The Bible is NOT an authority on scientific matters

[E=mc²]

It was written by people who thought that placing sticks that had been peeled to make streaks in them in front of flocks as they mated would effect the patterns on the offspring:

"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Genesis 30:37-39

By people who thought that bats were birds:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13,19

And that insects had 4 legs:

"All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you."
Leviticus 11:20-23

That the earth was fixed (geocentricism):

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
1 Chronicles 16:30

That the earth has 4 corners:

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 11:12


"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
Revelation 7:1


Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle rather than a sphere. The authors of the Bible are completely ignorant of science. Now this is not unforgivable seeing as they wrote it at a time when we didn't know what we know now, however it is utterly ridiculous to claim that the Bible has any scientific worth. The creation myth in Genesis is just another example of scientific illiteracy. There is no reason whatsoever to consider it as fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is news to me.

What a service.

Thanks!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, but is it an authority on how to make the perfect souffle?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am just shocked beyond belief that no one has ever thought of this before.

 

[YmirGF]

I am just shocked beyond belief that no one has ever thought of this before.

I am sitting here in tears. I had never thought of all this. It almost hurts. Can I sue someone for my pain and suffering? *sniffle*

 

[outhouse]

you guys may laugh about this.

In every other forum im in, YEC fight tooth and nail

in the USA this is a bigger problem then most other western countries.


bad thing is, logic and reason have no effect

 

[YmirGF]

In every other forum im in, YEC fight tooth and nail

How? They have nothing whatsoever to backup their thinking?

 

[fallingblood]

you guys may laugh about this.

In every other forum im in, YEC fight tooth and nail

in the USA this is a bigger problem then most other western countries.


bad thing is, logic and reason have no effect

YEC are also a small minority. When religion in the United States is becoming more liberal, the problem that we see is quite small.

Conservative Christians are on a decline in the United States. They are a minority, and really, it is not a huge problem as many would like to make it.

 

[fallingblood]

It was written by people who thought that placing sticks that had been peeled to make streaks in them in front of flocks as they mated would effect the patterns on the offspring:

"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Genesis 30:37-39

By people who thought that bats were birds:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13,19

And that insects had 4 legs:

"All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you."
Leviticus 11:20-23

That the earth was fixed (geocentricism):

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
1 Chronicles 16:30

That the earth has 4 corners:

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 11:12


"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
Revelation 7:1


Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle rather than a sphere. The authors of the Bible are completely ignorant of science. Now this is not unforgivable seeing as they wrote it at a time when we didn't know what we know now, however it is utterly ridiculous to claim that the Bible has any scientific worth. The creation myth in Genesis is just another example of scientific illiteracy. There is no reason whatsoever to consider it as fact.

One problem I see with your argument is that you are taking passages that are clearly meant to be taken non-literally, and then assuming that they were meant to be literal. There is a lot of metaphor in the Bible, and to pretend that it is something else simply will not get you far in a debate in a forum such as this.

Yes, the Bible is not a scientific book. Neither does it claim to be. The vast majority do not see it as such, and even many of those who do subscribe to some of the "scientific" areas only do so in part. More so, your generalization of what those people thought who wrote the Bible is quite far off. Maybe some of those individuals did; however, the Bible was written over a period centuries. Ideas changed greatly during that time.

 

[Skwim]

One problem I see with your argument is that you are taking passages that are clearly meant to be taken non-literally, and then assuming that they were meant to be literal. There is a lot of metaphor in the Bible, and to pretend that it is something else simply will not get you far in a debate in a forum such as this.

Well, it is the assumption of some Christians, and I don't believe he's pretending, but simply addressing the claims of these Christians: When it comes to Bible vs. science, the Bible is the default winner.

Yes, the Bible is not a scientific book. Neither does it claim to be. The vast majority do not see it as such, and even many of those who do subscribe to some of the "scientific" areas only do so in part.

And I think it's obvious that he's not referring to the claims of the majority.

More so, your generalization of what those people thought who wrote the Bible is quite far off. Maybe some of those individuals did; however, the Bible was written over a period centuries. Ideas changed greatly during that time.

Doesn't change the fact that those wrote that bats are birds only did so because they thought bats were birds.Why Bible publishers insisted on retaining this fiction is curious. I can only suppose they wanted to retain the original claim and not mess with god inspired writings.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, it is the assumption of some Christians, and I don't believe he's pretending, but simply addressing the claims of these Christians: When it comes to Bible vs. science, the Bible is the default winner.

