonstrates why creationism isn't testable. Regardless, please share this known data that contradicts creationism, that's all I've been asking for.--Keyboarder (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Talkorigins... And here's Rationalwiki's own article... I really should just demand that you provide evidence for creationism, since that is in fact the extraordinary claim here, not you know, not buying into a fantastical premise... And you know, your claiming "it can't be falsified or tested!" is the real problem here. If it involves material reality, it can be tested. Any form of pseudoscience or woo can be tested. Including Creationism. Creationism has yet to provide evidence that stands up to scrutiny, hence it is debunked, hence it is rejected as a viable explanation for anything it claims to explain. Etc, etc, etc. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It would seem then that RW contradicts itself wouldn't it? (makes me wonder why any of it should be considered trustworthy). You also seem to disagree with the concept of falsifiability (which is fine, that's up to you). I will not provide evidence creationism because I am not trying to prove it. Rather since this article is attempting to disprove it, it's that thing that needs to have evidence for it's claim. The page you linked is already linked in the article and does make sense to have there, however much of the section is still baseless, such as suggesting that a 4 billion year old Earth contradicts a 7-day creation (those are two separate ideas).--Keyboarder (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word falsiability means. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going with what's written in RW's page on it. Moving on, if you have no more objection, lets proceed the removal of the poor arguments on this page.--Keyboarder (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
No, your arguments against them are still shit. Consensus denied. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I should point out that since I disagree with them that means there is no consensus for them either. But please state you disputes with my arguments so we can progress further--Keyboarder (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC).
Present better arguments than poorly veiled special pleading. If you don't, don't be surprised that people aren't persuaded and won't agree to your desired changes. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Bible is the one special pleading, not me. Which, like I said, can't be disproved, and therefore should not be in this article.--Keyboarder (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Way to miss the forest for the trees regarding falsifiability, mate. "Except the page on falsifiability, again, explicitly states that science cannot be preformed on creationism" and that's why it's pseudoscience at the very best. 主要行事月 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is why it shouldn't be on this page. This article isn't meant to criticize every Biblical idea, just the ones that can be refuted using scientific data.--Keyboarder (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
In fact, some (in fact, most) of the more stupid creationist ideas can be easily refuted (falsified). So I've changed the text to reflect this. It's the creationist "appeal to magic" which cannot be part of science. But that, by itself, makes an claim simultaneously both unfalsifiable and unscientific.
Where Christians or the bible make unfalsifiable claims - they are, by definition, not "scientific".
Where Christians or the bible make claims which are both capable of being falsified and are easily falsified - they are not "scientific". Your argument loses under both scenarios.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Striped goats[edit]

