Why the Bible is false scientifically

[farzamk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bib...tual_criticism







Before I go any further I would like to ask the reader to consider the following questions:

Do you believe that the earth is flat? ( Daniel 4:7-8 )

Do you believe that the sun and all of the other planets and stars orbit the Earth? ( Psalms. 19:1-6; Joshua 10:12-14 )

Do you support slavery? ( Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44)

Do you kill people who eat shellfish? ( Leviticus 11:10)

Do you kill people who work on Sunday? ( Exodus 35:2)

Do you stone your children to death if they disobey you? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21 )

If you answered ?no? to any of these questions, then it is clear that you do not believe in everything the Bible has to say. You are admitting that the Bible can be wrong. If the Bible can be wrong about so many things, then how do you know that the Bible isn't wrong about creationism?


If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.



http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocen...cosmology.html

:

The Bible does not list the number of planets in our solar system. Back then, planets were called "wandering stars" because they appeared to be tiny lights in the sky like all other "stars," but the ancients noted that some "stars" did not rotate in the same enormous circle each night round the pole star as did all the rest. In fact, the word "planet" is derived from the Greek word for "wanderer." The "wandering stars" known by the ancients included Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Also, according to Genesis 1:16 only "two" great lamps were created (the Hebrew term translated as "great lights" in Genesis, means literally, "great lamps"--the two great lamps being the "Sun" and the "moon"--with no recognition of the fact that every twinkle in the sky might be another great lamp like the sun, or perhaps be a planetary body larger than the earth with many moons (great lamps) of its own. Rather, the Bible depicts stars as relatively small objects, created after the earth and "set" in the firmament above it, which may even "fall" to earth at its end when the "earth is shaken" and they "fall like ripe figs" from the sky, and the "heavens are rolled up like a scroll" to be "created" anew: "There was a great earthquake... and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." Rev. 6:12-14; and, "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" Rev. 7:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Rev. 21:1


HOW TO EXPLAIN AWAY FLAT EARTH VERSES IN THE BIBLE
Example 1:~ Daniel 4:10,11 says, "There was a tree in the midst (or center) of the earth, and its height was great. It reached to the sky, and was visible to the end of the whole earth." Such visibility (i.e., "a tree of great height at the center of the earth and seen to the end of the whole earth") implies a flat earth. However, this verse may be explained away as depicting a "mere dream" of Daniel's, viz., a "metaphorical image" of the extent of Nebuchadnezzer's kingdom. However, the fact that flat earth imagery surprised no one in the story of Daniel also implies that it was taken for granted. And a similar verse that mentioned being taken to a great "height" and being "shown" "all the kingdoms of the world [lit. Greek, 'cosmos']," occurs in the New Testament as well, where again it is taken from granted.



The Bible also states: "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5, NASB) The mere mention of seeing something "rise" or "set" could be disregarded depending on one's perspective, but speaking of the sun "hastening to its place" so that it may "rise there again," is not so easily explained away. It means the author of Ecclesiastes believed that the sun moved daily around the earth. Compare Psalm 19:4-6, "In [the heavens] He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its [daily] rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them."



As for the stars, the Bible teaches that they too move: "From their courses they [the stars] fought against Sisera." (Judges 5:20, NASB). "The One who leads forth their [starry] host by number... Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power not one [star] is missing." (Isaiah 40:26, NASB) Keep in mind that the stars in question are the ones the ancients saw circling nightly round the pole star each night. And according to the book of Job, whole constellations of stars are "led forth" by God, i.e., "Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?" (Job 38:31-33, NASB)





http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tekton...rth_bible.html


The author of the book of Revelation wrote in flat earth fashion: "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1); and added elsewhere, "There was a great earthquake... and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind." (Rev. 6:12,13). "Stars of heaven falling to earth" after the earth below has been "shaken," mirrors the way that the sun, moon, and the stars are portrayed in the creation story in Genesis, being "made" and "fixed" in the firmament above the earth. And just as those stars were "fixed" there, they would one day "fall to earth" like "figs" from a shaken tree after the earth below had experienced "a great earthquake," because to the ancients the whole of creation consisted of merely two halves, the earth below and the heavens above.


"Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!"
- Psalm 148:3-4





Want more proof? I got tons.

[farzamk]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tekton...erstition.html

:


BEHOLD THE BIRD OF GOD, WHO TAKES AWAY THE MOLD, MILDEW, AND LEPROSY OF THE WORLD?


