Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 60 by Elijah John]

Sorry. I meant it in a friendly way.

[1213]

It bespeaks of the poor0uality level of scientific education provided by many schools.

Dont worry, I have had solid atheistic education and I have read many scientific papers, so I quite well know what the situation is. In Finland, we have quite atheistic and God hating environment. Only few dares to question the official atheistic and scientific truth. And I dont know anyone questioning those truths in public. But still, it is almost entertaining to see how easily some believe that earth rotates.

Gen. 2 says nothing about two creations of animals, says nothing about the existence of any animals before Adam came alone, and says that God created "all" the animals to be companions for Adam and to be named by him.

No need to make guesses, it actually says:
Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen. 2:19

[1213]

Seasons
The four seasons are determined by the fact that the Earth is tilted 23.4 on its vertical axis, which is referred to as axial tilt.

One could explain it also by saying that the orbit of the sun changes so that it looks like earth is tilting.

Stellar Parallax
As the Earth revolves around the Sun
Trigonometric Parallax Movie


.

Nice picture. However, that also can be explained otherwise. For example, that earth is fixed, but the star moves for some reason so that it looks like in your description.

Please notice, you can believe those things, I am not claiming that earth doesnt rotate, I just say, there is no actual proof and all the so called evidence can be explained otherwise also.

Q: Don't tell me you believe the Earth is flat?

In Bible, earth means dry land. And by the Biblical description dry land was in the beginning on top of huge water storage. So, earth was like shell on top of water. Shell is form that can be called flat, or at least relatively flat, if its thickness is much smaller than its width and length. Similarly, as plate is flat, even if is curved. But flat is not very good word to describe thickness of something, because it can be understood as plane. However, Bible doesnt say earth is flat and especially it doesnt say planet earth is flat, so this is not any issue for me here.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 1213]

I'm not quite sure I follow you. I'm in agreement with what your said about Gen. 2. It clearly contradicts Gen. 1, by affirming God created all the animals after Adam. No question about it. I'm not guessing that 's what I said. Hope I didn't create that impression. I know for a fact it says precisely that. Hence, we are in agreement. Also, I don't quite follow you when you say it's entertaining to see how easily some believe the earth rotates. What do you mean by "entertaining"? I don't know about Finland, but I do know that in America, with the emphasis on free speech and making up your mind, thinking for yourself, people question authority all the time. And I like that. Only problem is, there are all sorts of what we call bar-stool coaches or Monday-morning quarterbacks, laity, with little background in the field, who love to play expert and sound off how they know it better than the coach, etc. Then the burden of responsibility falls on those of us who are expert to gently contradict and correct these wannabe's.

[Elijah John]

Seasons
The four seasons are determined by the fact that the Earth is tilted 23.4 on its vertical axis, which is referred to as axial tilt.

One could explain it also by saying that the orbit of the sun changes so that it looks like earth is tilting.

Stellar Parallax
As the Earth revolves around the Sun
Trigonometric Parallax Movie


.

Nice picture. However, that also can be explained otherwise. For example, that earth is fixed, but the star moves for some reason so that it looks like in your description.

Please notice, you can believe those things, I am not claiming that earth doesnt rotate, I just say, there is no actual proof and all the so called evidence can be explained otherwise also.

Q: Don't tell me you believe the Earth is flat?

In Bible, earth means dry land. And by the Biblical description dry land was in the beginning on top of huge water storage. So, earth was like shell on top of water. Shell is form that can be called flat, or at least relatively flat, if its thickness is much smaller than its width and length. Similarly, as plate is flat, even if is curved. But flat is not very good word to describe thickness of something, because it can be understood as plane. However, Bible doesnt say earth is flat and especially it doesnt say planet earth is flat, so this is not any issue for me here.

How do you explain the fact that the earth, when photographed from space, is a sphere and not flat.

Kinda like the moon, only bigger, and bluer.

Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to 1213]

One could explain it also by saying that the orbit of the sun changes so that it looks like earth is tilting.

Nice picture. However, that also can be explained otherwise. For example, that earth is fixed, but the star moves for some reason so that it looks like in your description."

Q: Do you believe the Sun orbits the Earth?

Q: Do you not believe the Sun is much bigger then the Earth?( that Its diameter is about 109 times that of Earth, and its mass is about 330,000 times that of Earth)

Q: Do you not believe the Sun is 149.6 million km away from Earth?

Q: Do you not believe in gravity?

In Bible, earth means dry land. And by the Biblical description dry land was in the beginning on top of huge water storage. So, earth was like shell on top of water. Shell is form that can be called flat, or at least relatively flat, if its thickness is much smaller than its width and length. Similarly, as plate is flat, even if is curved. But flat is not very good word to describe thickness of something, because it can be understood as plane. However, Bible doesnt say earth is flat and especially it doesnt say planet earth is flat, so this is not any issue for me here.

