The Bible as Science

[Dawkinsrocks]

But lots of Christians think the bible was written by god

If so why is it so wrong?

And if god created heaven and earth that day where did he live beforehand?

God is a crap creator, a crap author and a crap liar

 

[Lagboltz]

It seems to me that in your interpretation of Einsteins quote you are quite willing to take it as not-literal but in the interpretation of the word "made" in the bible you insist that it be taken only as literal. I suggest that one needs consistent rules to decide when something is best interpreted as literal and when best interpreted less literally.

So how is the word "made" to be interpreted? Is it phenomenological - describing things as they appear? Or is it to be literal describing things as they are? The answer is in the rest of the verses. Notice that the passages say the moon and the sun are the great lights? Obviously when looking at the sky the moon and the sun are the two greatest lights in the sky and we would all agree with the obvious and undeniable facts. But is that just how they appear or is that how they really are? Well the moon is in fact one of the smallest of the celestial objects in our solar system so it could hardly be literally called a great light. Furthermore it does not even have any light of its own but merely reflects light from the sun - and that stops no one from talking about moonlight. Since the moon is literally neither great nor a light the passage can only made sense if the author is talking about the lights as they appear to be, so the moon is correctly described in its appearance as great and a light and no one faults anyone for describing it as such. Since the passage is clearly non-literal in this regard and is phenomenological then it makes just as much sense to say that the moon was "made to appear" on the fourth day. Remembering that the word "made" is a substitution of a modern word in place of a hebrew word would you really argue that me must stick to the limits of the modern word alone? If so then you must justify your interpretation of Einsteins description of ones spirit as a reference to mood and not a supernatural spirit using whatever rules you would use.

These are quotes from Einstein. This excerpt from a letter to Eric Gutkind sounds strangely like it was written by DawkinsRocks. Doesn't sound very spiritual to me so shortly before his death, when people usually get more spiritual.

Albert Einstein (1954)
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish....

Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954),
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

You go through a long litany of why the bible description of the sun and moon is phenomenological. I do not need to be convinced of that. Of course it was. People at that time knew nothing else. Even hundreds of years later Aristotle believed in crystalline spheres that held the sun and moon circling the earth. You use that obvious phenomenological description idea to argue that that a Hebrew word , "made" was ambiguous in translation.

Your argument is not credible. Those two ideas have nothing to do with each other. (That fallacy is called “inconsistent comparison” or “faulty generalization”)

Also, you do not provide other possible original Hebrew translations of the word “made”, which is essential if you want to make your point.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is pretty obvious that plenty of people do twist what it says everyday all over the planet. There are also plenty of more rational people who merely have differing interpretations. It is only fair to only consider what we ourselves think are the best interpretations whether we are reading the bible or a science journal or a commentary on a poem.

Do you agree with me that there are people on forums like this that will judge the whole bible based on the worst interpretations? And that they even know what they are doing?

Oh yes, twisting words is done everywhere. In politics it is called “spin”. Alternate interpretations can be useful, if done objectively, but “spin” is where one has a preconceived idea and wants to force an interpretation to their own ends. Your preconceived idea is biblical infallibility, and its consistency with science.

If an entire system is considered true or consistent, it takes only one counterexample to break it. I think you will find that those who argue that the bible is metaphor will pick the weakest passages to focus on for that reason.

Nobody on this forum has picked up on DawkinsRocks challenge on Noah's ark and the flood. That is another weak point for strict interpreters. If one wants to say that these sort of biblical events are miracles, that's fine. I can honor that wish and will have no further argument. But if one says that all biblical passages are considered to be compatible with modern science, then I will have to strongly object.

 

[Dr.Who]

You go through a long litany of why the bible description of the sun and moon is phenomenological. I do not need to be convinced of that. Of course it was. People at that time knew nothing else. Even hundreds of years later Aristotle believed in crystalline spheres that held the sun and moon circling the earth. You use that obvious phenomenological description idea to argue that that a Hebrew word , "made" was ambiguous in translation.

Your argument is not credible. Those two ideas have nothing to do with each other. (That fallacy is called “inconsistent comparison” or “faulty generalization”)

Also, you do not provide other possible original Hebrew translations of the word “made”, which is essential if you want to make your point.

