Scientific falsehoods in the Bible

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Literary convention?

This is not an English class.

...point of view is a literary convention. If you're going to laugh because someone used an accurate term to describe that which you are clearly ignorant of...well, I don't know if we can actually have a legitimate conversation.

All I am saying is that the account was written as if one is standing on the Earth watching it happen.

Except that it doesn't. It just gives a general omniscience account of things. If you can show me a single instance of a line which demonstrates that this is given as a POV, I'll agree with you.

In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth.

heaven and the earth. Singular.

Wrong again.

הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם is the word. it is plural. Shamayim.

-im- denotes plurality.

I'm sorry, but could you back up that all instances in the Hebrew language where "im" is used denotes plurality? And would it being plural even be relevant? The heavens just would relate to a space, not to its contents. The Sun is clearly created on the fourth day.

and I am not going to go on.

I have given you more than enough evidence. It is quite clear that you will refuse what has been shown to you.

So you address a single point and then when you simply decide to lob some accusations at me. Nice job.

You don't have a good argument against my basic premise: The Bible is not a source of scientific information.

You only wish to cause strife and discord.

See, baseless accusation! I'm not here to cause strife and discord, I'm here to show people that the Bible is not a source of scientific information.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

. . .

I'm sorry, but could you back up that all instances in the Hebrew language where "im" is used denotes plurality?

That is exactly what I am talking about.

You have no knowledge of what you are talking about on just this one section, yet you want us to believe that everything you stated is fact, which it is not. It is based on your misunderstanding of the Hebrew language, culture, and general way of life.

--Most of the suffixes for plural words in masculine will be “im” – sounds like “eem.”

Link


From wiki:

In Hebrew the ending -im, mainly indicates a masculine plural



Compare with Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 51:13, and Jeremiah 10:12.

Sanskrit word for sky or heaven is svah, which turns nicely into the Semitic Svam or sham . . . and the im makes it plural.

Therefore, skies or heavens.



Edit: And yes, I am going to prove one point and leave, because it is obvious that you do not want the truth. How much more clear can I get?


By the way. You can have the last word, because I have proven my point.

Bye.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Wow, I learned something new...and it still doesn't change the fact that "heavens" in the context of the Genesis passage (see, I admitted I was wrong because I actually care about conforming my beliefs to evidence)

And the reason I asked was to be facetious. Why? Because you huffed off and I wanted to prove a point. I did bother to research your claim before you I asked you to verify it just so I could bother to point out that I will change my mind if provided with sufficient evidence (though I would have gone with something other than a wiki).

I'm interested in conforming my beliefs to evidence. The Bible? Clearly not a book to gain knowledge of scientific realities. Now, I'm not saying this disproves the Bible, it merely invalidates the claims that the Bible can be used as a means to get knowledge about the material world.

Edit: And yes, I am going to prove one point and leave, because it is obvious that you do not want the truth. How much more clear can I get?

You could become a window. Yes, I made a stupid joke, because you're being stupid.

By the way. You can have the last word, because I have proven my point.

That I was wrong on the plurality of a single word. Wow. Big win right there. I admitted I was wrong, but you still have dozens of points where I've clearly shown the Bible is not a source of scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
That I was wrong on the plurality of a single word. Wow. Big win right there. I admitted I was wrong, but you still have dozens of points where I've clearly shown the Bible is not a source of scientific knowledge.

Well done, sir. Next, would you mind teaching us that bleach is not a proper substitute for water, or that gummy bears don't provide us with our proper daily balance of vitamins and minerals?

Dude, you're arguing the petty points of religion. The bible isn't meant to be a source of scientific knowledge. It's sad that some people believe that it is, but hey, thems the breaks.

I just wonder if man uses 10% of their brain, how does he in his own arrogance say God doesn't exist?

Maybe man is just not capable of understanding God just yet.

And if man is using 10% of their brain capacity, how thorough is our science?

I think at times that when we cannot prove or understand something with our limited means we fall back on "it doesn't exist" reasoning.

Sunday the first "day" is when light was divided from darkness...life from death

after the third day if you take Sunday as the third day...well in Genesis the second "day"...the Earth appeared

The third "day" life appears-which establishes its root in earth, but also signifies ressurection as it breaks from the Earth to branch out into light and spirit

After the third day..the heavens are made, significance of after the Lord was raised and ascended into heaven he fashioned the heavens...now wait

Go back...

In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth...after the third day, whether figuratively Sunday...literally after the third day in Genesis what happens...the Earth appears, the Heavens appears....