Q: What land was on huge water storage nonsense are you babbling about?!!!

Earth's interior, like that of the other terrestrial planets, is divided into layers by their chemical or physical (rheological) properties. The outer layer is a chemically distinct silicate solid crust, which is underlain by a highly viscous solid mantle. The crust is separated from the mantle by the Mohorovii discontinuity. The thickness of the crust varies from about 6 km (kilometers) under the oceans to 30"50 km for the continents. The crust and the cold, rigid, top of the upper mantle are collectively known as the lithosphere, and it is of the lithosphere that the tectonic plates are composed. Beneath the lithosphere is the asthenosphere, a relatively low-viscosity layer on which the lithosphere rides. Important changes in crystal structure within the mantle occur at 410 and 660 km below the surface, spanning a transition zone that separates the upper and lower mantle. Beneath the mantle, an extremely low viscosity liquid outer core lies above a solid inner core.[106] The Earth's inner core might rotate at a slightly higher angular velocity than the remainder of the planet, advancing by 0.1"0.5 per year.[107] The radius of the inner core is about one fifth of that of Earth.

Geologic layers of Earth:
Depth(km) Component layer Density(g/cm3)
0"60 Lithosphere "
0"35 Crust 2.2"2.9
35"60 Upper mantle 3.4"4.4
35"2890 Mantle 3.4"5.6
100"700 Asthenosphere "
2890"5100 Outer core 9.9"12.2
5100"6378 Inner core 12.8"13.1



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Q: Do you not believe the shape of Earth is an Oblate Spheroid?

[tfvespasianus]

How do you explain the fact that the earth, when photographed from space, is a sphere and not flat.

And I think thats the bottom line. Things like GPS technology (and satellites generally) and space exploration are predicated on the standard scientific view of our solar system. One cant really argue that satellites dont exist/work or that space exploration bolsters the nebulous alternative 'biblical' view. So, you would have to argue that aerospace engineers and associated scientists, government, etc. know that what is purported to be generally accepted be science is a sham and that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy and actually use a wholly different paradigm in making the necessary calculations. It would seem one would have to believe this to eschew the dominant paradigm (the consensus of science coupled with functioning examples of aerospace technology). And it strikes me as odd that one would need to do this in order to keep their religious beliefs intact, but I am seldom taken aback that someone might chose to do this these days.

Take care,
TFV

[Elijah John]

And it strikes me as odd that one would need to do this in order to keep their religious beliefs intact, but I am seldom taken aback that someone might chose to do this these days.

Take care,
TFV

That's part of my point. That it is not necessary to dispense with what we know of scientific reality in order to maintain devout religious belief. We need only to dispense with religious and Biblical literalism in order to reconcile science and rational religion.

The late-great Robin Williams put it this way. One the top ten reasons to be an Episcopalian is that you can still believe in dinosaurs.

Or words to that effect.

People run into trouble when they consider the Bible a book of science, rather than a book of Spiritual truths.

[Rufus21]

That it is not necessary to dispense with what we know of scientific reality in order to maintain devout religious belief. We need only to dispense with religious and Biblical literalism in order to reconcile science and rational religion.

But that's a slippery slope. The more you believe in the truth, the less you believe in the bible. Once you realize how much of it is just myths and legends, you're just left with a few nice anecdotes about being nice to other people and being a good person. But those are lessons that you can learn in any religion, or even outside of religion. It could be argued that getting your moral lessons from a 2,000 year old book is going to cause a lot of problems in contemporary society. At that point, what are you getting from religion? Just the tragic story of a really nice guy who was crucified for being a false prophet.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 68 by Elijah John]

People run into trouble when they consider the Bible a book of science, rather than a book of Spiritual truths.

This might come as an utter shock to many of you, but:

I have another way to look at it.

I consider the Bible to be a way for people to have some kind of explanations for natural events. In that way.. the Bible CAN be seen as a "scientific" book. Science is in the business of explaining how nature works, after all.

And the Bible says that nature works by "God miracle".
That's an attempted scientific explanation, right there.

It's just that the Bible represents a very outdated scientific METHOD that gets very unreliable results. People really used to think that way. Since then, science has "progressed" a bit in methodology. It's not so common for scientists to attribute supernatural agency for natural events these days.

So, I am making a case that not only is the Bible a scientific book, but it's a very BAD science book by our modern standards of what science is.


Bible be bad science, bros !

So the Blastcat say.
( Not too grammatical way )