Some of those claims I haven't ever seen any Christian believing. So I don't think I would even support that it is the assumption of some Christians. Especially when one considers that few if any Christians believe that the entire Bible is a scientific book.

What the OP did is make an argument that can't stand up because it has too many problems. The poetry in the Bible is not considered science and Christians don't believe it is science. The history in the Bible is not science, and Christians don't consider it science.

More so, the conclusion is highly flawed. The conclusion is that there is no reason to consider the Bible fact. Why? Because it contains scientific fallacies. However, the majority of the Bible has nothing to do with any scientific claim or such. Yes, the Bible has some problems; however, the OP comes to a logical fallacy by assuming just because the Bible is wrong in one place, it is wrong in all others, or that it can't be fact just because it as incorrect information.

And I think it's obvious that he's not referring to the claims of the majority.

I don't think he's referring to the claims of anyone really. Christians don't see the Bible as a scientific book. It is not a science book. Sure, some Christians may think that some of the ideas in the Bible are scientific fact, but that doesn't mean they believe the Bible is science.

More so, the OP is picking out verses that few if any Christian believes to be scientifically true.

Doesn't change the fact that those wrote that bats are birds only did so because they thought bats were birds.Why Bible publishers insisted on retaining this fiction is curious. I can only suppose they wanted to retain the original claim and not mess with god inspired writings.

They don't change it because they are simply translating. Their is no reason to smooth it over. Especially when one understands that the classification system during that time was highly different from the current classification system.

Yes, the bat is no a bird, according to today's classification system. However, that hasn't always been the way it was. People in the ancient world classified the bat as a bird. People have later learned better; however, the same thing continues to happen today.

 

[Skwim]

Some of those claims I haven't ever seen any Christian believing. So I don't think I would even support that it is the assumption of some Christians.

Perhaps you haven't seen enough claims then. Possible?

Especially when one considers that few if any Christians believe that the entire Bible is a scientific book.

And I would guess E=mc² feels the same.

What the OP did is make an argument that can't stand up because it has too many problems. The poetry in the Bible is not considered science and Christians don't believe it is science. The history in the Bible is not science, and Christians don't consider it science.

I agree; however, I believe he was coming from a view point that is noted in a Wikipedia piece on Biblical literalists:

"Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author."
​

And while some of his examples would fail because they could be allegorical or poetic such as "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," others such as "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." are clearly not.

I don't think he's referring to the claims of anyone really. Christians don't see the Bible as a scientific book. It is not a science book. Sure, some Christians may think that some of the ideas in the Bible are scientific fact, but that doesn't mean they believe the Bible is science.

And E=mc² didn't say it was. He said "The Bible is NOT an authority on scientific matters."

More so, the OP is picking out verses that few if any Christian believes to be scientifically true.

I would hope not, but then it would take a Biblical literalists to explain how they could justify not taking verses such as the bat = bird as true.

They don't change it because they are simply translating. Their is no reason to smooth it over. Especially when one understands that the classification system during that time was highly different from the current classification system.

I doubt they had any kind of system at all.

Yes, the bat is no a bird, according to today's classification system. However, that hasn't always been the way it was. People in the ancient world classified the bat as a bird. People have later learned better; however, the same thing continues to happen today.

Exactly, which goes to the point of the Biblical literalist explaining how they could justify not taking verses such as the bat = bird as true.

Note that while I understand why E=mc² has come to the conclusion he has, this is his OP and I don't feel it's proper I should speak for him anymore, so this will be my last post here in this role.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

you guys may laugh about this.

In every other forum im in, YEC fight tooth and nail

in the USA this is a bigger problem then most other western countries.


bad thing is, logic and reason have no effect

On either side.

One is irrational to think that the other will change their mind.

The other is irrational for mistaking superstition for science.

 

[doppelganger]

I am sitting here in tears. I had never thought of all this. It almost hurts. Can I sue someone for my pain and suffering? *sniffle*

Here's my card, Ymir.

The bible is an authority as to any subject for which an individual reader decides it needs to be an authority. As to all matters - scientific, spiritual, or otherwise - it is not full of very useful information, because the writings contained in it were intended for different times with different challenges than those most people face today.