We've all heard the term "scapegoat," but did you know it was based on holy commands given in the Hebrew Bible? God commanded that a priest transfer the sins of the people onto a live goat, and send the goat into the wilderness, thus carrying away the people's sins. (Lev. 16:20-22) We remember the scapegoat story, but we forget about the lowly scape-bird, a bird that God commanded a priest to transfer "uncleanness" to, then send flying into the sky. (Lev. 14:4-7,48-53) What kinds of "uncleanness" did the scape-bird carry away with it? Would you believe mold, mildew, and leprosy?

To the ancient mind discolored splotches of mold and mildew on clothing, leather or the walls of their homes, were lumped with that dreaded disease, leprosy. The same Hebrew word was used to describe them all, despite the tendency of modern Bible translators to make modern distinctions and use the words, `mold' or `mildew,' in cases of clothing and walls. The ancient Hebrews made no such distinctions but used the same word to describe a discolored growth on a wall, on poorly stored clothing, or on the skin of a leper. Consequently, the same remedy was required by God's law.



More flat earth:


1) Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth.

and

2) Isaiah 22:18 - He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

If Isaiah intended to mean the earth is a sphere in (1), why did he only use the word for a circle, rather than duwr for a globe, sphere or ball as in (2)? (Even if duwr needed a few added surrounding words to specify its context to make sure people recognize that a "ball" was being spoken about, Isaiah could have added that context too, IF he had been inspired to speak about the scientific shape of the earth.) Either he knew the shape of the earth or he did not. Apparently he did not. What I think examples like this demonstrate are that the shape of the earth was of no importance to his message or that of the Bible.

Henry Ford once said, "You can have a car of any color you like so long as it is black." YECs (Young earth creationists) make a similar invitation when it comes to their discourses on the Bible and science, namely that the Bible and true science are always in agreement, but then in another breath, they say that when science disagrees with the Bible, the science is wrong, and thus untrue. Thus they only pay science lipservice while insisting that THEY are being "scientific." As if it was "scientific" to insist on a 144 hour creation that took place about 6000 years ago, yet when the Bible talks about a stationary earth or a flat earth, they say that only symbolic language is being used. How do YECs know that the earth moves or is not flat, well of course they find that out from science, then try and interpret the Bible using that science! Isaiah 40:22 is a favorite among YEC apologists to say that the Bible is scientifically accurate. Another one is that the earth hangs on nothing.

As a Christian I am totally disgusted by the tactics used by YECs, which in many cases employ deception and obfuscation, thus are decidedly un-Christian in nature. The claims that YECs make in fact undermine the Bible and Christianity by proxy, because atheists will paint all Christians with the same brush. The veracity of the Bible is the theology behind it, not any science, and I think that people who try to defend the Bible with what passes for "science" among YECs are making a big mistake. Any science in the Bible is consistent with the knowledge at the time the relevant part of the Bible was written, and has to be understood within that context, and it may or may not correspond to modern knowledge. If the Bible is wrong about science, what does it matter?

A few weeks ago I was at a creation science presentation of Walt Brown's global Noah's flood hydroplate theory. After the presentation, I asked one of the YEC organizers, who was naturally an engineer rather than a biologist or geologist, what evidence would make him change his mind about a global flood. His answer in a single word was, "NONE." I told him that that is dogma, not science. As soon as you "know" the answer to any research in advance, and no matter what the evidence is, you will not change your mind under any circumstances, you are no longer doing any science but are engaged in a dogmatic belief. I sent an e-mail later saying that if the remains of a large wooden boat were found on a mountain in eastern Turkey, along with some further evidence of it's approximate date and contents. I would be humble enough to consider such evidence in a scientific light as a possible disproof of my non-global theory of Noah's flood.

[farzamk]

More flat earth again:


Shake the Earth by Its Edges


"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges. Would the Job author have spoken of "edges" of the earth if he had known the earth was a sphere? Which makes more sense? The author imagined grabbing and shaking by the edges a flat earth, or the author imagined grabbing the ball of the earth by "edges" which don't exist? Before you answer, consider what else the same author had to say about how the earth is formed:

Stamp Out the Earth Like Clay under A Seal

Clay when stamped with a seal is not rounded into a ball, but flattened, like the clay seal (ca. 3300-3000 BCE) below found in Israel in 1994.1 In the verse below, readers will see that the Job author believes that the earth was stamped out in the manner of clay flattened with a seal:





"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

This is the same author who spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges." If the Job author had known the earth was round, would he have referred to edges which don't exist, and would he have compared it to clay seals, which are pressed flat?

