What does the Bible says that has been proven to be false?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$12 Answers
The easy answer would be to say, "Nothing that *matters*!"
*sigh*... But okay, let's get into it.
Pretend you're the Lord talking to Moses during the writing of the Pentateuch. Moses asks, "What is the history of how the world came to be?"
The Lord says, "Well, in the beginning there weren't any subatomic particles with which to form atoms. Everything was in a state of quantum flux, with there being no clear distinction between time and space, nor matter and energy. If you want to think of it in logistical terms, there was neither true nor false in the physical measurements of anything. It was the true incarnation of the essence of chaos on the physical plane."
Moses, with the vast advantage of education he had from being an adopted prince of Egypt with access to the Pharaoh's library and scribes goes, "Huh?"
The Lord is already sensing that this is going to be a long (earth) day. But it's still early, and he's still feeling patient, so he says, "Uh, well, there came a point where the chaos separated into two basic vectors at rights angles to each other. One was the time-space continuum, and the other was matter-energy matrix."
Moses says, "Huh?'
The Lord says, "Well, it's like, time-space is like... you know... all that space you move through, and the time that passes, and matter-energy is like the stuff you and the world are made of, and the power that drives it through the time-space continuum".
Moses pauses for a long thing-about-it, and say, "I'm sorry, I still don't get you".
The Lord say, "Look, you see all that space around you? Look up? You see all that distance between you and the sun, or between you and the stars? That's space. And you see that sand you're walking on? That's matter. Time-and-Space are interchangeable, and matter-and-energy are interchangeable. The rate of interchange for matter-energy is e=mc^2, and the rate of change for time-space is s=ct, but it boils down to a hyperspace with a vector of time-space in one direction, and at right-angles is another vector in hyperspace of matter-energy, and between them they map out states... capiche?"
Moses thoughtfully pulls on his beard, and says, "Back up to that part about when I look to the sun and stars, then that space is one thing, but how the solid I walk on is another, and how those two things are the two fundamental things of stuff".
The Lord says, "Okay... I've back up. What do you want to know?"
Moses says, "Well, I look up towards the sun and the stars which is like looking towards heaven, right? And the stuff I walk on is earth, right?"
Lord says, "Yeah... well... if you want to call heaven that which is not on earth, yeah, but technically, where I am, I'm not on earth because I'm outside of your dimension, which is how I can be everywhere without you ever seeing me, and..."
Moses: "So there's the earth, and there's the stuff that's *not* earth, and those are the two things that the universe started with?"
Lord: "Uhh, yeah, but..."
Moses: "And what's not earth is what I see when I look up towards the sun and the stars, which is towards heaven, so heaven is not earth, right?"
Lord: "Yeah, but..."
Moses: "So, in the beginning, first there was heaven and earth, right?"
Lord: "Uhh, well, technically... it kinda depends on how finicky one wants to get about defining those terms, but... what are you dong?"
Moses: "It's come to me, and I'm writing. Listen to this... 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth".
Lord: "Okayy... that's concise. Thanks for the reference. How do you know it was an act of will on My part that triggered the chaos to haul back into those orthogonal vectors?"
Moses: "I presumed so. After that tongue-lashing you gave me at the burning bush I'm just going to presume so, but I still have to write it down because people can be such chowder-heads that they just won't listen unless I include Your name since You're the reason we're all out here in the wilderness."
Lord: "Yeah... okay... but... you do understand that at the burning bush I was just trying to get your attention. You're vastly better educated by virtue of access to the Pharaoh's libraries and scribes that are most of these goat-herders scrubbing their butts with sand from their left hand, yet you weren't listening and you were asking stupid questions so I had to holler at you, but are you now at a level of togetherness to see that if you put it that way, someday somebody's going to ask where I came from."
Moses: "So You came along after the beginning?"
Lord: "No... I'm outside of your time-space continuum... it's hard to explain... ever studied that thing the Hellenics do called geometry, only cast it into an n-dimensional hyperspace?"
Moses: "No... and your point is?"
Lord: "Nothing.... never mind. In any case, I think your use of 'heaven' to describe time-space and your use of 'earth' as matter-energy is making it too much like there's just space and matter at the beginning, with insufficient reference to time and energy."
Moses: "Why?"
