Hawkingfan

I disagree. Please consider the following scientific absurdities in the bible (compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Modern Library):

ASTRONOMY
GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)
The same scriptures say that the earth is older than the sun when in fact, the earth is younger than the sun.

BOTANY
GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

LOGIC
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth.

EX 17:14 God says that he will utterly blot out the remembrances of Amalek. (That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)

ANTHROPOLOGY
GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)

GEOLOGY
GE 7:17-19 The flood covered the entire earth at the same time. (Note: There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, but rather of many, widespread, but local floods.)

DN 4:11 Daniel dreams of a tree so tall that it can be seen to the ends of the earth. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)

MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)

ZOOLOGY
LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.)

LE 11:6 (States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.)

PS 58:8 Slugs and/or snails melt as they move.

No mention of dinosaurs in the creation myth.

MEDICINE
LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.

LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

PS 121:6 It is apparently possible to suffer moonstroke as well as sunstroke.

Hawkingfan

This is the scripture in question:
Genesis 1
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Clearly in verse 16, the writer is talking about the creation of the sun. Disregarding the fact that it says there was light (v. 3-5) before the sun (a scientific absurdity), plants cannot grow without light from the sun. End of story.

CJD

* Sorry, HF, I was working on this at the same time you were. But after reading your brief response, I must wonder if you understood anything I wrote. I am challenging the notion that the creation account is chronological; that is, I think it is written in a literary framework, employed to emphasize its theology, namely, that God is the Lord of creation, and that his people must follow his example and live "holily" in the land (that they were on the verge of possessing).

Dear Hawkingfan,

Regarding Genesis: Did you not read my last post?! (almost at a fever pitch). For the love of it all, (wo)man, READ!

Some of your other examples are an admixture of cute and silly. For example, you have no clue as to how many people were around, nor how much time passed, before Cain was given the "mark." You have no idea what is meant by the nephilim. I can only assume it means big people. Have we not known big people to exist? Imagine a Jewish tribe that had on the average 5'8'' men, and they run into an army of Shaquille O'Neil's, what would you say?

Also, the Scriptures make no conclusive reference to a worldwide flood (except at 1:1, maybe a result of the Pleistocene?). Have you ever entertained the possibility that the "earth" in Gen. 7 could be the known earth? I, for one, think that is was local (so the geological record). Besides, reducing the Flood account to a mere discussion of its scientific plausibility completely misses the whole point of the narrative. Why don't you engage the fact that God sent the deluge because of the widespread wickedness of humanity (6:5-8), that he was bringing judgment on the land by bringing it back to its pre-creation chaos, in order to re-create? (in many ways parallel to 1:1). Here's a thought, maybe it's because you have never really taken the time to study it a day in your life. I reiterate the 'Division of Labor' bit. Also included in this criticism are your remarks about medicine.

The flat-earth bit is ridiculous. When you learn how to read a figure of speech, I suggest you re-read the texts in question. That includes the bit about snails in the Psalms, which are most clearly poetic in nature.

(laughing) I'm not quite sure how to respond to the animal remarks, as if when you pick up the bible you expect to read a biological textbook. Even if the writer thought insects had four legs (and it was not a Hebraic figure of speech), how does that undermine the witness of the Scriptures?

In your remark about the dinosaurs, you show your assumption that the creation account is to be read as the beginning of all time. As I told Asha'man, don't presume to correct me based on your faulty understanding of the text.

Hawkingfan

Neither do you. And the bible is unclear. It could have explained this clearly, but it doesn't.
That's what I'm saying. There is no evidence to suggest that an "army of Shaquille O'Neills" existed until recently.
Notice how YOU are the one who implies meanings from the texts that aren't there, yet accuse others of it. You have to do a lot of that in order for it to make a lick of sense. I am just going by what the scripture says.
No it doesn't. If the story is not scientifically plausible or illogical, then it can't be taken seriously. And the point of the narrative is what, god is an asshole?
Because of the widespread wickedness of humanity, god has to drown innocent children and babies? And how can god destroy all of humanity in a "local" flood? And why would god destroy the world whenever he knew he would forgive them at a later time through Christ? Those people must have died unnecessarily. If god was to wipe out all of the unrighteous, there would be no need for Christ.
Maybe you should put down the bible and read a science book. And for your information, I was a member of the Church of Christ for over 20 years. I used to lead lessons and was a very good player on my private Christian school's bible bowl team. My father was a deacon and is now an elder in the church. I use to preach and "witness" to my roommates in college and tell them about the importance of baptism in regards to being saved (I said it wasn't good enough to just believe, you had to be baptized--and not just any old baptism, it had to be submersion or it didn't count). I taught vacation bible school, sunday school, was good at memory verses, etc...

Hawkingfan

I do not expect to read a biological textbook when I pick up the bible, but if I pick up a book that (supposedly) was written (or inspired) by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then it should be 100% scientifically accurate. Also, whenever someone (like you) says that the bible does not contradict any modern sciences, I expect that it really shouldn't. But as you can see, it does.
Yes, "IN THE BEGINNING" is a bit misleading (whatever). But if you interpret that to mean something else, then it is the bible's fault for not being clear (at least to you).
No, you are the one with a faulty understanding of the text.