I could go further but you are a stupid atheist and dont need to know the mystery teachings so :p pfffttttt

Lets just say Genesis was signature of creator and if you ask nicely I will go on...if not...go yank a monkies tail for answers.

like a serpent that bites is own tail hanging in the branches from whence the fruit of God his son was plucked in his death...so the shadow of death befallen all creation and man found his root in the old serpent, the dinosaur fallen to its belly whose head was crushed as man stepped upon this earth but to suffer him the poison of extinction...death

The evolutionary hold of the serpents seed afflicted the womans seed...

and man was born to die

the same day he was born the 6th, he died

For the 6th day is when creator died


and a new foundation of earth, seperated from the creators spirit took form

And the tail of the serpent was released from his mouth to unravel the tale to be told....for in death was seeded life

reply to post by SorensDespair


It's not really a 'petty point' when there are people who are actively trying to change the science education in the Western world to fit with the ignorant observations of the bronze and iron age people who wrote the Bible. I'm trying to stem a tide that is sadly rising.

Originally posted by ArchaicSubrosa
I could go further but you are a stupid atheist and dont need to know the mystery teachings so :p pfffttttt

Lets just say Genesis was signature of creator and if you ask nicely I will go on...if not...go yank a monkies tail for answers.

So post hoc rationalizations, insults, and appeals to ridicule are your whole argument? I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the main point of the thread: THE BIBLE ISN'T A SOURCE OF SCIENCE, now, if you agree with that basic statement then what the hell are you doing?

reply to post by kove400


Thank you for a great chuckle on Good Friday. Kent Hovind clearing things us? I haven't laughed that hard in a good while. Nice to see some satire to lighten things up.

So this thread seems to have fizzled out...either because I'm somehow a troll or because people are just steering clear of the issue. I don't get why. One guy seems to have 'proven his point' (whatever that point was) and just buggered off. My point? The Bible is not a source of scientific information. Does that point stand?

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

They'll come in and tell you, oh well the examples you cited aren't meant to be taken literally. See, because we aren't believers, we don't know which passages are literal, and which are figurative. We don't know the special code that always makes the bible right.

Exactly, it's doublethink. Only believe things when it's convenient to, not when it is not. This is what makes it so hard to apply logic to the bible.

www.celebrations.com...

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

What's the point of this?

Is it for the people who take the Bible to be literal truth? You suppose that they will change their mind after hearing what you have to say?

Almost no one takes the Bible literally anymore. . . and if they've gotten to the point that they are using the internet and still think the Earth is five thousand years old and all life was saved by a 600 year old drunk who built a ship and put 2 of every creature on board. . . they're not going to read this and say, "oh, well then, I guess I've been mistaken..."

Isn't it just to be a troll?

I don't think the Bible is an accurate historical document, I don't even believe in God. I think it's just as irrational to troll for religious people that you can provoke on the internet as it is to take unproven sacred texts as literal historical records.

I hope you really answer my question, though - what is the point of this thread?

edit on 4/14/11 by OnceReturned because: (no reason given)

" Confused by thoughts,
we experience duality in life.
Unencumbered by ideas,
the enlightened see the one Reality."

- Hui - Neng



Maybe there is a question ..like ..Why Bible and ONLY Bible

[url=http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/is-the-bible-the-only-book-i-need]> Is the Bible the Only Book I Need?

One of the best lines I ever heard comparing science and the bible.

"Science books are usually out a date after a few years, the Bible is not a science book, and is never out of date." (paraphrasing...but you get the point)

Originally posted by Carseller4
One of the best lines I ever heard comparing science and the bible.

"Science books are usually out a date after a few years, the Bible is not a science book, and is never out of date." (paraphrasing...but you get the point)

Interesting. I wonder if anybody could give me the name of science book that was out of date after a few years.

I doubt it. Small things might change in science, but it's not like they are suddenly completely wrong, they just slightly change.

If the Christian bible was a scientific textbook, this post wouldn't be complete rubbish. But since the bible isn't one...

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

If the Christian bible was a scientific textbook, this post wouldn't be complete rubbish. But since the bible isn't one...

Agreed. Now if we could only get some Christians to stop treating it as such...

Originally posted by Carseller4
One of the best lines I ever heard comparing science and the bible.

"Science books are usually out a date after a few years, the Bible is not a science book, and is never out of date." (paraphrasing...but you get the point)

I read somewhere that Oklahoma has passed legislation authorizing the Bible as a history text book.

Only in America.