Whole Earth Can Be Seen from A Tall Mountain

Other evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages. The first is in Matthew:

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)

Certainly, if the earth were flat, standing atop "an exceedingly high mountain" would allow Jesus to see the whole earth, but there is no mountain tall enough to allow him to see the other side of a spherical earth. At most, one hemisphere would be seen, but not the other.

Or a Tall-Enough Tree

The other passage is in Daniel:

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, even if it was only a dream, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth.

Hopeful believers in the scientific wisdom found in the Bible ignore the verse above and point to a verse in Isaiah which they think shows that the Bible writers knew the earth was a sphere. They believe that the word "circle" could actually mean "sphere," since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah's use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a "ball." Here are the two verses:

To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth (Isaiah 40:18-23

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18)



The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse above is chuwg. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.

Furthermore, there exists a simple interpretation of "circle of the earth" which does not imply a spherical earth. On a hill overlooking a wide expanse free of tall trees and other hills the horizon appears as a perfect circle, 360 degrees of blue sky. If Isaiah meant to tell us the earth was a globe, he would have used another word. A circle is not a ball, nor is a ball a circle. Everyone knew what a "circle" was in those times; it meant the same then as it means today.


by: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm

[farzamk]

Carl Baugh is a Young-Earth Creationist from Glen Rose, Texas, who claims that fire-breathing dragons are living dormant at the bottom of the sea, awaiting Armaggedon.

[Speaking of things lying deeper than "dragons at the bottom of the sea," Henry Morris (founder of the Young-Earth creationist Institute for Creation Research) stated in his book The Bible Has the Answer: "So far as we can tell from Scripture, the present hell, Hades, is somewhere in the heart of the earth itself. It is also called 'the pit' (Isa. 14:9, 15; Ezek. 32:18-21) and 'the abyss' (Rev. 9:2). Jesus' description of Hades (Luke 16:23) indicates it to be a place of conscious suffering. Many people today consider this simplistic view of Hades to be somewhat naive and amusing. If hell exists at all, they think, it is some kind of intangible state of existence, in another dimension. They consider Biblical references to hell to be either figurative or else just 'pre-scientific.' However, the Biblical descriptions are quite matter-of-fact. The writers certainly themselves believed hell to be real and geographically 'beneath' the earth's surface. To say this is not scientific is to assume science knows much more about the earth's interior than is actually the case. The great 'pit' would only need to be about 100 miles or less in diameter to contain, with much room to spare, all the forty billion or so people who have ever lived, assuming their 'spiritual' bodies are the same size as their physical bodies. None of our present seismic equipment, or other means of studying the earth's core, could detect a non-homogeneity of such size deep in the interior." (Morris, p.220) In a later ICR tract, Morris suggested that Hell was far away from Earth, possibly in a black hole.]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/dragon.html

[farzamk]

NO DEATH OR DECAY BEFORE THE FALL?
QUESTIONS YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS NEVER ASK
by Edward T. Babinski

Some creationists insist that the original creation was so perfect there was "no decay." To which I say, "No decay my posterior!" Or should I say, "Adam's posterior?"

For instance, (please don't laugh) were Adam and Eve created with or without anuses? Did the break down of vegetables in each of their stomachs during digestion involve the production of gas? Did they also defecate? Did their feces have any odor? How about their armpits? Did God feel the least bit obliged to give Adam and Eve the recipe for soap? (If fact, might not Adam and Eve have grown "ashamed" of any number of things, long before they were "ashamed" to discover they were "naked?" Or, as Adam once put it, "Eve, pick some of those soft leaves next time, I'm getting chaffed!")

Was there pain in paradise? Well, it says in Genesis that God "cursed woman" by "increasing or multiplying" her pain in childbirth, and you can't "increase or multiply" what isn't already there.

Fair Eden of creationist lore!

Where sharks hungered solely for seaweed and carefully spat out even the tiniest fish they found therein.

Where spiders assisted in the release of insects that flew haphazardly into their webs.

