Accuracy and Inerrancy of the bible

[Shiggy]

Er, for someone who studies the Bible, Areopagite, I'm very surprised you don't know this.

Genesis 7:4 reads (Good News version, God speaking to Noah): "Seven days from now I am going to send rain that will fall for forty days and nights, in order to destroy all the living beings that I have made."

And then again in verse 12 ("and rain fell on the earth for forty days and nights").

Then in 8:2, the rain stops, followed by 150 days of waiting for the flood waters to go down (verse 3). This is then followed by another forty days of waiting before Noah begins releasing birds (verse 6). Verses 10-12 then talk about more waiting (a total of 14 days), and then Noah and his family get off the boat and he builds an altar to God and makes a sacrifice (verses 15-22).

THEN God makes the rainbow (9:13-17), and the covenant with Noah. So you see, there was indeed rain many months before God made the (supposedly) first rainbow.

That obvious and plainly visible text was what I was referring to; actually read your bibles before spouting crap which blatantly contradicts what is actually written there. It just shows the lengths Christians go to in order to make the bible seem coherent and plausible to logically minded outsiders.

[Electron]

Shiggy> I think maybe it was taken that you meant it the bible said somewhere that it rained before the 40 days/nights event.


What I didn't appreciate is that it was explicitly stated somewhere that this was the first ever rainfall. I was aware of the water above/below ground thing, but not that the water cycle had somehow been blocked. This takes some doing given the tendency of water molecules to separate from the surface of water exposed to the atmosphere.

So how long would a human last I wonder, if he couldn't regulate his temperature by sweating? I hope nobody ran anywhere or had a fever.

[Satori]

Electron said:

What I didn't appreciate is that it was explicitly stated somewhere that this was the first ever rainfall. I was aware of the water above/below ground thing, but not that the water cycle had somehow been blocked. This takes some doing given the tendency of water molecules to separate from the surface of water exposed to the atmosphere.

Presumably, though, these are trivial things to take care of for an omnipotent God.

I don't think we can expect the Biblical descriptions of floods, rainbows, arks etc. to match our understanding of things from a scientific point of view.

We can try to prove that the science doesn't work, but if one believes in an omnipotent God then all things are possible. This is the realms of the 'supernatural'.

I don't, as it happens, believe in this particular omnipotent God - not sure I believe in any God, in fact - but for those that do believe, this weird flood and rainbow stuff probably makes sense.

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that the only thing that it makes any sense to discuss here is whether or not God exists and, if he does, what sort of God is He, because virtually all our discussions here have that at their source.

[bobarian]

You know, I think the reason me and jared aren't responding is quite simply the fact that there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here.

1) The Bible doesn't say this was the first rain ever (think how hard it would to tell Noah its going to rain if it never happened.)

2) The Bible doesn't say it was the first rainbow either (it just says that God will make it a sign of His covenant.)

[Electron]

You're right so much as it's pointless arguing with people who have a menu of ad-hoc explanations for the problems with a literal translation of the bible.

In order to support the extraordinary features of the proposed pre-flood world requires a suspension of the physical laws as we know them today. This seems to be no problem for those who think god is at liberty to do whatever he likes with such things.

I would argue that this is unreasonable given that cosmology shows us how finely-tuned the universe is and with the laws of physics being close to full unification we see the degree to which disparate phenomena are intimately related. By this I mean you can't alter the properties of say, refraction of light, without disturbing the delicate balance of atomic charge which keeps us from falling through the solid rock we stand on etc.

Which sounds more reasonable then? That god re-invents the entire universe in order to satisfy the need for a rainless planet before the flood (and for every miracle), or that we see a psuedo-scientific theory assembled in order to protect the literal interpretation of the bible which runs into problems when compared with our knowledge of nature.

I'd suggest that given the massive investment of those who uphold the bible to be accurate and inerrant, and the inevitable fallability of the late iron-age authors towards making claims that were consistent with the knowledge of their day, that the latter explanation represents a highly compelling one.

[Satori]

Electron said:

You're right so much as it's pointless arguing with people who have a menu of ad-hoc explanations for the problems with a literal translation of the bible.

In order to support the extraordinary features of the proposed pre-flood world requires a suspension of the physical laws as we know them today. This seems to be no problem for those who think god is at liberty to do whatever he likes with such things.

I would argue that this is unreasonable given that cosmology shows us how finely-tuned the universe is and with the laws of physics being close to full unification we see the degree to which disparate phenomena are intimately related. By this I mean you can't alter the properties of say, refraction of light, without disturbing the delicate balance of atomic charge which keeps us from falling through the solid rock we stand on etc.

Which sounds more reasonable then? That god re-invents the entire universe in order to satisfy the need for a rainless planet before the flood (and for every miracle), or that we see a psuedo-scientific theory assembled in order to protect the literal interpretation of the bible which runs into problems when compared with our knowledge of nature.

I'd suggest that given the massive investment of those who uphold the bible to be accurate and inerrant, and the inevitable fallability of the late iron-age authors towards making claims that were consistent with the knowledge of their day, that the latter explanation represents a highly compelling one.

Well I think you know my general thoughts on that. I'm merely postulating that many things would be possible for an omnipotent God, if such a thing was to exist (depending, of course, upon what we really mean by 'omnipotent').

However, what I don't understand is why an omnipotent God would bother to do a lot of the things He has supposedly done if a literal Biblical interpretation is used.