Lord: "Because... because I like you more than Angels because I know you're potentially the hottest species... IF you train yourselves. Ever notice how a trained gymnast can outperform even a Gibbon in the trees? Moses... wake up!"
Moses: "Sorry. Can we carry on tomorrow?"
And it went on like that day-after-day through the whole process of getting the word of the Lord into print with Moses as the scribe.
Ever notice the interesting part about how it says first were created the fish and birds, but the mammals came later, and it's didn't make sense until we learned that birds are just a lonely survivng branch of dinosaur?
I can already hear it.
Lord: "It all came from the oceans. Arthropods were the first to get out, and they became dragonflies the size of crows. And it was incredible how much life and how many varieties there were. Some of the vertebrates made it onto land with their shelled eggs, and they became reptiles, and then one branch of reptile became a warm-blooded bipedal thing called a dinosaur and..."
Moses: "Dinosaur?"
Lord: "They're like big giant birds without feathers."
Moses: "Ahh... okay so... I've been short-handing while you talked, editorializing a bit for the sake of the readers, and I have 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens. So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind."
Lord: " You're very poetic."
Moses: "People like poetry".
Lord: "No doubt. Anyway, next came the mammals..."
etc. etc.
As for the issue of Joshua 10:12-14, saying that the sun travels around the earth... actually... if you do the math as astronomer, you'll know that it makes no difference at predicting the positions of heavenly orbs what point of reference you use as the center...
You just need to fix a center-point and then do your calculations from there. Ever read Ptolemy's mathematical description of the ellipses to describe the positions of the planets? It's not how it really happens, but in fact his calculations work.
So now lets image Joshua's time and what his people were able to interpret of the world from what they could see.
Given that on a mathematical level it doesn't really matter whether you set the sun or the earth as the center of the grid as long as all subsequent equations follow, and given how the point was not to explain astronomy to the people, rather to get a spiritual message through...
... Then if you are someone from one of those modern states where one third of the people can't say how many times the world goes around the sun in one year, do you really think Joshua was doing a wrong to dumb-down the astronomy a bit in order to get a spiritual message through to the people of *his* age?!?
Let me ask you a question: What *spiritual* truths in the Bible have been proven to be false?
It is, after all, fundamentally a spiritual - and not scientific - document.
I throw it back to you! The Bible is not a science text. It's a spiritual document using references to real-world phenomena if-and-only-when said references help to communicate the message.
What does the Bible say that has been proven to be *spiritually* false?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You don't have to look any further than genesis. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
Plants are made before there is sun to drive photosynthesis.
God makes two lights: "the greater light sun to rule the day, and the lesser light moon to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16
"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God. 1:29
All animals were herbivores acording to the bible, this contradicts everything science knows about parasites, carnivores such as dinosaurs, and scavanger animals.
humans were not literaly created from breath and dust but evolved over millions of years.
The bible dates the entire universe at about 6000 years old while we know from background radiation from the big bang that it is closer to 12 billion years old....a little off the mark.
God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19
Noahs ark is said by the bible to be 450 feet long and contain all animals and plants that creepith upon the earth. There would not physically be enough room on a 450ft ark to house the 20 million genetically different species on earth, That would require many thousands of 450 foot arks
The bible claims that in the time of noah (aprox 2400 bc) the world only spoke one language. This is simply just not true as we know there were many languages, or at least many different written languages since we have actual archaeological examples of this.
The 40 year journey of the israelites to travel from egypt to canan would have really only taken 10 days
The israelite population went from 70 to several million in few generations...just not possible.
The unicorns and giants of the bible have never been found in any archaeological digs.
The list goes on and on and on......for a good list of how the bible and scientific fact don't jive, take a look at the site below
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Good response :)
This is the funny way of looking at religion according to George Carlin. RIP
I voted this answer unhelpful because it cites only one source and uses the blanket term "science" without actually explaining what this "science" actually is (i.e. experiments, laws, etc.) Instead it contains vague generalities and assumptions. One cannot just claim "science proved it wrong" and expect thinking people to buy it. That is nothing more than blind faith.
Crikey!