Where monkeys swung wildly from tree to tree, but never crushed a single insect on a branch nor upset a single egg in a nest.

Where Brontosauruses carefully weighed each gargantuan step to avoid crushing ants, worms, amphibians, reptiles, or other animals scampering beneath them; and entered the water very carefully, since sudden movements by creatures so behemouth in size might create mini-tsunamis that would innundate and drown, or bury, tiny creatures along the shore.

I'd love to see a ballet of such circumspect Brontosaurs on the Arts and Entertainment network. Maybe some creationist animators might oblige by producing their version of the "deathless prances and dances" of the largest creatures in Eden as they walked on their tiptoes through the forest, so as to preserve the lives of every living object beneath their gargantuan feet?


by: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creati...fore_fall.html

[Dreamscapes]

Nice, try, Satan.
Now, begone from the body of Farzamik, and take your internets and wiki back to hell with you.

[matpal]

I might care...if the OP showed any interest of having a logical debate instead of a cut and paste party.

[farzamk]

It is ignorant people like you who are misleading man kind...take the time to read and you'll find the religion of christiniaty nothing but a bunch of bogus written by people to either gain power or who are simply mad and are followed by a bunch of fools.

[Dreamscapes]

It is ignorant people like you who are misleading man kind...take the time to read and you'll find the religion of christiniaty nothing but a bunch of bogus written by people to either gain power or who are simply mad and are followed by a bunch of fools.

U Mad?

[matpal]

Angry much?

Funny, because the people the spread Christianity were dirt poor and lived in constant fear of being killed for their belief.

I would be interested to find out what is the root cause of your bitterness.

[farzamk]

Angry much?

Funny, because the people the spread Christianity were dirt poor and lived in constant fear of being killed for their belief.

I would be interested to find out what is the root cause of your bitterness.

It is not bitterness...read my posts and you'll find nothing but fact and bible verses which PROVE bible is wrong scientifically.

[farzamk]

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


Explain to me how a sphere has edges?

[ElderJefferson]

flamebait, flamebait, trolling

Get lost, troll.

And get your facts straight. You didn't post a single shred of pertinent information in your posts. I'd refute each one, but why bother. You, sir (if I may call you that), are a troll.

Be gone.

[ElderJefferson]

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


Explain to me how a sphere has edges?

Explain to me how an adult can have as poor a level of comprehension as you and then we'll talk.

Now troll along someplace else.

[matpal]

It is not bitterness...read my posts and you'll find nothing but fact and bible verses which PROVE bible is wrong scientifically.

First of all, half of what you posted has nothing to do with science. If you want to debate society, culture and how God delt with people of that time, that is a different thread for a different day.

It seems like you just tried to post as much as possible to seem credible.

Second, the Bible is not a science book, but it does contain scientific truths. Please read an English book on proper grammar, sentence structure and usage, come back and be able to define what is metaphorical and what is not.

Than, maybe we can start having an intelligent conversation.

[farzamk]

First of all, half of what you posted has nothing to do with science. If you want to debate society, culture and how God delt with people of that time, that is a different thread for a different day.

It seems like you just tried to post as much as possible to seem credible.

Second, the Bible is not a science book, but it does contain scientific truths. Please read an English book on proper grammar, sentence structure and usage, come back and be able to define what is metaphorical and what is not.

Than, maybe we can start having an intelligent conversation.

The bible contains no scientific truths...How about you find me one instead of making up excuses to avoid debating. I showed you 7-8 examples of false bible scientific facts. You've shown me ZERO bible scientific facts.

[Gr8Ape]

Get lost, troll.

And get your facts straight. You didn't post a single shred of pertinent information in your posts. I'd refute each one, but why bother. You, sir (if I may call you that), are a troll.

Be gone.

You guys are ****ing idiots.

You just answer how "omg thou art a troll, learn to write properly etc etc bs bs bs bs"
Your only defense is to get all pretentious and make it seem as though youre on a higher level of understanding. WELL YOURE NOT! YOURE THE GULLIBLE **** OF THE EARTH!


Christianity is bull****. You cant prove it, and you cant completly disprove it. Religion is bull****.

The bible is probably the worst book that ever happened to mankind.

[farzamk]

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)

Certainly, if the earth were flat, standing atop "an exceedingly high mountain" would allow Jesus to see the whole earth, but there is no mountain tall enough to allow him to see the other side of a spherical earth. At most, one hemisphere would be seen, but not the other.

