FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-28-2009, 10:56 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 565
Default Science & Skepticism (6 Days)

There are several areas where the Bible is thought by some to conflict with the teachings of science;

1. Insects having four legs. Which is metaphorical in the Bible.
2. Bats being birds. Which the Bible doesn't say.
3. Pi being incorrect. Which isn't in the Bible.
4. Rabbits chewing cud. Which the Bible says is refection and in agreement with science.
5. That the earth is flat. The Bible plainly states that the Earth is spherical.
6. That the earth was created in 6 days. The Bible doesn't say that the earth was created in 6 literal days.

Since I have already tried the method of presenting the facts and having a discussion in that way, I thought I would give you the opportunity to say what you want to say about the Bible saying that the Earth was created in six literal days.

C'mon, then! Lets see you.
David Henson is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:06 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default

A discussion about 'what the bible means vs. what the bible says' thread?
Wouldn't this be better in the Bible forum?

I mean, since we don't have a 'DLH trawling for a fight and a chance to lay scorn upon all comers' forum?
Keith&Co. is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:09 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
Since I have already tried the method of presenting the facts and having a discussion in that way, I thought I would give you the opportunity to say what you want to say about the Bible saying that the Earth was created in six literal days.
Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth was created in one day?
Shadowy Man is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:09 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
A discussion about 'what the bible means vs. what the bible says' thread?
Wouldn't this be better in the Bible forum?

I mean, since we don't have a 'DLH trawling for a fight and a chance to lay scorn upon all comers' forum?
I really don't care where you put the thread, Keith. Call me DIV, or Divvy, Or Earthling, David IV, Evo Devo, Dr. Bill Egan, Greasus Chrysler from the SAB. Rambo says Hi.
David Henson is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:11 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
There are several areas where the Bible is thought by some to conflict with the teachings of science;

1. Insects having four legs. Which is metaphorical in the Bible.
2. Bats being birds. Which the Bible doesn't say.
3. Pi being incorrect. Which isn't in the Bible.
4. Rabbits chewing cud. Which the Bible says is refection and in agreement with science.
5. That the earth is flat. The Bible plainly states that the Earth is spherical.
6. That the earth was created in 6 days. The Bible doesn't say that the earth was created in 6 literal days.
7. Prayer works
8. Jesus, Lazarus, and "saints" came back to life after being dead (and rotting) for days
9. People could speak in one language and yet be heard in many different languages
10. Seizures are caused by demons instead of neurological disorders, and are eliminated when the demon is cast out while "shreiking"
11. The entire population of the world can be populated by only two people

These are some other reasons why the bible is in conflict with science
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:14 AM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
Since I have already tried the method of presenting the facts and having a discussion in that way, I thought I would give you the opportunity to say what you want to say about the Bible saying that the Earth was created in six literal days.
Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth was created in one day?
Good question, Shadowy, actually it doesn't say. In Genesis 1:1 the Earth has already been created and the first creative "day" begins at some undetermined time later. Now, the entire process is called one day, which in Hebrew is yohm, meaning any period of time. That one day includes all six days as one.

So the Bible doesn't say that the Earth was created in 6 literal days. In fact there is nothing in the Bible that would cause conflict with any estimation of science as far as the age of the universe.
David Henson is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:16 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
There are several areas where the Bible is thought by some to conflict with the teachings of science;

1. Insects having four legs. Which is metaphorical in the Bible.
2. Bats being birds. Which the Bible doesn't say.
3. Pi being incorrect. Which isn't in the Bible.
4. Rabbits chewing cud. Which the Bible says is refection and in agreement with science.
5. That the earth is flat. The Bible plainly states that the Earth is spherical.
6. That the earth was created in 6 days. The Bible doesn't say that the earth was created in 6 literal days.
7. Prayer works
8. Jesus, Lazarus, and "saints" came back to life after being dead (and rotting) for days
9. People could speak in one language and yet be heard in many different languages
10. Seizures are caused by demons instead of neurological disorders, and are eliminated when the demon is cast out while "shreiking"
11. The entire population of the world can be populated by only two people

These are some other reasons why the bible is in conflict with science
It is interesting that after having discussed the issue of the Bible that I haven't seen those that you have mentioned more often. Would you care to discuss these further in your own threads for each of them one at a time?
David Henson is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:50 AM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
I really don't care where you put the thread, Keith.
That much i knew. Amazing how you can interpret the ancient litany perfectly, but you're helpless to read and understand forum descriptions.
Keith&Co. is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 11:54 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLH View Post
I really don't care where you put the thread, Keith.
That much i knew. Amazing how you can interpret the ancient litany perfectly, but you're helpless to read and understand forum descriptions.
I guess the site isn't being clear enough. I really don't know how confusing, contradictory, heavily mistranslated Bronze Age/Roman era documents can be easier to understand than straightforward English on an atheist message board, but hey!

--let's not get caught up the small details NB
Nero's Boot is offline  
Old 01-28-2009, 12:29 PM   #10
WCH
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,290
Default

Off to BC&H. Despite the title, there's no science in this thread.
WCH is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.