Well done sir...
the bible calls for faith and not rationalisation. it does not make sense but faith (the ability to believe what you do not understand-and this is the secret to happiness and fulfillment on earth!). the bible was written by men under the inspiration of the holy spirit, the style of things put down were subject to the men who wrote them. paraphrasing,scripture says the spirit of prophesy from God is subject to the prophet. God gave us free will. so you could find some inconsistencies, not from God but from the instrument at use at the time. this shows man's limitations and God's grace and wisdom at allowing man, weak as he is to share in His creation. we cannot explain everything on a physical scientific level, because we do not 'see' everything. but we believe all things God says... in faith. science as wonderful as it is, will forever have many limitations, e.g it could never have an answer for death,happiness or love. God has no limits, in Him we live and move and have our being.
Truth7, if you would like to refute a particular fact that is one thing but I think that every rational person who took 7th grade earth science learned what the scientific method was, I didn't think I needed an explanation but if you would like, I will hapily ablige. I make no grand claims that is not generally accepted by modern science, which is my interpretation of what the original poster asked for. If there are any claims that I made that you believe goes against the established scientific method I would love to know where I went wrong. But if you are simply arguing that the scientific method itself is flawed and we should discard all modern science and begin to use the bible as our 7th grade science textbook then you have a right to your opinion but not a right to vote "unhelpful" as I think I clearly addressed the original question.
For something to be generally considered scientific fact it must undergo the process of the scientific method.
1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Number 8 is the key to something being considered general scientific knowledge. If you can repeat your hypothesis over and over again you have a pretty good chance that you are correct. Some things are more easily proven than others, some bits of information are continually debated in the scientific community. Evolution is not debated by science only by people who disregard the scientific method. Also the age of the earth is disputed withing a few million years but there is certainly no debate that the earth might be 6000 years old. The earth does revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth, that is very easy to prove by observation and was most certainly proved when we put a man on the moon. Some theories that may be not fully understood are whether or not the big bang was the first big bang or weather the universe continually expands and collapses into many big bangs over the course of many billions of years,scence does not claim to have all the answers, just that it tries to use the most logical method at trying to figure out the most rational solution to a question. I don't understand how you could call repeating experiments over and over blind faith.......What IS blind faith however is Not actually performing any experiments but rather turning to a book that was written 2000 years ago and offers no logical proof but explicitly asks the reader to just have blind faith.
"Joshua 10:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)
12Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
14There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+10%3A12-14&version=NASB
We still refer to the "sun going down" or "coming up" to this day. Does that mean we don't actually mean "when the earth rotates sufficiently to allow the viewing of the sun today"? Of course not.
Without a clear understanding of the source for your interpretation of that passage, my answer must be that this is not a good example of something written in the Bible that "has been proven to be false". And the other comment made references to "many things" that are also not clear. The week of creation was purposeful and symbolic and it is not only the foundation for the entire scriptures but it's where we got our very own 7 day week from today.
Perhaps the major source for misunderstandings of scripture comes from inadequate study of the source materials. Never take someone's word for what is written in the Bible. Always read it for yourself and seek to understand it's purpose.
Funny how we go to school and listen to our teachers, even taking the books given to us as source material and thinking our heads are being filled with wonderful facts and science. In fact if you read about the same world events written by authors from different countries you realize that "history" is often according to the victor. And theoretical science is still just a theory.
In school you have to regurgitate the source material just to pass your classes, but it doesn't mean they are the end all be all on the subject. But beliefs can't be argued with. They are personal and as varied as there are people on the planet. Yet a discussion about "what is written" and how it applies to us today is possible if all parties are familiar with the source material to the same degree or at least some degree where rational discourse is the goal.
Enlighten me.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
It's just as false that the earth, sun, and moon have ever temporarily stopped their relative motion. It is scientifically impossible, violating the most basic laws of physics.
Does not answer the question, and instead presents highly misleading philosophy.
Albanian is completely correct. The idea that the sun or moon have ever stopped their orbits is an obvious fairy tale-- just like the idea that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky with a chariot.
"And the hare because he chewith the cud . . . "
Rabbits do not chew a cud.
Deu 14:18 +/or Lev 11:19
Talking about birds that should not be eaten: "And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
A bat is not a bird.
Jonah 1:17 ". . . Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40 "Jonus was three days and three nights in the whale's belly"
Fish are not Whales.