We seem to be in total agreement then that there are passages in the bible that are to be interpreted phenomenologically. We even agree that this particular passage is one of those. And yes all the hebrew words in the bible need to be translated into english and there will always be some ambiguity during that translation. So I disagree that the point is not made well enough. In the context of a phenomonological passage that all by itself is enough that the passage could certainly be such that the moon and sun were first visible on the fourth day and as observed were described as having been made on the fourth day. One reason this is sufficient is that verse 3 clearly already describes the creation of the sun so describing it again a few verses later would be obviously incorrect to any reader all through the ages. Are you suddenly the first to realize that the creation of the sun was described twice? We both know thats not true. What is true is that people like Dawkinsrocks just refuse to accept anything less than the worst interpretation of the bible and if one offers a better interpretation they ignore it. Verse 3 describes the sun being created and later on the fourth day the sun becomes visible and is described phenomenologically since the phenomenon was first observed at that time. You may not like this interpretation of the passage but it is a better interpretation than to say that the bible contradicts itself in such an obvious way just a few verses apart and no one noticed until now.

For a start there are at least two Hebrew words that are often translated into the word "made". One is BARA and the other is ASAH. Bara means to create and is used to describe the creation in verse 1. Asah can mean "to do or make" and is used in Genesis 1:16. Hmmm? The author used a different word to describe the creation of something verses that used when describing what was seen on the fourth day. The obvious answer is that the fourth day is not describing the creation of the sun. There is however not a strong distinction between the absolute use of the words and translators are left to decide based on other rules of translation.


Defintion of Asah showing that the word "made" has a range of meanings:

Definition

1. to do, fashion, accomplish, make
   1. (Qal)
      1. to do, work, make, produce 1a
   2. to do 1a
   3. to work 1a
   4. to deal (with) 1a
   5. to act, act with effect, effect
      1. to make 1a
   6. to make 1a
   7. to produce 1a
   8. to prepare 1a
   9. to make (an offering) 1a
   10. to attend to, put in order 1a
   11. to observe, celebrate 1a
   12. to acquire (property) 1a
   13. to appoint, ordain, institute 1a
   14. to bring about 1a
   15. to use 1a
   16. to spend, pass
   17. (Niphal)
       1. to be done
       2. to be made
       3. to be produced
       4. to be offered
       5. to be observed
       6. to be used
   18. (Pual) to be made
2. (Piel) to press, squeeze

A few of those meanings could obviously refer to the observation of the sun on the fourth day number 15 (5) being an obviousl choice.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nobody on this forum has picked up on DawkinsRocks challenge on Noah's ark and the flood. .

I would never debate DR on this issue because I do not trust that he would in any way be intellectually honest (just statement of what my inner opinion is). If you want to debate it then by all means start a thread and do it in your own words.

Outof time today will pick up on our discussion of einstein later. I suspect that the dates on which he said things will shed a lot of light.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I wouldn't be intellectually honest?

Fuck me

I'm not the one who believes in talking snakes and walking on water and virgin births and reincarnation and magic

You know, the science of the bible

If you are deranged

 

[GBFan]

But lots of Christians think the bible was written by god

If so why is it so wrong?

And if god created heaven and earth that day where did he live beforehand?

God is a crap creator, a crap author and a crap liar

Seriously?

Perhaps you can find a reference, somewhere, anywhere, that claims the Bible was written by God. (I'll settle for just one ...)

I am continually amazed that non-believers would attempt to compare the scientific efficacy of some people 2000 years ago to current scientific findings, and then have the temerity to try to claim that, because those people 2000 years ago didn't get the science right, that it somehow invalidates everything they wrote.

There's a saying for that - "a'wishin' and a'wantin'" ... they want it to be wrong so bad that they will sacrifice any level of academic integrity in order to make it so.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am continually amazed that non-believers would attempt to compare the scientific efficacy of some people 2000 years ago to current scientific findings, and then have the temerity to try to claim that, because those people 2000 years ago didn't get the science right, that it somehow invalidates everything they wrote.

There's a saying for that - "a'wishin' and a'wantin'" ... they want it to be wrong so bad that they will sacrifice any level of academic integrity in order to make it so.

Your point is well taken, but there is a different question undergoing debate here. It is DrWho, not Dawkins who is has the temerity to try to claim that the Bible as written is consistent with modern science. I am saying that the people who wrote the Bible were doing the best they could with the understanding at that time, and those writings could not anticipate the science and wisdom of today. Dr Who believes the Bible does stand the test of time scientifically if you spin the words.

 

[Lagboltz]

a

We seem to be in total agreement then that there are passages in the bible that are to be interpreted phenomenologically. We even agree that this particular passage is one of those. And yes all the hebrew words in the bible need to be translated into english and there will always be some ambiguity during that translation. So I disagree that the point is not made well enough. In the context of a phenomonological passage that all by itself is enough that the passage could certainly be such that the moon and sun were first visible on the fourth day and as observed were described as having been made on the fourth day. One reason this is sufficient is that verse 3 clearly already describes the creation of the sun so describing it again a few verses later would be obviously incorrect to any reader all through the ages. Are you suddenly the first to realize that the creation of the sun was described twice? We both know thats not true. What is true is that people like Dawkinsrocks just refuse to accept anything less than the worst interpretation of the bible and if one offers a better interpretation they ignore it. Verse 3 describes the sun being created and later on the fourth day the sun becomes visible and is described phenomenologically since the phenomenon was first observed at that time. You may not like this interpretation of the passage but it is a better interpretation than to say that the bible contradicts itself in such an obvious way just a few verses apart and no one noticed until now.