Hawkingfan

It is not ridiculous. I am very familiar with figures of speech. Lets look at the texts:
Psalm 58
8 Like a slug melting away as it moves along,
like a stillborn child, may they not see the sun.

The simile is comparing a slug to someone who will not see the sun (dies). "Melting away" clearly implies something that is losing its mass, its might just be a "colorful" way of saying it. But the absurdity is still there. Its no different than saying, "Like a rabbit chewing its cud..." Just because its in the context of a simile does not mean that you throw out the logic of what was said.

Daniel 4
11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

People really thought that the sky had a physical "top". How else could you interpret the "ends of the earth"? Does that not mean all of the earth? Even the word "ends" implies that it is flat.

Hawkingfan

And you forgot these. We're waiting.

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)
The same scriptures say that the earth is older than the sun when in fact, the earth is younger than the sun.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

EX 17:14 God says that he will utterly blot out the remembrances of Amalek. (That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)

CJD

No, you're just going by what you incorrectly learned for 20 years as a fundie.

I read somewhere that "it takes one to know one . . ." No, seriously, the point is that a holy and righteous God wiped out a bunch of assholes. I think we all tend to suffer under the false impression that we are somehow devoid of this human quality.


Dear Hawkingfan, you should know that from an Xian perspective, there are no "innocent" people (save one, of course).

Hey, I am merely asserting that it is not quite as clear as you would have it be. I sincerely think that mainstream American Christianity largely misunderstands many portions of Scripture. They, like yourself for 20 years, have never really studied the text at a higher level of scholarship. What is more, being social creatures, our views are naturally reinforced by our social community. You were in the COC of all places. I could pick you out as a fundie-turned-atheist a mile away. Which is no surprise, the ripest atheist breeding grounds of all are fundamentalist schools and churches. You assume every position they taught you, and then presume to fault Xianity on those counts. Get real, and go to the library while you're at it. It does not matter who your father was, who you witnessed to, etc. None of that translates into knowing what you are speaking of. Xianity is not about you. It's about God. You, according to your list of "activities," apparently trusted more in what you were doing than what God has already done in X.

Inspiration is not dictation. Every writer and editor involved with the Scriptures retained their own style, etc. It is %100 Theologically accurate. Science is not even remotely its point. You must see that our differences are foundational. I think theology and science are complimentary, you think they are contradictory. In your view, the two can never meet. In mine, they can. When science becomes committed to a godless presuppostion of the universe, then obviously it's going to conflict with the Scriptures. But my interpretation of the universe is not godless, and (not being a scientist) it is still informed by science. As such, the two (for me) are entirely complimentary.


I wish you could see this for what it is. The bible and modern sciences. This is what has been deemed "chronological snobbery," as if the ancient world shared the same paradigms you assume and work from every day. It seems to me that we should, before we presume to criticize an ancient text, learn everything we can about that culture, and strive to approach it with those lenses. To do the opposite, I believe, is deceitful--and presumptuous.


"Beginning" does indeed refer to the entire created event, but it is a relative beginning, as verse 2 seems to indicate (the earth was already there, undifferentiated and unformed--again, a result of the Pleistocene?). This opening introduces the conflict of the narrative, and what follows is the solution. If you want to get more into this, we might have to go over to the "Biblical Criticism . . ." list.


Na-ah, you are.

Philosoft

This was a borderline EoG thread to begin with, but it's now a full-fledged BCA topic. Hawkingfan, CJD, I can punt this over there so you can continue or you can open a new thread yourselves if there's a remote possibility of a return to topic. Whatever you want.

Hawkingfan

You're going by what YOU incorrectly learned for X years. (I'm trying to show that ad hominem arguments mean nothing).
Again, since god had planned to send Christ to earth to die for the sins of man since the Original Sin (Adam and Eve), it would have been totally unnecessary to punish humans by killing them off for "sinning", because they would have been forgiven anyway at Calvary. So their deaths were in vain. How are those people any different than the ones who were born after them? Why do we get the special treatment?
We deserve drowning because we are assholes? Where is the logic in that? I thought god was "loving" and "forgiving"? Do YOU drown people who you judge to be assholes?
You're damn straight. From the CHRISTIAN perspective. Thus, everyone is deserving of their punishment. That is nonsense. Yet, in the real world, where people are sane, there are definitely innocent people (babies, young children, mentally handicapped people who cannot tell right from wrong, etc...even just a law-abiding citizen). And have you met every single person who has ever lived? Do you have the right to pass judgement on them?
You have NO WAY of knowing this. You have NO RIGHT to make such an ad hominem remark and I ask that a moderator intercede.
Another untrue assertion and another insult. It is also a lie. You did not call me a fundie or a fundie-turned-atheist until I told you that I was (see posts above).
Unproved assertion.
Ad hominem. Untrue assertion. A lie. And a feeble attempt at mind reading. Do you ever really debate?
I knew exactly what I was speaking of. Christianity is about a relationship with "god". That's what I had. How dare you say otherwise? You know absolutely nothing about the situation to make such rude and all-knowing remarks about it.
These are excuses. And I don't buy them. The bible could have, and should have been scientifically accurate. It is not. How can something be theologically accurate? Theological is theological.
I don't see from any of this why we should believe in a bible full of untrue statements about reality. I can recognize the bible for what it is--an ancient Judeo-Christian book and nothing more.