|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Biblical scientific errors/Archive1
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)
Where is the error?[edit]
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♥GoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 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)
Smallest seed[edit]
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! ·· . ¥ ʌп° 10:18, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
String Theory[edit]
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)
Joshua and the Sun standing still[edit]
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."
Thermodynamic[edit]
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".
Stars of Revelation 8:10[edit]
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)
Sun Was Not "Created" in Genesis 1:16[edit]
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)
Interpretation errors, pendantic horseshit[edit]
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)
Bats and this article is a mess.[edit]
The bats section basically reads: here's a list of birds that includes bats, and now here's an explanation of why it was reasonable for those people at that time to think of bats as birds. I buy that. No problem. But if the article is supposed to be about errors in the Bible, why is it even being discussed as a scientific error? Also read this:
“”One issue with this excuse is the way in which that the Bible first discusses insects which have four legs and wings that walk on the earth before then going on to discuss those with four legs and listing the locust, cricket & grasshopper amongst these. Ergo the previous mention of four legs is not covered by the case from "hopping hindlimbs" which are then discussed separately.
|
It makes no basic sense as a sentence. Can someone with reliable knowledge of the Bible and natural science give it a going-over? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Did a bit of digging and the Hebrew word is "עוֹף" (oph). While I'm not sure of the reliability of this site, if its listing of its usage within the text is accurate it implies that "oph" does (or at least can) mean "winged" or "winged creatures". The same word is used as a prefix to "insects" in Leviticus 11:23. So I'm inclined to think this is not a scientific issue in any meaningful sense. Also, my JPS translation notes of the general passage on birds that, "a number of these [animals] cannot be identified with certainty".--SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've moved it to a section at the bottom and pointed out the nonspecificity of this word. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- FYI... the bible also categorizes bats under the word tsippowr which is used almost exclusively to refer to birds. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Deuteronomy 14:11-18 when the bible lists the unclean tsippowr again. Everything on that list is a bird, except for our little squeaking friend. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- If, as seems to be the consensus, the bat thing has to go, I strongly suggest that the "Anatomy of insects" section get the chop too, since it's essentially no different (it also concerns a differing classification system, this one about what is considered "legs" - even Robert M. Price
thinks it's a spurious objection to the bible). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- If, as seems to be the consensus, the bat thing has to go, I strongly suggest that the "Anatomy of insects" section get the chop too, since it's essentially no different (it also concerns a differing classification system, this one about what is considered "legs" - even Robert M. Price
- Deuteronomy 14:11-18 when the bible lists the unclean tsippowr again. Everything on that list is a bird, except for our little squeaking friend. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- FYI... the bible also categorizes bats under the word tsippowr which is used almost exclusively to refer to birds. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've moved it to a section at the bottom and pointed out the nonspecificity of this word. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the Bible support astrology?[edit]
Does Genesis 1:14 imply that astrology works?
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years". Reg321 (tLk) 15:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- A bit late, but probably not:
- Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (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...
- 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)
- 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
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: 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,
LeftyGreenMario! 21:42, 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,
- 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
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.--Ultimate Slime
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 older. Christopher (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Canaanites[edit]
I have to say a lot of these points made don't make a lot of sense, but I'll refrain on commenting them. I do want to remark one inaccuracy in quoting the scripture here that indicates a lack of research. The passage quoted in Deuteronomy is a commandment from God to eliminate the Canaanites and doesn't claim that they were actually eliminated. While Joshua 11:15 does seem to indicate that Joshua killed all the Canaanites, a couple of chapters later (Joshua 13:1-6 mentions Sidonians, whose descendants was found later to be still alive in Lebanon by scientists by the DNA analysis mentioned in the citations) actually notes that many of the Canaanites were not destroyed. In fact, other portions (Judges 2, Judges 3, Psalm 106)t reveal that God punished the Israelites for never eliminating these enemies. Thus, the DNA analysis is actually evidence for, rather than against, the historical accuracy of the Bible. I think this is also claimed in other articles here (Canaanites article). — Unsigned, by: 129.59.122.25 / talk 17:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Ants have supervisors?[edit]
The closest thing I can think of to an ant supervisor is those so-called "slave making" ants, but they don't direct the "enslaved" ants, they just have the ability to produce chemical signals that ants of a different species follow. Do we really need to directly refute every single word when it stretches the science so much to do so? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. It reads like overreach. Also parts of the article are over-argued. For example, I'm not sure we need the long quote and response to barely-significant "J. P. Holding" at the beginning, I doubt many people are going to work through that math later on and so on.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Mustard as tree[edit]
The form of mustard grown in the Middle East (white mustard) only grows to about 2' (70cm) in height. This is a great tree? Why is the article accepting that this useful cruciferous vegetable is tree-sized? Vivisectionist (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
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).
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @Keyboarder Are you just fucking with me? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
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. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/do-ancient-canaanite-remains-discredit-bible/Kauri0.o (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)
- 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)
- If no one objects I’ll remove that bit now. Christopher (talk) 15:05, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/do-ancient-canaanite-remains-discredit-bible/Kauri0.o (talk) 03:54, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Are we to use Homer's Odyssey as a history textbook now?
- 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)
- ”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