For a start there are at least two Hebrew words that are often translated into the word "made". One is BARA and the other is ASAH. Bara means to create and is used to describe the creation in verse 1. Asah can mean "to do or make" and is used in Genesis 1:16. Hmmm? The author used a different word to describe the creation of something verses that used when describing what was seen on the fourth day. The obvious answer is that the fourth day is not describing the creation of the sun. There is however not a strong distinction between the absolute use of the words and translators are left to decide based on other rules of translation.


Defintion of Asah showing that the word "made" has a range of meanings:

Definition

1. to do, fashion, accomplish, make
   1. (Qal)
      1. to do, work, make, produce 1a
   2. to do 1a
   3. to work 1a
   4. to deal (with) 1a
   5. to act, act with effect, effect
      1. to make 1a
   6. to make 1a
   7. to produce 1a
   8. to prepare 1a
   9. to make (an offering) 1a
   10. to attend to, put in order 1a
   11. to observe, celebrate 1a
   12. to acquire (property) 1a
   13. to appoint, ordain, institute 1a
   14. to bring about 1a
   15. to use 1a
   16. to spend, pass
   17. (Niphal)
       1. to be done
       2. to be made
       3. to be produced
       4. to be offered
       5. to be observed
       6. to be used
   18. (Pual) to be made
2. (Piel) to press, squeeze

A few of those meanings could obviously refer to the observation of the sun on the fourth day number 15 (5) being an obviousl choice.

I'm sorry but that just does not fly with me. Out of 18 definitions, almost all of them refer to "make" as some sort of construction. The word "observe" is used as in observing a celebration, not a visual observation.
Are you going to go through all the original Greek and Hebrew sources of the English bible and nitpick words to have a meaning consistent with modern thinking? Try googling something like "problems with the bible" to see what kind of task would be ahead of you to prove inerrancy.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ahh so the bible wasn't written by god?

To be fair I do know that

It is just that most Christians have gone round saying it was

I am well aware that it is a collection of fairy tales

There was no flood

There was no virgin birth

There was no talking snakes

There was no walking on water

There was no parting if the red sea

There was no resurrection

There were no miracles

People have never lived to be 800 years old

Nobody blew a fortress wall down with trumpets

And I could go on for ages about lie after lie after lie that is published in the vicious fiction that is the bible

 

[GBFan]

Ahh so the bible wasn't written by god?

To be fair I do know that

It is just that most Christians have gone round saying it was

I am well aware that it is a collection of fairy tales

There was no flood

There was no virgin birth

There was no talking snakes

There was no walking on water

There was no parting if the red sea

There was no resurrection

There were no miracles

People have never lived to be 800 years old

Nobody blew a fortress wall down with trumpets

And I could go on for ages about lie after lie after lie that is published in the vicious fiction that is the bible

Actually, you could go on for ages about things you perceive to be lies - based on your limited experience. So, who should I believe? Someone who was there and lived it, or someone hiding in his momma's basement trying to demean and defame anyone who just might not agree with his jaundiced view of the world?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh, you know someone who was there ?

How old are they then?

6000 years?

Can anyone else see this 'friend'

If a book of fairy tales is your standard for evidence then you should get down to hogwarts for a game of quidditch

This is just brilliant

I assume you are a grown adult gbfan?

Who believes that in a book you accept was not written by god saying people lived to be 800 years old and who chooses to accept that as fact over the view that it didn't happen

Priceless

Mummy will be up soon to read you another story

Bless

 

[GBFan]

Oh, you know someone who was there ?

How old are they then?

6000 years?

Can anyone else see this 'friend'

If a book of fairy tales is your standard for evidence then you should get down to hogwarts for a game of quidditch

This is just brilliant

I assume you are a grown adult gbfan?

Who believes that in a book you accept was not written by god saying people lived to be 800 years old and who chooses to accept that as fact over the view that it didn't happen

Pricel

Oh, you know someone who was there ?

How old are they then?

6000 years?

Can anyone else see this 'friend'

If a book of fairy tales is your standard for evidence then you should get down to hogwarts for a game of quidditch

This is just brilliant

I assume you are a grown adult gbfan?