----------------------------------


How do you explain that?


----------------------------

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


You can clearly see this is picturing earth as a rectangle or square in space, how can a sphere have edges?

[farzamk]

You guys are ****ing idiots.

You just answer how "omg thou art a troll, learn to write properly etc etc bs bs bs bs"
Your only defense is to get all pretentious and make it seem as though youre on a higher level of understanding. WELL YOURE NOT! YOURE THE GULLIBLE **** OF THE EARTH!


Christianity is bull****. You cant prove it, and you cant completly disprove it. Religion is bull****.

The bible is probably the worst book that ever happened to mankind.

I completely agree.

You're trying to say you know more than me, but you avoid all my facts...how very intelligent of you all.

[Vaper]

Before I go any further I would like to ask the reader to consider the following questions:

Do you believe that the earth is flat? ( Daniel 4:7-8 )

WTF First statement is from a misquotation, good going.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:7-8&version=9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBMr1UL6Ve4

[ElderJefferson]

You guys are ****ing idiots.

You just answer how "omg thou art a troll, learn to write properly etc etc bs bs bs bs"
Your only defense is to get all pretentious and make it seem as though youre on a higher level of understanding. WELL YOURE NOT! YOURE THE GULLIBLE **** OF THE EARTH!


Christianity is bull****. You cant prove it, and you cant completly disprove it. Religion is bull****.

The bible is probably the worst book that ever happened to mankind.

Negged, and reported

[Gr8Ape]

Negged, and reported

You are one stuck up idiot. I just saw your ignore list in your sig, and I must say I am NOT impressed. You sound like a ****ing brainwashed automaton.

Have a nice time going to church you sheep.

[farzamk]

All those things I've written are shown in the Bible. Please do not try and say I'm an idiot or do not use proper grammar (funny how grammar would even matter in forum...), as I know you are all saying this to try and prove that you are smarter than me and therefore my ideas are wrong. Though you know very well everything I've said has truth to it and you cannot deny direct verses from the Bible.

[user1245464]

You are one stuck up idiot. I just saw your ignore list in your sig, and I must say I am NOT impressed. You sound like a ****ing brainwashed automaton.

Have a nice time going to church you sheep.

Dude, just ignore him. ElderJefferson is one of the most stuck up, arrogant, and ignorant posters on the forum. He insists that absolutely anyone who isn't a christian is a troll. And I mean that, seriously. If he can't refute you, or you make a good point, you're a troll.
He once negged me for logically arguing against creationism saying, "Quit trolling and flame-baiting." wtf? And, as you can see, anyone he doesn't like he simply ignores.

[Dreamscapes]

He insists that absolutely anyone who isn't a christian is a troll. And I mean that, seriously. If he can't refute you, or you make a good point, you're a troll.

Strange. I've never been called that by EJ and we go back and forth about a lot of things.

[matpal]

All those things I've written are shown in the Bible. Please do not try and say I'm an idiot or do not use proper grammar (funny how grammar would even matter in forum...), as I know you are all saying this to try and prove that you are smarter than me and therefore my ideas are wrong. Though you know very well everything I've said has truth to it and you cannot deny direct verses from the Bible.

Hello, McFly?!

You cannot comprehend English, is what we are saying.

If I sad, "I ate a crap load of pizza last night!"

Did I mean I ate crap and pizza? By your logic, yes it would.

Learn how to read properly.

[ElderJefferson]

You are one stuck up idiot. I just saw your ignore list in your sig, and I must say I am NOT impressed. You sound like a ****ing brainwashed automaton.

Have a nice time going to church you sheep.

Have fun at Banned Camp.

Why is there so much animosity towards Christians in here lately? Is this "Hate On Christians" month or something?

[ElderJefferson]

Strange. I've never been called that by EJ and we go back and forth about a lot of things.

Because you possess the ability to debate and argue rationally and with respect, the very OPPOSITE of trolldom. Most of the posters in here appear to lack the ability to formulate proper and respectful posts.

Given the average age, I'm not surprised.

[TricepsNGirls]

There's a reason why we don't use the Bible to teach science...








Oh wait, some of us do!? DOH!

[Minotaur]

Why is there so much animosity towards Christians in here lately? Is this "Hate On Christians" month or something?

Maybe because the way some Christians act, contrary to what it means to be a Christian.