Please see my sources for more examples.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
of course there are so many contradictions in the Bible that have been pointed out - such as the fact God was all knowing, and a super power, and yet it took 6 days to make the earth - rather than a nano-second, plus it needed a day of rest after.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
@sliverhammer, maybe in the interests of discourse you could point out your understanding of the words, "fact," "data," "idea," "hypothesis," and "theory." My understanding is that a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested by collecting data that either confirms or contradicts the validity of the hypothesis, and that a theory becomes accepted scientific fact when the validity of the evidence has become overwhelming. It seems to "most of us" that studies of geology, chemistry, and nuclear physics have validated the theory of the earths antiquity, so for us the antiquity of the earth has become fact.
i think the foundational problem here is that of a society that has lost touch with their origins as children of God due to advances in science and technology. but just a casual look should convince you of their limits. look at the problems in the 'developed' societies, and you ll know they ll ever be beyong human grasps- with all the advances in science and technology, why was a 'poor', developing country's citizens voted the happiest in the world in a recent poll?(last year i think). wehether we aknowledge God or not. He is there and He is an ever present help for all those who call on Him. on your death beds, those of you putting up all these crazy arguments to undermine God and His words in the bible will wish you had believed and acted differently. i promise you.
"I'm just a country Doctor, not a scientist!" Sorry @morriss003. I appreciate the desire for common terms - important in any intelligent discourse. But my point is simply we still don't have all the answers - only what we have so far. But we work with what we have, yes? You are correct.
Funny, but misleading. The age of the earth has been "theorized" to be much older. There are more discoveries and ways to interpret data happening every day. Enjoy the ride but don't be misled by the notion that we know all there is to know on the subject.
After all, we used to think the world being flat was the final answer. :)
The reason for the 7 day creation week in the Bible was intentional and symbolic.
I see more contradictions in modern history and science books than I have in the Bible. Although I don't have a list of the "so many" mentioned above to refer to so it's hard to comment.
This is the one that is the basis for many of the others. The ancients had no idea of geology or astrophysics and were completely wrong in their guess about the age of the earth. That, in turn, caused them to make countless wrong guesses and assumptions that permeate the bible.
@Silverhammer, this isn't one of the maybe's. The science is long beyond doubt. Bible fans have to go to great lengths to come up with allegories or analogies etc to try to make the bible seem reasonable on the age of the world issue; but, in fact it's just plain wrong. It was probably never meant to be more than a guess or camp fire tale.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Also...pretending for a minute that it would have been possible for Noah to gather millions of species and put them on the arc, wouldn't he have had to sail around the entire earth to get all these species? Therefore, shouldn't he have "discovered" that the earth was not flat, and gotten someone to mention that in the telling of his story? Also, when the flood waters subsided, how did he manage to return each species to its native land?
The Bible is a spiritual book, and a text book is a scientific one. You do not refer to a textbook for spiritual advice, and then you should not refer to the bible for a scientific answer.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
What you say is interesting but: 1. Not all text books are science text books. 2. The science text book does not typically make spiritual or religious claims. 3. The Bible (old testament especially) as a text book in presenting its story does make and assert things of science. The creation story is but one.
I would argue that for the most part, the Bible which in most part is the Old Testament is written as a history / religious / quasi science justification text. The New Testament that comprises the works of those claiming to have known Yesu (Jesus) or his teachings is the closest to the spiritual aspect of the text.
I couldn't resist a response to this statement, because religion certainly does refer to the Bible as both a history text as well as a science text as is evident in the Biblical theories of evolution, and more being expounded by some Christian groups.
"... the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate." Ref: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml to make the claim it is scientifically accurate is to make the claim that the Bible presents itself (in part) as a scientific text. An interesting read for those on both sides of the proverbial fence on this issue.
Just a few cents of opinion.
Biblical scholars and skeptics alike delight in being seen to be right, rather than actually proving anything.
An honest scientist will point out that science is very practical - when a Theory accumulates enough evidence through experimentation and mathematical calculation, then it is widely accepted as a Law and people use it as if it were always true. But Laws are subject to be overturned if new evidence arises that disproves them. In science, there is no such thing as absolute proof.
It might be better to look at the many cities and towns, kings, governments, and others that the bible mentions by name with specific dates over the last several thousand years. If you could point to one that is obviously wrong (for example if the bible says "country a invaded country b" but you had proof that never happened) then that would seem much more like proof of some error in the bible.