Who believes that in a book you accept was not written by god saying people lived to be 800 years old and who chooses to accept that as fact over the view that it didn't happen

Priceless

Mummy will be up soon to read you another story

Bless

ess

Mummy will be up soon to read you another story

Bless

Once again, a childish rant with no facts, simply accusations without substance ...

If you wish to question whether Mark or John lived, I suggest you study a little of the historical perspective of the Bible.

Are you questioning the real-world circumstances described in the Bible? Surely not ... since a side trip to Israel will show you where it all happened, and provide you significant archeological proof.

So ... we must assume that the basis for your rant is rooted in something else. What could that be?

Could it be that anti-theological rants is your way to gain attention, since you refuse to acknowledge real-world truths? Could it be that your ego needs to be recognized, and waving the anti-God flag is the only way you can get people to acknowledge your existence? Can it be that ridiculing the beliefs of others is supposed to suffice as fact? Hardly.

But, let's take on the subject directly ... why do I believe in the Bible and you don't? Because I refuse to believe that YOU are the top of the line ... that it doesn't get any better than us ... that we have nothing to strive for. Once I accept the presence of a higher life form, the rest is easy.

You seem to get all wrapped around scientific inconsistencies, as if that somehow disproves everything else. But, yet, you judge those inconsistencies by the level of knowledge today ... is it so hard to believe that, once, people who couldn't explain lightning claimed it was the gods striking down in their fury, or that the Earth orbited around the sun, given that it wasn't until the early 1600s that Copernicus proved otherwise? Then, you want to claim that the whole Bible is faulty simply because they didn't accurately define a year or a day, when it wasn't until the late 1500s that the Gregorian calendar was developed.

To use scientific inconsistencies to somehow disprove the Bible is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. If the Bible were a simple recitation of scientific facts, then maybe, you could make that claim. But, let's remember what the Bible is ... it is documentation of the observations and interpretations of group of men who witnessed a series of acts, and tried to put it in the perspective of what the people could understand. They wrote a book to communicate, not document.

Now ... let's address the REAL problem you have with the Bible. It purports the existence of God; it forces an objective morality on you, when you want a subjective morality. If there were not a God, then you don't have to answer to Him. If there is no God, there are no rules. If you didn't have to answer to Him, then you only have to answer to either yourself, or to a higher human being. That means that you do not believe that all men are created equal, since one must be superior to others. Your ego demands that you put yourself in that 'superior class'.

With subjective morality, there are no hard and fast rules ... you can justify your actions towards others; you can change the criteria by which you judge your actions and others. Today, murder is abhorrent, but tomorrow, you find justification for it. Today, adultery is bad, but tomorrow, you kinda like it.

This shifting of moral relativism allows you to avoid accountability,and feeds your need to avoid responsibility for your actions, and that meets your short-term needs. Without accountability, you can't be judged, except by your superiors. And, since you THINK you have no superiors, you can't be judged at all. Somehow, you believe that gives you free rein to do as you please, without accountability.

Now... why do I believe in God? That's easy ... because it's true. I recognize His existence, and I recognize the compact between He and I.

Frankly, this is why atheists are so strident, who keep returning to try to disprove the existence of God. Those of us who believe are comfortable with that ... it is YOUR discomfort that He just might exist that demands that you continue to harp and harangue. You continue to cry out for proof, for acclimation, all the while trying to defend the slim possibility that you might be right. Those of us who believe, on the other hand, don't much care what you believe, because, in the end, we will be proven right, and you will pay the penalty for being wrong.

'Nuff said.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Where can I go to see evidence that people lived to be 800 years old?

Did Mark and John see the flood?

Or was it Janet and John?

And if I go to israel I see a vicious war mongering group of lunatics who talk to walls

And think that only 144000 people will go to somewhere called heaven

Which to be fair is closer to the actual number than most believe as the actual number is zero

 

[GBFan]

Where can I go to see evidence that people lived to be 800 years old?

Did Mark and John see the flood?

Or was it Janet and John?

And if I go to israel I see a vicious war mongering group of lunatics who talk to walls

And think that only 144000 people will go to somewhere called heaven

Which to be fair is closer to the actual number than most believe as the actual number is zero

Ahhhh ... now it becomes clear. You're anti-Semitic. I knew there was a pool of black hatred there somewhere that was blinding you to reality.

As for your 144,000 reference, some Jehovah's Witness in your background, huh?

I can think of no reason to continue discussion with a person so blinded by hatred and prejudice that it preclude an intelligent and logical discourse. So, I suggest you go back to your little hate-filled cave, and leave the rest of the world alone. I will not waste my time when you have no desire to listen.

I refuse to respond to those blinded by prejudice and have a heart full of hatred, and so I won't. I truly, truly feel sorry for you.

Good bye.