Talk:Biblical scientific errors

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, 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.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Reform.[edit]

I'm thinking about transforming this page into External biblical errors, so we can also include other external errors. — Unsigned, by: Godonaldgo1 / talk / contribs

I'm skeptical. What do you mean, exactly?
Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Generally, anything that's "external" can be classified as a scientific error. Go ahead and add any additional errors to the current article. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions[edit]

A distinction has to be made between 'what was considered scientific knowledge (or equivalent) then and in that area' and 'current scientific knowledge' which may be quite different. Some of the statements might well be fairly logical/based on observation and described in language then considered appropriate. (God has observed that pig meat may contain parasites and shellfish may poison you, so tells you not to eat them.) 86.191.125.150 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Though, the point of the article is not to celebrate the hindsight bias by making fun of the Bible writers for not knowing the things we know today (doing so would amount to nothing but a massive condescension of posterity).
The point of the article is to make fun of (and refute) the now living people who insist the Bible is way more than the original Bible authors ever meant for it to be, back during the centuries when it was originally written.
There are Americans, now-living (in the age of smartphones, antibiotics and airplanes), who claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God — and furthermore, adding insult to injury, that the Bible has scientific foreknowledge at that.
Not only is modern science a satanic lie, but measured even by the standards of science, the Bible is more scientific than science itself is (because the Bible had, and still has, foreknowledge — aside from having the quality of inerrancy).
As such, the best science could ever hope for is to one day catch up to the already-revealed truth of the Bible (and even then, by the grace of God alone).
It will be apparent that no leniency is warranted on our part in refuting this modern nonsense view (which already Augustine had ruled out as idiotic).
Thus, the simple point being made in this article is "Boy, does the Bible have a single scientific error in it OR WHAT?!".
And, I know — any non-loon would roll their eyes and exclaim "...well, DUUH!" at that. But again, this article is directed at the loons who actually believe the Bible to be without scientific error. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be a section - 'science as understood and referenced in the Bible' - the pig and shellfish example; nomads observing the development of oases ('land and water, then plants, then 'birds and flitting things' then other animals, and finally humans), and as far as they were concerned the sky might well be a bowl over the Earth. 86.191.125.150 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, I'm not "in charge" of anything but when to feed the cat; but...
I'm sorry. Considering what my above given explanation entails, I fail to see much utility in including what you suggest — atleast not in this particular article.
And, for one — is what you allege about specific beliefs being held by the Bible's authors even true? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. If the Bible is God's word why it does not mention those parasites and other stuff?. Most importantly, why Genesis does not mention at all the Big Bang or at the very least the sheer size of (just the observable) Universe. Everything is very suspiciously Bronze Age knowledge. — Unsigned, by: 93.191.139.7 / talk / contribs
Goodpost.gif On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
And consider - the 're-tellers of the Bible' (before it was written down) and the scribes thereafter summarised everything and backformation-ised some of the earlier collected texts (including what are now known as Apocrypha and other texts) in the light of later events and information - and it is #much easier# to say 'God says don't eat these foods' than 'our food scientist-equivalents have worked out that old shellfish aren't that good for you.' (And God says 'clunk-click every trip' rather than 'fasten your seat-belts as this is proven to save many lives each year.')
Those of us who accept that the 'Biblical and related texts' creators and recorders) were people of their time and will get some things right (and other things will have made more sense at the time) #don't# need so persuading - and 21st-century literalists #won't# be persuaded - and never the twain will meet. 86.134.53.55 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Besides, changing the interpretation to "this is health and safety issues rather than arbitrary religious rules" would be considered going against dogma and I don't think religion likes different interpretations like this. And I say arbitrary because the Bible has a ton of other arbitrary rules like concerning menstruating women. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Westminster Theological Seminary: gauging its bias[edit]

Their sales pitch aside, the journal in question was (and I quote):

...founded upon the conviction that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and that the system of belief commonly designated the Reformed Faith is the purest and most consistent formulation and expression of the system of truth set forth in the Holy Scriptures.

As such — maybe someone like @BruceGrubb has an idea of just how fundamentalist the WTS really is, and/or to which extent this may affect their supposed scholarship?

I bring this up for the reason of this tentative reversion. See also: the 20-year old paper in question (by one Paul H. Seely).

I mean, surely scholarship has progressed somewhat in those past decades? Even in a field as admittedly mossy stable as 'Bible studies'? (Nothing to see here, move along) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fun[edit]

Looks like I can have fun here.--リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies[edit]

Didn't rationalwiki have a page dedicated to all the historical inaccuracies of the bible? GreatPerson (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Biblical Value of Pi[edit]

Thank you for clarifying that the Bible is not Saxon Math and Algebra. I think the person who thought to add it might have 1) had nothing better to do. 2) read the cover wrong. 3) forgot that pi wasn't discovered until around 282 BC.--Anonymous4thelolz (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that was when it was calculated to x decimal places but the idea that circumference of a circle is ~3 times it’s diamter is probably a lot earlier. Christopher (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)