Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

maporsche wrote:

So you are claiming that when the bible says that the sun stood still for about a day (from Joshua's perspective, since he wrote the book), that god meant a figurative day he stopped time or what?
. . .

I have no idea what mechanism God may have used to make the sun be motionless, or appear to be motionless. Any thing I say would be presumptuous speculation.

0 Replies

In other words.. if it's in the bibble babble.. it's gods word, so it must be true... well that figures... like one religiose mob, says.. blood transfusions is eating blood.. and hole-y day is Saturday.. and-and-and Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

In other words.. if it's in the bibble babble.. it's gods word, so it must be true... well that figures... like one religiose mob, says.. blood transfusions is eating blood.. and hole-y day is Saturday.. and-and-and Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Working on building up your post count, anton?

0 Replies

Joshua 10 wrote:

11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

It does not say that God stopped the earth from rotating. It says that the sun stopped in the middle of the sky, because that's what the scientifically ignorant men of the day believed and God (who was probably too busy hurling hailstones) failed to enlighten them about celestial mechanics. But in either case, it is physically impossible and not corroborated by contemporary cultures who would certainly have noticed.

And what was the purpose of this alleged event? Why, so that Joshua could continue in his campaign of destruction, as ordered by God:

Quote:

... 28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. 29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah ... to Libnah ... to Lachish ... to Eglon ... to Hebron ... to Debir. [In each case] 39They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

At God's command, Joshua and his men slaughtered men, women and innocent children. What were those Commandments again, something about not killing or coveting your neighbor's property?

0 Replies

You are making two basic arguments, Terry.

First, you question how the miracles of the bible could have taken place.

Second, you question the 'morality' of a God who would devote entire populations to destruction.

The second is somewhat off topic and has been discussed ad nauseum in this rant by our dear friend Frank:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56936

BTW, does anybody know - How is Frank?

So, getting back to the first, I repeat my earlier contention that our experience of reality is limited by our perception of space and time. Many with greater understanding than I have proposed that both these entities have additional dimensions which are not readily articulated. Could the fabricator of these entities manage them in a way that would appear to us as 'miraculous'?

And how would you expect a 15th century B.C.E. description of such events to read?

0 Replies

Neologist, so you are postulating that God somehow manipulated the space-time continuum such that time passed for Joshua and his enemies but not for the rest of the world? There had to be a boundary for Joshua's time bubble, and the discontinuity with the rest of the universe would have caused severe problems (river flows, molecular interactions, gravitational effects of missing mass, etc). Perhaps an omnipotent supernatural being could find a way to deal with all of the consequences, but the whole point of this thread was to show that the Bible is scientifically accurate. Which this story isn't, on a lot of levels.

The postulated extra dimensions of string (or M) theory are generally thought to be tiny spacial dimensions, and although some versions allow larger dimensions, you can't just move matter from one to another.

What about the rest of the points I raised earlier?

0 Replies

As far as the space-time continuum postulate is concerned, I would have to go back to my earlier assertion that I have no idea other than to say that we are likely to be not as smart as we would hope to think.

Is God brutal? That question may be answered only within the context of the origin of human suffering. Sufficient for me to say that the bible refers us to the events in the Garden of Eden. If we interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, as I think we should, then Adam and Eve would still be with us had they not sinned. Instead, like a fan unplugged, the human race has been on a steady decline.

The entire bible, including the OT, with its harsh laws and penalties, was and is intended by God to point the way to Christ as the remedy for mankind's predicament. That we might have done things differently is irrelevant.

0 Replies

neologist said.. quote...
was and is intended by God to point the way to Christ as the remedy for mankind's predicament. That we might have done things differently is irrelevant. unquote.

Looks like you've been talking to that God of yours again. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Is God brutal? That question may be answered only within the context of the origin of human suffering. Sufficient for me to say that the bible refers us to the events in the Garden of Eden. If we interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, as I think we should, then Adam and Eve would still be with us had they not sinned. Instead, like a fan unplugged, the human race has been on a steady decline.

If you interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, then Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning for they did not know right from wrong until after eating from the tree. What's more God lied.

neologist wrote:

The entire bible, including the OT, with its harsh laws and penalties, was and is intended by God to point the way to Christ as the remedy for mankind's predicament. That we might have done things differently is irrelevant.

So to your way of thinking, passages such as Numbers 31: somehow point the way to Christ?

Numbers 31
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying
2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people...
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:

neologist said.. quote...
was and is intended by God to point the way to Christ as the remedy for mankind's predicament. That we might have done things differently is irrelevant. unquote.

Looks like you've been talking to that God of yours again.

No; just paraphrasing Galatians 3:24.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

. . .
If you interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, then Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning for they did not know right from wrong until after eating from the tree. What's more God lied.

Sorry; that won't wash. Nothing wrong with eating from the tree? How about if "you eat from it you will positively die"? (Genesis 2:17)

Of course, the basic problem here is your inability to understand the concept of free will. Unfortunately, that will not translate into a free pass.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
. . .
If you interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, then Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning for they did not know right from wrong until after eating from the tree. What's more God lied.
Sorry; that won't wash. Nothing wrong with eating from the tree? How about if "you eat from it you will positively die"? (Genesis 2:17)

Of course, the basic problem here is your inability to understand the concept of free will. Unfortunately, that will not translate into a free pass.