As far as I've studied, there are some things that look questionable, like the passage in Joshua you mention, but I can't find anything that is clearly or obviously wrong. I've read work by people on both sides of the issue and they mostly seem to believe that they are correct - and when you start from the point of view that you are correct, then your so-called-proof begins to look a little thin.
My opinion - we need to read it all and think it all through before accepting someone else's opinion on it.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
No, a day is not a day. The original Hebrew word used in this passage was Yom, which simply means a period of time. It was interpreted as Day because that was the easiest interpretation to understand, but no where is the word Yom defined as a 24-hour period. Get your facts straight before you post stuff that's just flat out wrong.
A day is a day. If they want'ed to write aeon they could have written aeon.
The bible is no worse than other ancient history books on history; it is when it attempts to explain the world around us that it fails utterly because so little science was known at the time. And, of course, prehistory such as the origin of man or the flood is pure imagination and scientifically flat out wrong.
Genesis 1:3
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. "
Genesis 1:14
"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. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
Of course the Bible is not a book of science or of history, it is a book that given lessons on how to live your life. The commandments do not begin by stating, "Thou shalt understand the chemical composition of the earth," or "Thou shalt understand how orbital mechanics work." After the first four commandments that warn people to beware of angering God, the commandments focus on honoring father and mother, not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing. Do you see a pattern here?
One of the best lessons is not stated directly, but indirectly. "All things in moderation."
I read the Bible cover to cover at least twice.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
To say that creating light before the Sun is an oops does limit God to the very physics He created (to follow that line of thinking). It's hardly characteristic of God to create a box He can't escape from isn't it? The "oops", in my opinion, is trying to change it just because at first glance it doesn't make sense. If it was necessary to create the sun before there could be light, He would have done it that way.
My point is that if you read the original words we see that a literal (not poetic) translation into English is more accurately described as "let light be made" or "let light exist". It was pretty smart to create the physics of the universe before putting one together, no? There's more to it. Further study is warranted to gain understanding of what was written.
Added thought - I suppose it's possible that someone might interpret "all things in moderation" and relate it to your reference to the Ten Commandments. So unless you add your own clarification I'll add that while that philosophy is useful the Bible doesn't actually teach that killing, lying, stealing (or any of the other "Thou shalt not"'s) in moderation is okay. Although that being a lesson learned after reading the Bible isn't out of line at all.
The Bible is useful as a Historical document in many ways I think. Whether it be to trace lineages or the movements of peoples across the earth or recording civil laws and other events - it shouldn't be discounted as useless in that regard. I find other valid uses myself, but that may just be me here.
Is God omnipotent? If he can do anything and create a universe that obeys the laws of physics always...then how can he break them?
God said "let there be light"...
When you turn on a light, it will only light the immediate area. Just because He said "let there be light"... does it have to mean that the entire heavens and earth was lit up. Maybe, because the universe is so big, he lit it in sections.
Maybe, He was in China when He said it and He went ot the USA and it was still dark... He had to say it again. "Let there be light"
It's pretty hard to light up the entire universe with only one sun.
The sun is at least the second generation of stars, as is evident by the presence of higher chemical elements than iron on Earth. Thus there definitely was light before the sun. It's just that the Sun wasn't made before the Earth, and plants weren't made before the Sun.
Israel was destroyed as a country by the Romans about 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. The Jews were scattered over the earth in every direction, and ended up despised by most host populations. A large part of their kind were killed off in WW II, about 5M.
Because most of Europe and the U.S. were based on Judeo/Christian principles, and followed the book that is the subject of this question, they used their powers to restore Israel to the Jews, mainly England with U.S. backing, and in the last half century have spent billions on its defense.
What are the odds that we would not care any more for them than the Kurds or Somalis, and taken on the whole Moslem world, who were insulted by the forced removal of the Palestinians, if the backing countries were not Christian based in religion, supposing they had stayed Druids, Pagans, or Norse type religions?
So in effect, it has already been proven that this being was the savior of the Jews, prompting the restoration of their nation & culture, and perhaps setting the stage for the final prophecies.