Nothing about the biblical "fact" that you can breed a striped goat by showing a normal goat a striped stick? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See here for an aig talking about it and deliberately misconstruing what the passage actually says: Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think the way this is describe is too vague to claim it's inaccurate. The text doesn't say that the stiped sticks were the cause for the stiped lambs, only that they were placed in the water. The Bible never explicitly links the two things together. --Keyboarder (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Genesis 30:32 to 30:39... Yes, it's a bit rambling, but yes, it says striped sticks cause striped cattle. Here's another link for those who wish to read the relevant portion in a less broken format... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is one of the more bizarre bits of biblical lunacy.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What about some guy dying and coming back to life three days later? Or that same guy raising Lazarus from the dead? Or walking on water. Or ... Scream!! (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, the text never explicitly states that the sticks were the cause of the stiped lambs. It does says the Jacob would use the sticks when he wanted a striped lamb, but no reason is given for why the lamb did turned out striped. --Keyboarder (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It (heavily) implies it. So your reasoning here is pretty weak. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What it implies is up to your own opinion. The fact remains that the cause is never stated. So your reasoning here certainly isn't any better.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Why does it mention the striped sticks malarkey if it has no relevance to to the myth?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Good question, but it doesn't prove anything. It could very well have a more symbolic meaning. A Christian, for example, might see it as a foreshadow to the cross. Or perhaps it alludes to Moses' staff later in the Pentateuch. Perhaps it just had cultural relevance. Any number of theories could be suggested. It in no way needs to be be interpreted and causal.--Keyboarder (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I am starting to doubt that you are arguing in good faith.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You're a tad late to that conclusion Bob. But right nevertheless methinks. Scream!! (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I try to go with "assume good faith" for as long as possible.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes I'm trying arguing in good faith. You just have poorly supported arguments.--Keyboarder (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Allow for some superficial knowledge of genetics in the ancient world ('breeding animals with different wool colours can produce interesting results' etc).
The mistake is to assume that 'the colouring of the lambs' is down to genetics - rather than Jacob using 'various plants steeping in the water' to 'dye the animals in the wool' (the sticks are cut to extract the juices which change colour on exposure to air and the animals are washed to remove at least some of the wool-oils). Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting theory. Is there any evidence that that works or at least that ancient cultures thought that? I still feel like it's a bit of a stretch to come to this conclusion from the text alone though, but it just goes to show how vague the passage really is.--Keyboarder (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I was suggesting another possibility that might work (along the lines of the 'eat too many carrots and you turn orange' scenario, and eg indigo during one stage of processing is a clear liquid before turning blue, while various saps do become black on contact with skin/exposure to light - these are the examples I can think of offhand). I read somewhere of 'a magical trick' where some cloth was put in a dyebath and 'came out several colours' (various different mordants having been applied to different areas beforehand).
And 'whoever wrote that bit of the Bible' may not have understood what was being described/some detail was lost or simplified in the retelling etc (eg with the Greeks in the Trojan War using war-chariots and in the Iliad they merely drove them to the battlefield, the style of warfare having changed).
I am not saying that this is what happened - but it requires fewer assumptions than some of the alternatives. Anna Livia 22:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Succinctly put GC. Scream!! (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Where does it say that?--Keyboarder (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for 9 hours for Sealioning and gaslighting. Fuck this dishonest bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
"37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. " To be as specific as possible.
I've seen people read that as feeding the sticks to the livestock. I've seen people read that as showing the sticks to the livestock. The idea that the sticks change the appearance of the livestock is never in dispute because it's what's written on the fucking page. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See also the NRSV text, which states: "And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted." 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't ban people for simply responding to your comments. All you're doing is preventing open discussion and refusing to communicate. If you are not interested in discussing then please don't get the the way of those who are. Yes, I know what Gen 30 says, you've have already linked to it in fact. Simply repeating yourself isn't going to make your position more convincing. You need to be more specific with what you think points to causality. In truth, these lines are rendered in several different ways by different translations (, There is certainly no consensus that the sticks are the cause of the striped lambs. In fact Gen 31:7 goes on to state that is was God who caused the lambs to be stripped, so trying to disprove this point with scientific data is rather pointless.--Keyboarder (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't ban you, I blocked you. If I had banned you your account wouldn't be able to comment. As for why... When you say things like "Where does it say that?" after I explain my position, you are engaging in bad faith argumentation. At that point, the discussion ceases to be civil or productive, as you have dislayed a lack of interest in engaging with others and instead seek to engage in pointless polemics and performance. Here's an interesting factoid, I hate performative bullshit. Here's another factoid. NOMA is spineless bullshit. If it happens in the reality we inhabit, we can test it. If there's no evidence of external forces, we reject that explanation. The end. If God could enchant sticks with magic, we'd be able to test for anomalous data. If there was a global flood, we'd be able to test for that. If a man rose from he dead, we'd be able to test that too. Every dipshit trying to hide behind a veil of superstition is just that, a dipshit hiding behind superstition. Unless you give better reasoning than "theists will hide behind the same shitty arguments they've hid behind counterless times before" then you'll not get the consensus you require. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You're getting off-topic. This article is solely about contrasting Biblical statements with scientific data. That's it. If you have evidence that contradicts super natural claims feel free to present it. What this article is not, however, is a list of Bible statements that lack any evidence. Just because a statement is ridicules doesn't mean it should be on this page. Simply saying theists have no proof for their claim is not enough of an argument for this article.--Keyboarder (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
'In the olden days' they had limited access to tools of scientific analysis and operated according to different rules - God/dess/s/esdidit was an accepted explanation, what actually happened and what was written down may differ considerably and those on 'RW is 100 years old (and even more so on subsequent anniversaries)' will think some of our present assumptions equally laughable. Anna Livia (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's really relevant though. The article is meant to be about what Biblical text does say, but not necessarily an explanation why it says those things. From a Divinely inspired Biblical inerrancy perspective we would expect that it could not be proven wrong and could hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. --Keyboarder (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it about time ...[edit]

... that we told keyboarder to bugger off? No-one seems to know what the hell his moaning's all about and almost everyone has tried to communicate with him (I apologise for the assumption of gender but I don't think a female would be so intransigent). Isn't it about time that we told keyboarder to bugger off? Scream!! (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC):

To be fair I don't recall you attempting to engage my arguments. Most people seem to have ignored the majority of what I said and instead tangent off into philosophical arguments. If your not interested in in discussing then you're free not to, but I would also be happy to clarify my point if you're still having a hard time understanding. What about my argument exactly are you confused about?
All I'm saying is that many points in this article either don't correctly depict Biblical statements, or fail to provide refuting scientific data. Both these things are needed for anything in this article, as stated in its premise.
(And fyi you are clearly wrong on your assessment of women, but I would also ask you to not be so condescending toward men either.)--Keyboarder (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's where I'll explicitly disagree with Scream. NOMA is indeed quite a clear (albeit stupid) position. "You can't test magic" the NOMA camp says, even while admitting in their premise that the magic in question is claimed to interact with material reality. Guess what? There's other things which you can't measure directly, such as black holes. You instead measure their effect on their environment. There's fuck all indirect data to suggest that magic is real, and since an explanatory claim needs to meet a minimum threshold of evidence to be taken into even the most basic consideration, the "magic" explanation can be safely discarded unless and until better (read any) evidence is presented for it. Just as you wouldn't let a legal case with no evidence go to trial, so too would you reject an explanation that can't even meet the most basic evidentiary thresholds. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough GC. To Kb: the only reason that I don't engage your 'arguments' is that I think they are so stupid that a kindergartener would be ashamed of making them. Scream!! (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Look, I don't care what you call it. This article is about scientific data, so any point that doesn't refer to scientific data should be removed, as should any claim that misrepresents Biblical statements.. What is the issue with that?--Keyboarder (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The article starts with biblical claims which are completely contradicted by all scientific evidence. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Responses to this article[edit]

are right here.

"rationalwiki is a bit of a joke site imo. You only need to look at the first paragraph to see that it doesn't use any rigours method of research to strengthen the claims made, which in the end are mostly just uncited opinion.

A lot of it also seems to lack any understanding of the source material they're making claims against (the bible). You'd be better looking at actual academic research which takes a critical look at parts of the bible.

--Back2theroots34 (talk)

And as another poster mentioned, it misses the point." --Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this three-month-old reddit thread which doesn't really seem to go anywhere. If you would like to post some specific ideas or criticisms of your own then please feel free.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)