But I won't lost any sleep over it!

[Electron]

I envy you're ability to ignore this sort of irationality. For me it weighs heavily on my mind every time I switch on the TV or pick up a newspaper to see secular squabbles causing misery and destruction.

No doubt this statement will cause uproar in some peoples minds, but the child-like naivety displayed by fundamentalists that hold to some infallible faith or other is a potentially lethal charecteristic when mapped onto larger arguments. The habit might seem innocent enough when applied to simple literal interpretations of the bible, but history has shown a tendency for the habit to grow into ugly clashes among people.

[Shiggy]

I agree with you completely. Just feel happy and glad that those foolish people have not been allowed to wreck your life.

I am able to laugh about it and I think Satori's "not clinging to suffering" philosophy is awesome and one that makes a lot of sense. It has certainly made my life easier, more fun and a lot more pleasurable and enjoyable as it should be.

They have chosen their paths of fear and superstition and you have yours to bring you contentment with rationality. Logic is a truly beautiful thing.

[bobarian]

"God is dead, and we have killed him."

[Shiggy]

bobarian said:

"God is dead, and we have killed him."

What do you hope to achieve by posting this remark? Are you trying to somehow inflict guilt on those who don't believe in God? Because if you are, these kinds of attitudes have no place within rational discussion; be clear in what you mean or you're just wasting space.

[Colliohn]

It's just a quote, don't overreact here...

[theditchmagnet]

Well, its been along time, and I've been thinking about everything writen here. You have raised excellent questions Electron, and have had me thinking hard for quite sometime, and have forced me to look deeper. I guess the first thing I need to say is that it was incorrect for me to say that the flood was the first ever rainfall, and that it was the first ever rainbow, the Bible does not actually say this, but I did. The flood is the first recorded rainfall in the bible, and before man was created, even before there were plants, the Bible says that there was no rain. So this flood being the first recorded instance might lead one to believe it was the first ever, again the Bible does not actually say that (same with the rainbow). Having said that, here is a page that gives some decent support for the no rain theory:
www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ215.html there could be, actually, there are probably flaws in that argument, just thought it was interesting.
Also, the canopy theory is also something to be disputed, however, not impossible. Now these things do not show how inaccurate the Bible is, but goes to show my shortcomings and ignorance.
Satori, I am beginning to have the same thoughts as you as to what should actually be debated here. It would seem pointless to debate this whole topic, unless proving the Bible would prove the existence of God, and the Bible cannot be proven unless you already have a belief in God (I assume; someone correct me please). So something that is not physical cannot be proved by things that are physical and don’t seem to be related to spirits. Or could it? I personally think that the best way to discover this would be to follow time back to the origin of things, which I’m sure everyone has their opinions on, and would probably make for some great conversation that can’t be proved. Just some thoughts.

[Electron]

Thanks to theditchmagnet for that link to the creationscience website. Do they deserve to use the word science in their title I wonder? The problem with their particular brand of "science" is that unlike the more conventional form. which collects data and looks for theories to explain them, creationscience starts with the theories (presented in the bible) and then goes on to look for data to support them.

I notice that even Answers in Genesis ("A Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse") includes the vapor canopy amongst those arguments which they consider doubtful, and hence inadvisable to use.

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[Satori]

theditchmagnet said:

Satori, I am beginning to have the same thoughts as you as to what should actually be debated here. It would seem pointless to debate this whole topic, unless proving the Bible would prove the existence of God, and the Bible cannot be proven unless you already have a belief in God (I assume; someone correct me please).

Well, the Bible is a very God-oriented book (of course), so one would need at least some concept of God before even considering it to be worthy of respect in any relevant way other than as a major influence on the development of society.

Then one would need to make the leap from some philosophical concept of God to the Abrahamic concept of God, and those can be seen as two very different concepts indeed.

As I've mentioned before, I'm fairly agnostic on the subject of God, but whereas I could allow for the possibility of 'something' taking on the role of a Creator God, I simply can't even begin to even conceive of the possibility of the personified 'character' God of the Abrahamic religions. It just doesn't 'add up' for me on a number of fronts (many of which I've already mentioned on these forums).

So I generally treat the Bible as a theological interest and a social influence, and it's on those terms that I try to understand it. I do, I admit, sometimes get drawn into arguments about the 'science' (or should we say 'pseudo-science') of the Bible, but I can't in all honesty take such arguments too seriously.

So something that is not physical cannot be proved by things that are physical and don’t seem to be related to spirits. Or could it?

Well personally I believe that everything is physical and we only call things 'non-physical' or 'supernatural' when we can't explain them, or when we're awed by them so much that we wish to attach more meaning to them than the word 'physical' offers.

I personally think that the best way to discover this would be to follow time back to the origin of things, which I’m sure everyone has their opinions on,

We can look back to a time fairly close to creation now; mere hundreds of thousands of years in a universe that is billions of years old. As a Creationist ('Biblical literalist', whatever), ones only hope of a universe that is mere thousands of years old is that some fundamental astrophysical constant - such as the speed of light - is wrong or was different at some point in the past.

and would probably make for some great conversation that can’t be proved. Just some thoughts.

It would make for 'great conversation' but the trouble with a lot of the conversations here is that they end up taking an Us v Them (Christian v Non-Christian) turn, and that leads us back to fundamentals such as our stance on core deistic issues.