BTW it doesn't say in the Bible that the book is literally correct or a unitary belief system, that's a belief of fundamentalists or the orthodox. It was taken from dozens of diverse (in time & geography) edited manuscripts that were originally oral traditions, and later written down and hand copied. Some scholars trace large parts to African, Egyptian and Persian traditions. The Bible we know was put together a few hundred years after Israel was destroyed, and there are dozens of related Jewish and Christian texts that were rejected by the narrow goals of the "Bible" authors, many which have different versions of biblical events such as Genesis or the life of Jesus. The editors wanted to portray their own narrow and biased view of both Jewish and Christian traditions, so if the point of this question is to back the atheist view that the Bible is not the literal "Word of God" which seemingly disproves everything fundamentalists believe, simply contradicting dozens of passages merely refutes the orthodox views, not the hidden Gnostic views, along with a dozen other interpretations.
All of the current events we are now facing have been influenced by this poor carpenter from Nazareth. Nuclear war in the Mideast seems inevitable since both sides have nukes, a conflict that would involve all the superpowers "going for broke," and taking sides in the conflict. This scenario would then fulfill the last chapter of the Bible, Revelations, which already seems uncannily savvy in the talk about a NWO type situation, everyone being numbered & marked, plagues, starvation, wars, and Armageddon.
Let's hope that scenario is proven wrong!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
"The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science." Science does not know and cannot prove the Big Bang THEORY. (I should note, the Creation story can also not be proven, but I've decided to take the opposing standpoint here.)
"Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter?" The garden that Genesis is referring to is, of course, the Garden of Eden, which the Bible states is perfect in every way. There was no sin, death, pain or disease, as we are told by the Bible. Adam and Eve probably could've eaten poison ivy if they wanted to and been just fine.
"All animals were herbivores acording to the bible." That's simply not true; the Bible doesn't say that anywhere.
"The 40 year journey of the israelites to travel from egypt to canan would have really only taken 10 days." This is true, but, if it proves anything, it proves God's amazing power. The Israelites had disobeyed God and this was their punishment. The Bible says they "wandered" through the desert; it doesn't say they walked as the crow flies very slowly.
"God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs. Because of this story, it was commonly believed (...) that males have one less rib than females." The only people who believe that men have one less rib than women are the uneducated or the misinformed. God could've snapped his all-powerful fingers and a woman would've appeared, but instead he took a rib from Adam. By the way, the word "woman" means "comes from man."
"The unicorns and giants of the bible..." Please tell me you're kidding; there are no unicorns in the Bible. And as for the giants, who, according to the Bible, were something like 9-15 feet tall, did (probably) exist. As science has proven, the heart cannot pump blood enough to support the limbs of a human that size. This (sort of) goes along with the "survival of the fittest" that (some) evolutionists believe in; all the giants would have died off. (For the record, the Bible doesn't mention leprechauns, Pokemon, or the Tooth Fairy either.)
"One of the more drastic falsehoods is the story of the flood... There is not and never was enough water on the planet to flood the world." Many Biblical scholars have suggested that there were no lakes, rivers or oceans before "The Flood" and that it had also never rained. Even as a Christian, I find this theory a little hard to believe, but it does raise some interesting ideas. The Bible says water sprung forth from the ground and came from the sky. So, you ask, where'd all the floodwater go? Perhaps, it created the oceans, rivers and lakes; but that's just a theory.
"God was all knowing, and a super power, and yet it took 6 days to make the earth." Again, God could've created the universe with the snap of a finger or the blink of an eye, but he created it over six twenty-four hour days, plus one day on which he rested - thus creating the week (tada), that everyone on earth still organizes their lives around today.
The Bible.
A Christian education.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You are not disproving or even arguing really with the fact that the bible is proven scientifically wrong in all sorts of places. Instead, you are saying that it's possible somehow to believe that the bible is right anyway. For example, science, geology in particular, knows that there were indeed lakes, rivers, and oceans for hundreds of millions of years before biblical times. You are simply speculating that geology is all wrong, along with physics, chemistry etc. and that water miraculously appeared out of nowhere. Then it just as miraculously disappeared (or the world would still be flooded, surely you can grasp that the seas would have had to be completely overfilled just as high as the land areas). But the geology, physics, chemistry etc is not wrong. You use them and see them and their products everyday. Yet you insist on preferring magical tales.
I know when to admit I'm wrong - I consider myself fairly well-versed in Biblical information, but I did not know that unicorns were mentioned there. Very interesting...