 

[Poisonshady313]

About the bats and the birds.... That's just a stupid objection. It's most unreasonable for a text written (depending on who you ask) over 3300 years ago to make use of modern alpha taxonomy which developed at least a couple thousand years afterwards. Animals, for purposes of explaining the dietary laws, were broken up into three groups. air, land, and sea. Ok... 4. Creeping things and/or insects. The bat is a winged creature and is described as such. Getting hung up on the word "bird" is just stupid.

 

[outhouse]

On either side.

One is irrational to think that the other will change their mind.

The other is irrational for mistaking superstition for science.

I know for me its not on both sides

I know its hard to open a brainwashed mind. But sitting back and doing nothing to me is worse. I know in other forums, those I argue are not my target. It is the 1 browser that may pop in if your lucky that you can make a impression on.

In my life time, I will not see the fruits of any labor. That is just hope for future generations that we can put superstitions behind us and evolve foward

One cannot deny religions have held humanity back as a whole by having a belief in something not there.

 

[outhouse]

About the bats and the birds.... That's just a stupid objection. It's most unreasonable for a text written (depending on who you ask) over 3300 years ago to make use of modern alpha taxonomy which developed at least a couple thousand years afterwards. Animals, for purposes of explaining the dietary laws, were broken up into three groups. air, land, and sea. Ok... 4. Creeping things and/or insects. The bat is a winged creature and is described as such. Getting hung up on the word "bird" is just stupid.

I dont think you have to make any excuses for what ancient man wrote.

I dont think anyone expects ancient man to know everything. I happen to know they were smarter then most people give them credit for.

but for all purposes isnt the oldest hebrew writing go back to about 1000bc on a pottery shard???


I know the frirst book of the OT was started around that same time as well. Where do you get 3300 years???

 

[Poisonshady313]

I dont think you have to make any excuses for what ancient man wrote.

I dont think anyone expects ancient man to know everything. I happen to know they were smarter then most people give them credit for.

but for all purposes isnt the oldest hebrew writing go back to about 1000bc on a pottery shard???


I know the frirst book of the OT was started around that same time as well. Where do you get 3300 years???

3,300 years ago was the time of Moses and Aaron.

 

[Android]

allegedly

 

[rusra02]

It was written by people who thought that placing sticks that had been peeled to make streaks in them in front of flocks as they mated would effect the patterns on the offspring:

"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Genesis 30:37-39

The Bible records that Jacob may have believed this, not that is true. Later, Jacob acknowledged that God was responsible for his prosperity, not his strategy. (Genesis 31:4-12)

By people who thought that bats were birds:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13,19

The Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:13 is 'ohph, which basically means flying creature, not necessarily bird, and can include insects and non-bird flying creatures.

And that insects had 4 legs:

"All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you."
Leviticus 11:20-23

That scripture doesn't say that insects have four legs. (To assume the Bible writer could not examine a bug and count it's legs is ludicrous.) Rather, the scripture says that these insects GO on all fours, either in the manner of 4 legged creatures, or literally as do locusts and other insects with leaper legs.


That the earth was fixed (geocentricism):

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
1 Chronicles 16:30

"Also the productive land is firmly established: Never will it be made to totter." NWT
"Be the world firmly established too, not to be disturbed." BYT

Your quotation, even if it were accurate, does not teach geocentricism.


That the earth has 4 corners:

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 11:12


"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
Revelation 7:1

This expression is obviously not literal in the Bible. It is common for people today to speak of the 'ends of the earth', the 'four corners of the earth' without implying the earth literally has corners.

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle rather than a sphere. The authors of the Bible are completely ignorant of science. Now this is not unforgivable seeing as they wrote it at a time when we didn't know what we know now, however it is utterly ridiculous to claim that the Bible has any scientific worth. The creation myth in Genesis is just another example of scientific illiteracy. There is no reason whatsoever to consider it as fact.

No, the Hebrew world translated circle can also be translated sphere. For example,
"the globe of the earth" (Douay). The Bibles statement at Isaiah 40:22 IS scientifically accurate.

Finally, is that all you could come up with? This book was started 3,500 years ago and completed about 2,000 year ago. Is that all the evidence you have?
If they were completely ignorant of science, why did they believe that "God... is hanging the earth upon nothing"? (Job 26:9) No, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it discusses any subject, it is accurate and true. As Jesus said "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)