Free will means nothing without knowledge of right and wrong. The basic problem here is your inability to understand the significance of the forbidden fruit being from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The scripture makes it quite clear the impact that eating the fruit had on their knowledge.

Before partaking of the fruit:

2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After:

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
. . .
If you interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, then Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning for they did not know right from wrong until after eating from the tree. What's more God lied.
Sorry; that won't wash. Nothing wrong with eating from the tree? How about if "you eat from it you will positively die"? (Genesis 2:17)

Actually, it doesn't say "positively die," it says "surely."

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Of course, as has already been pointed out to you, your boy god was lying--because when they ate, they did not die. And the serpent happened to have told them the truth, because they ate and did not die.

Of course, now you're going to trot out some horse **** about how if they had not eaten, they would have had life everlasting. But it doesn't say that in Genesis. Now you have also trotted out your old "free will" bullshit.

Free will isn't discussed in Genesis, and given that Genesis clearly shows that they had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree, it's obvious that your exegesis is horseshit. Your boy god set them up, suckered them, lied to them, and then punished them because he lied. There is also inferential evidence in Genesis that the authors were polytheistic, but that's just side entertainment.

I'm getting tired of your "free will" bullshit, Neo. Every time you trot it out, i'm gonna point out that you're peddling bullshit. None of the tripe you peddle on this subject has any basis in the text of Genesis.

0 Replies

Did they even have a knowledge of death?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
. . .
If you interpret the word in Genesis 2: 16, 17 literally, then Adam and Eve were incapable of sinning for they did not know right from wrong until after eating from the tree. What's more God lied.
Sorry; that won't wash. Nothing wrong with eating from the tree? How about if "you eat from it you will positively die"? (Genesis 2:17)

Actually, it doesn't say "positively die," it says "surely."

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Of course, as has already been pointed out to you, your boy god was lying--because when they ate, they did not die. And the serpent happened to have told them the truth, because they ate and did not die.

Of course, now you're going to trot out some horse **** about how if they had not eaten, they would have had life everlasting. But it doesn't say that in Genesis. Now you have also trotted out your old "free will" bullshit.

Free will isn't discussed in Genesis, and given that Genesis clearly shows that they had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree, it's obvious that your exegesis is horseshit. Your boy god set them up, suckered them, lied to them, and then punished them because he lied. There is also inferential evidence in Genesis that the authors were polytheistic, but that's just side entertainment.

I'm getting tired of your "free will" bullshit, Neo. Every time you trot it out, i'm gonna point out that you're peddling bullshit. None of the tripe you peddle on this subject has any basis in the text of Genesis.

I used to run the chipper in a large sawmill. I don't know if any of you have ever been around one of those noisy critters, but they put the common garden variety mulchers to shame. This one was run by a 350 hp electric motor and it took a minute or so to get it up to speed. When it was running, it had enough angular momentum to swallow a four or five foot section of 12 X 12 inch timber in the length of time it takes you to burp. It had fantastic power as I am sure many other industrial machines have; its just that I know first hand about this one. Since we were out in the hinterlands, we often had power blackouts; and, providing there wasn't already a big hunk in the chipper's maw, the chipper would slowly wind down - slowly - very slowly; so slow, in fact, that it could still rip off your arm after 10 minutes or so unless one of the millwrights came to apply the brake.

I'm telling you this to illustrate what happened to Adam and Eve's lives after they sinned. Just as the power cord gets pulled from your household fan, just as the power gets pulled even today from that giant chipper, our first parents surely lost their vital lives as soon as they ate of the tree.

Call the concept of free will whatever tickles you. We all believe in it, nevertheless.

If not, the criminal justice system would be a sham.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Did they even have a knowledge of death?

Are you saying you don't believe they could have been around long enough for them to see animals die? How long did it take for Adam to name the animals, I wonder?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Did they even have a knowledge of death?
Are you saying you don't believe they could have been around long enough for them to see animals die? How long did it take for Adam to name the animals, I wonder?

Did animals die in the GOE?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I'm telling you this to illustrate what happened to Adam and Eve's lives after they sinned. Just as the power cord gets pulled from your household fan, just as the power gets pulled even today from that giant chipper, our first parents surely lost their vital lives as soon as they ate of the tree.

So when the scripture doesn't support your exegesis - blow smoke.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

They surely did NOT die in the day that they ate thereof.

neologist wrote:

Call the concept of free will whatever tickles you. We all believe in it, nevertheless.

If not, the criminal justice system would be a sham.

That is quite different fro free will within the bounds of the Genesis story. As I said in my previous post, "Free will means nothing without knowledge of right and wrong. The basic problem here is your inability to understand the significance of the forbidden fruit being from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The scripture makes it quite clear the impact that eating the fruit had on their knowledge.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

neologist wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Did they even have a knowledge of death?
Are you saying you don't believe they could have been around long enough for them to see animals die? How long did it take for Adam to name the animals, I wonder?

Did animals die in the GOE?

Why wouldn't they?

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know