EDIT: After a bit of quick research, it seems that the unicorn referred to in the Bible, is some kind of cattle that is now extinct. The New International Version is translated this way: "Will the wild ox consent to serve you?..." I wonder when the word "unicorn" started meaning a magical flying horse...
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136721/0
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2039&version=NIV
First of all you can't prove that a book is factual by using the very same book to prove it, you actually have to have evidence form an outside source, using your method I could write anything I want down and then use the same book to prove it.
And Secondly if you do use the bible to dispute some of these points, don't just say "it doesn't say that in the bible" without first actually having read the bible. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have once read these stories and just forgot as they really are not the most interesting stories if you are a Christian, but if you are an Atheist they are extremely interesting, because they are the points that Christians have had trouble arguing for hundreds of years.
And yes biblical scholars are not in any debate that before the fall the bible says that all animals were herbivores. As is clearly stated in genesis 1:29. Which is clearly disputed by the fact that many animals do not eat plants at all nor are equipped with molars for grinding vegetation and many parasitic animals live solely off other living animals blood and can not survive on vegetation.
Genesis 1:29 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food.
And yes the Unicorn is clearly mentioned multiple times in the bible. In addition to Job 39:9–10, the Unicorn is mentioned in Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; Isaiah 34:7
Here is the metnion in Job 39:9-12 (King James Version)
9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Check out creationworldview.org to see the SCIENTIFIC explanations about these "discrepencies" that you claim are in the Bible.
Your own answer being a worthless one word comment, you then voted unhelpful everyone who did answer. Disgraceful.
Wow, that's pretty shocking - everyone who thinks differently than you do is clearly "wrong" in your eyes. Then when it's your turn to explain your stance, THIS is what you give?
You've not only hurt your argument, but we've lost a chance to learn from you. I was looking forward to seeing your point of view.
As a green belt, you should know better than that.
How very disappointing.
Disgraceful answer. If you think nothing has been proven false, then tell us why. Show us facts and make a valid argument in your defense.
Geoge Carlin now certainly knows the truth. Most of you trying to rationalise a God bigger than space,time and human understanding would soon have to know the truth firsthand. I mean you cannot explain all these physically,either you believe all OR you reject all. You could never understand it in human terms it would be like trying to explain quantum physics to an ant.
I would love to hear more from you. (Personally, I agree with you, and think that anyone who thinks the Bible is "false" is simply reading out of context.) You should explain your reasoning and perhaps add some sources.
Truly and especially in these highly charged opinion and belief threads the Mahalo Answers Etiquette guidelines should... need to.. be strictly adhered too. The ability to resist the temptation to use the unhelpful button as an "I disagree with you" button is a great measure of the ability of a user to be understanding and objective. True as well, every answer is helpful.. even if it is only helpful to you in knowing something you did not previously know.. as in someone elses viewpoint.
The above reasons... your misuse of the unhelpful button and an unexplained one word answer etc.. see Mahalo Answers Etiquette... are the reasons I am marking this answer as unhelpful.
It would garner you sooo much more.. or at least some respect if you explain your viewpoint clearly.. we like to listen..and explain in detail your reasons why you find anything unhelpful
I love this! Hilarious...and the best most rational response coming from a Christian (I am dangerously assuming here) I have ever heard. Your script should really be turned into a stage play or a short film for youtube, you could expand upon it and include other biblical stories.....absolutely brilliant. If only all Christians were as rational as you. The unfortunate truth is that not all Christians feel the way you do about the Bible being a spiritual book. I repeatedly encounter more Christians (I live in the bible belt) that interpret the Bible much more conservatively and literally. I have a good personal freind who was home schooled and told me he had never heard of evolution until he went to college and that he had always believed that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together until he took an earth science course in college where he had the realization that there was no scientific proof for the biblical teachings he had spent the last 13 years of his life learning. He underwent 4 long years of deprogramming. I do not have an issue with the spiritual nature of the Bible, I do have an issue when people are educating there children as if the Bible is a literal science text book. There is even a creationism museum now that shows humans walking with dinosaurs, as long as there are fundamentalists trying to use the Bible as a science textbook there will always be scientists who push back hard with modern truths. I think most atheist scientists would completely be okay with Christians views on spirituality, it's when they try to use the bible to explain science, which as you point out it was never intended to do, that they get frustrated and begin to ask questions like the one posed by the original poster. Good job on this answer! Seriously turn that into a short film!